AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut, Chairwoman 

SAM FARR, California 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MARTHA FOLEY, LESLIE BARRACK, ALEXANDER GILLEN, and MATT SMITH, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 3 

Page 

Secretary of Agriculture ........................................................ 1 

Department of Agriculture: Office of Inspector 

General Oversight ................................................................ 145 

Child Nutrition Programs ..................................................... 201 

FY 2011 Budget Hearing for Food and Nutrition 

Service .................................................................................... 321 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
PART 3—AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut, Chairwoman 

SAM FARR, California 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MARTHA FOLEY, LESLIE BARRACK, ALEXANDER GILLEN, and MATT SMITH, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 3 

Page 

Secretary of Agriculture ........................................................ 1 

Department of Agriculture: Office of Inspector 

General Oversight ................................................................ 145 

Child Nutrition Programs ..................................................... 201 

FY 2011 Budget Hearing for Food and Nutrition 

Service .................................................................................... 321 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

57–780 WASHINGTON : 2010 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(1) 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2011 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

WITNESSES 

HON. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

KATHLEEN MERRIGAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

JOSEPH GLAUBER, CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

W. SCOTT STEELE, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

MS. DELAURO OPENING REMARKS

Ms. DELAURO. The hearing is called to order. Let me welcome everyone here, excuse the sports analogy, on opening day of the 2011 

appropriations process. I want to welcome our friends from USDA. 

I do not know, my staff said that this was good, by throwing out 

the first budgetary pitch. I am not so sure about these sports analogies anyway. 

But I do want to welcome Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, 

as well as the Deputy Secretary, Kathleen Merrigan, our Chief 

Economist, Joseph Glauber, and Scott Steele, who is the USDA’s 

Budget Officer. Thank you for joining us today, and I look forward 

to hearing your insights. Again, I am pleased to welcome Ranking 

Member, Mr. Kingston, all of our colleagues on the Committee. In 

this year as in the years past, I look forward to our interaction, our 

collaboration together with all of you, and with you, Mr. Secretary, 

and with your team in the weeks and months ahead as we plow 

through this process. 

Last year our bill was the second bill to get signed into law, 

something we are all proud of on this committee, and hopefully we 

can work together to make that happen again this year. That is the 

goal. 

Secretary Vilsack, let me begin by commending you on the leadership that you have shown in the Department of Agriculture over 

the past year. Your executive experience as a former governor has 

clearly helped to begin that transformation of a department that 

was in dire need of a reform upon your arrival. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
2 

With last year’s appropriations, we made important investments 

in meeting the core responsibilities of the Federal Government, including improving our food safety system, expanding opportunities 

in rural areas and strengthening our child nutrition programs. I 

hope we can continue these efforts in the year ahead to make sure 

that USDA has the capability and the resources that it needs to 

meet its responsibilities to the American people. 

With that in mind, to the 2011 budget. First off, I should say 

that I harbor concerns, particularly still given the still-fragile state 

of our economy, about the dangers of a freeze in discretionary 

spending falling disproportionately on our most vulnerable Americans right now. Nonetheless, I am heartened to see that USDA’s 

budget for the coming year includes strong investments in nutrition 

and supplemental food assistance, including $351 million more for 

WIC and $5 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. 

There is no question that we must act. The American people desperately need our help right now in this economic downturn, now 

25 months long. One in eight Americans, one in five children, have 

been receiving food stamp assistance. 

Now, there was a hearing in my district last week which the 

Speaker of the Connecticut General Assembly held. He is doing one 

in every one of the congressional districts. And it is about recession 

and its affect on children. A woman testified that her husband lost 

a job, she was looking for temporary employment. She has five children, and she talked about—and this is in New Haven, Branford, 

East Haven, Hamden. It has got some pockets of very poor people. 

New Haven is one of the poorest cities in the Nation. But nevertheless, the entire area one would regard as not having the poorest income statistics. She talked about rationing food to her five children 

and that she has two boys and they are older, and she provides a 

little bit more food to them. And the girls, you know, she manages 

a little bit less, and she says it is an awful thing to have to tell 

your child that they cannot have seconds and that they cannot 

have sleepovers because there is just not enough food in the house. 

That is the reality. That is the reality all over the country. 

In America today, almost 14 million children, one in every five, 

live below the federal poverty level. The number is expected to rise 

to as high as 27 percent as a result of the recession. If you factor 

in that the poverty line is actually much lower than what families 

need to really get by, it is estimated that 41 percent of American 

kids live in a low-income household right now. And in fact, more 

than two out of every three children in our public school system, 

69 percent, currently qualify for free or reduced school lunches. It 

is a staggering number, staggering number. So I am heartened to 

see that the Department is up to the challenge and is putting forth 

a good-faith effort to augment these crucial programs in the new 

budget. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can 

best address the needs of families for food assistance and for better 

nutrition in the year to come. 

In addition, I need to learn more about the proposed Healthy 

Food Financing Initiative which, as I understand it, will work to 

combat the problem of food deserts and provide healthier food options in underserved communities. I know these issues are a high 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
3 

priority for the First Lady, and I look forward to working with 

USDA to make them happen. 

Of course, our responsibility on the Subcommittee is not only to 

make sure that families have access to the food they need but also 

to ensure that the food in our cupboards and on our kitchen tables 

is safe. I am very proud of the fact that since assuming the Chair 

of this Subcommittee, we have consistently made stronger investments in our national food safety systems year after year. And yet, 

even with additional resources, the crucial job of food safety never 

gets any easier. We have already seen an unprecedented amount 

of food recalls in 2010, particularly with regard to contaminated 

meat, and we are only two months into this new year. 

So with all of this in mind, I am concerned that the proposed 

budget for FSIS this year only provides less than 1 percent increase over last year’s bill, aside from funding pay increases. Food 

safety is a very real matter of national security, and I hope that 

we are using our resources as wisely as possible to ensure that 

American families are protected from sickness and harm. 

Also of concern to me is flat funding levels in the budget to Public Law 480 Title II program and the McGovern-Dole program. Because of higher food prices, a number of undernourished people in 

the world has increased by over 150 million over the past 2 years 

and now numbers over a billion. While recognizing that we have 

problems with hunger here at home, now does not seem a good 

time to pull back on our commitments to international food aid, not 

when so many around the world are suffering from hunger and 

malnutrition and so many more are looking to us as a symbol of 

hope. 

In addition, I have questions about several other important matters under our purview such as rural development programs, agricultural research and conservation efforts. Some important issues 

such as the school lunch safety under the AMS and animal identification were not touched on in your prepared testimony. I also 

think that there are other areas such as animal identification program where we can find ways to prevent wasteful spending and 

make substantive cuts that will save the American people some 

money. We have put $147 million in this program to date with almost nothing to show for it, and I am skeptical of the new plans 

to continue it. But I do not want to take up more time from the 

Subcommittee, and of course, I want to give you a chance to offer 

testimony today. Let me close by saying thank you to you, Secretary Vilsack, and to your team for joining us. I look forward to 

asking about these and other efforts within the Department. As always, we have big goals that we need to accomplish together, and 

it is the crucial details, the budget and the basics that we discuss 

today; and particularly in this time of continued economic uncertainty, we have a responsibility, and I know that you understand 

it to get it right. 

Ms. DELAURO. With that, I would like to ask our Ranking Member, Mr. Kingston, if he would like to make an opening statement. 

Mr. Kingston, the floor is yours. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
4 

MR. KINGSTON OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is great to be 

back with you and I look forward to another productive year. I 

think last year we worked very well, had a lot of good hearings and 

had a lot of participation from the Committee members. I am very 

happy to report to you as I stand here at the altar, and not using 

the sports analogy, but continuing in our great marriage that we 

have that this year there seem to be more people sitting on the 

groom’s side of the church. I do not know, it could be a trend. 

Ms. DELAURO. Is there maybe a dividing line? I never knew that 

if that is the case, that there is a dividing line. 

Mr. KINGSTON. This is the center aisle in which we both walk 

down, and any of you want to swap sides, I understand that. You 

could go back and forth several times. 

Ms. DELAURO. Never. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Secretary, you had a great first year, and I 

have a lot of respect for you. We have a lot of challenges together, 

and certainly we have some things that we are both concerned on. 

I remember last year you had presented this Committee with some 

ways to cut the budget. I regret that we, on a bipartisan basis, did 

not embrace some of those ideas and add to them. I hope that we 

will be able to move forward on those things this year. And so I 

do appreciate that effort last year and hope that we can continue 

to. I want to point out that the freeze, I do not think is enough, 

and I do not think it is a true freeze in light of a 26 percent increase in the last year or two. And then if you consider part of the 

freeze is the one-time dairy pact that is no longer in there because 

it was a one-shot deal, then that diminishes it as being called a 

freeze because that should be left out of that discussion. 

And then there are other things which I know both parties always, you know, have the veterinarian fee increases and cut out 

congressional prerogatives and things like that. And I think that 

is legitimate to put on the table, but one day we really have to figure out, what are we going to do about these fees because probably 

if we went back to George Washington, he would say, we are going 

to start charging fees as a way to cut the budget. I do not know. 

Some time we need to have a serious dialogue on that. That might 

be more the authorizing committee, but I think if you take a step 

back and you look at since 2007, a 26 percent increase, a freeze is 

not enough. We need to reduce the spending. 

There are some things that I think we should be looking at. I 

think the BCAP is the agriculture equivalent of cash for clunkers. 

Here is a program that started out, I think something like $270 

million over 5 years, and we have already gone through that. And 

to some degree, we are paying forest products people to do what 

they were doing for free. I think we can do better than what we 

have done with BCAP. 

In terms of some of the SNAP thing, we are talking about doubling the contingency to $5 billion, and you know, I hear a lot of 

the statistics that come from USDA and certainly from the Chair 

in terms of the people who need food stamps, but I hear from the 

Administration how great the economy is doing. And I constantly 

hear, when you watch CNN or MSNBC or FOX or whatever, is that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
5 

the economy has turned around, and yet we are talking about not 

only increasing that contingency fund but increasing WIC to $10 

billion. So if the economy is doing so well, why are we doing these 

things? Also, I know I think the budget has $50 million for climate 

change, and I would think that people would take a second look at 

some of the conclusions of climate change since there is so much 

fraudulent data that is in there. And the U.N. itself I think is going 

to investigate itself on it, which will be very odd to witness. But 

there seems to be more of a dust-up about this in Great Britain 

than there is in America right now. We seem to still be in denial 

that these statistics are not significant. 

Recently it came out that the world weather monitors were reduced, and they closed the ones down in the colder climates which 

would skew results of this. This is something we all should be concerned about. If global warming is true, then it is our biggest problem, but it does not seem to be treated with the science as much 

as it is the politics. And so I hope the USDA can distinguish itself 

from some of the herd instinct. 

In terms of food aid, I had the opportunity to meet with a lot of 

your food aid team, and they are really first-class people. I have a 

lot of respect for them and what they are doing. I do think, though, 

that the State Department approach on food aid, which skews the 

USDA approach, has gotten a little bit murky. As you know, in 

1954, we started out with certain objectives of what the world food 

aid would be from America. You know, a lot of it had to do with 

the Cold War and development, taking over what had been colonies 

and help modernizing them and helping them develop. Last week, 

Congressman Goodlatte and I went to a school in Ethiopia on the 

outskirts of Addis Ababa, and it was interesting. We went to one 

school that got food aid and then another school that seemed to be 

at least equally impoverished, if not more, but they did not get food 

aid. And you ask people why this school and not that school, and 

you cannot get clear answers to it. 

My concern in terms of food aid, is it just an international welfare policy? Are we teaching people to become independent? Are we 

falling short from that? Because when it becomes a permanent program, as compared to a response to a disaster, you know, how do 

we move people to independence on it? 

And the other question that I have—and by the way, you did go 

to Africa last year, right? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And I was glad to see that you did that because 

I think you did it early in your term. And so I believe you and I 

share a lot of interest in this. One of my concerns also is when you 

go to certain countries, how much of it is skimmed off by a bureaucracy or maybe a corrupt government? Is it efficient as it 

should be? 

And you know, I think everybody on the ground is very sincere 

about doing it the right way, but I think the objectives just need 

to be clarified a little bit better for everybody that is concerned. 

What are we doing here and why are we doing it? And the odd 

thing is when you look at food aid or PEPFAR or some USAID programs and you compare them to the U.N. voting record, and I do 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
6 

not know if you have ever done that, but there is no comparison 

between working with a country who seems to be voting with us 

in the U.N. and a country that is not. And sometimes you go to 

countries that are very pro-U.S. and they get less food aid, particularly on the developmental side of USDA or some of the developmental ag programs than some do. 

So I think there is a lot of interest in this issue, and I do not 

know that we can solve it today. But I wanted to say, I did have 

a chance to meet with your folks, and I think that they are really 

top-notch. But I think administratively we do need to clarify the 

mission a bit more. 

So with that, I look forward to your comments. And sorry to take 

so long but wanted to bring up a lot of points, just like you, Madam 

Chair. That is what keeps this marriage going. 

Ms. DELAURO. What a partnership, my God. Mr. Secretary, if 

you want to proceed with your testimony, you know that the entire 

testimony will be part of the record, and you may summarize if you 

like. Thank you. 

SECRETARY VILSACK OPENING STATEMENT

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair, and distinguished 

members of this Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss the Administration’s priorities for the Department of Agriculture and to provide you with an overview of the 

President’s 2011 budget. 

As the Chair indicated, I would like to submit our written statement for the record. And as the Chair indicated, we are joined 

today by Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, Joseph Glauber, 

who is our USDA Chief Economist, and Scott Steele, who is our 

USDA Budget Officer. 

Since I appeared before this Committee a year ago, America 

struggled through the most serious economic recession since the 

Great Depression. Families have been forced to make difficult decisions in the face of unprecedented job losses. The immediate effects 

of being unemployed are felt deeply by both the unemployed and 

their families. We have seen more and more Americans relying on 

USDA to put food on the table. 

The challenges facing rural communities have been challenges 

for decades, but they are now growing more acute which is why the 

Obama Administration is committed to new approaches to 

strengthen rural America. Rural Americans earn less today and 

have for some time, less than their urban counterparts, and are 

more likely to live in poverty. More rural Americans are over the 

age of 65 than the general population. Fewer have completed fewer 

years of school, and more than half of America’s rural counties 

have lost population. But the Administration is committed to 

strengthening these communities. 

This year, President Obama took steps to bring us back from the 

brink of a depression and grow the economy again. We recognize 

that now it is time to get our fiscal house in order. 

USDA’s proposed 2011 budget is a reflection of the President’s 

commitment for change. USDA’s total budget authority request 

pending before this Committee proposes a total of $129.6 billion in 

2011, up from $119.3 billion in 2010. This is due largely to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
7 

creases in mandatory funding for nutrition assistance and crop insurance. The discretionary appropriation request is $21.5 billion 

which is comparable to the $21.7 billion enacted for 2010. In addition, limits placed on select mandatory programs and rescissions of 

balances and other adjustments result in a bottom-line reduction to 

our discretionary budget authority of over a billion dollars. 

This budget uses taxpayer dollars wisely, takes common-sense 

steps that many families and small businesses have been forced to 

take with their own budgets. We are investing in American agriculture and in the American people. This budget will assist rural 

communities to create prosperity so they are self-sustaining, economically thriving, and growing in population. We have already 

taken some important steps in this effort. 

With the help of the Recovery Act, we have supported farmers 

and ranchers and helped rural businesses create jobs. Investments 

have already been made in broadband, renewable energy, hospitals, 

wastewater and water systems and other critical infrastructure 

that will serve as a lasting foundation to ensure the long-term economic health of families in rural America. 

For 2011, the budget includes an almost $26 billion amount to 

build on that down payment and focuses on opportunities presented by producing renewable energy, continuing on expanding 

broadband technology, developing local and regional food systems, 

capitalizing on environmental markets and generating green jobs 

through recreation and natural resource restoration, conservation 

and management. The budget also focuses and expands our research efforts which I will address in detail a bit later. 

In order to utilize the Federal Government’s assets more effectively, USDA is proposing a Regional Innovation Initiative which 

will create a regional focus and increase collaboration with other 

federal agencies. For 2011, USDA is requesting authority to set 

aside up to 5 percent of the funding from approximately 20 existing 

programs which is approximately $280 million in loans and grants 

and to allocate these funds competitively among regional projects 

that leverage the combined financial and knowledge resources of a 

region’s communities, consistent with a developed strategic vision 

for the region, to become a great place to live, work and raise families. 

The budget promotes the production of food, feed, fiber and fuel. 

We intend to expand our efforts to export food and agricultural 

products as we work to strengthen the agricultural economy for 

American farmers and ranchers. They are the most productive and 

most efficient in the world, which contributes greatly to the Nation’s food security. We have an important role at USDA in expanding export opportunities. This budget increases USDA’s funding for 

export promotion as part of the President’s National Export Initiative and provides more support than ever for competitive research 

which can lead to significant gains in agricultural productivity. 

We want to ensure, as this Committee does that all of America’s 

children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals. The 

budget fully funds the expected requirements for the Department’s 

three major nutrition assistance programs, WIC, the National 

School Lunch program and SNAP, and proposes $10 billion over 10 

years to strengthen the Child Nutrition and WIC programs. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
8 

The budget also includes increased funding for staffing needed to 

strengthen USDA’s ability to simplify and improve these programs, 

expand program efforts to improve nutritional outcomes, encourage 

healthy and nutritious diets and expand an obesity prevention 

campaign consistent with the First Lady’s Let’s Move Initiative. 

Currently many communities across America, particularly those 

with high poverty and unemployment rates, have limited access to 

healthy foods which can contribute to a poor diet and can lead to 

higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. To address this problem and to help create 

jobs and economic opportunity, the Departments of Agriculture, 

Health and Human Services and Treasury will implement the 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative. In support of this initiative, the 

USDA budget includes about $50 million in budget authority for 

loans, grants and technical assistance to support local and regional 

efforts to increase access to healthy food, particularly for the development of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers in urban 

and rural food deserts and other underserved areas. This effort will 

generate employment opportunities for those seeking work and will 

encourage additional investment in the neighborhoods and communities assisted. 

Protecting public health is one of the most important missions of 

USDA, and I am fully committed to taking the steps necessary to 

reduce the incidence of food-borne illness and protect the American 

people from preventable illnesses. Over the past year, we have 

worked to strengthen our food safety system, to reduce the presence of deadly pathogens, and we continue to make improvements. 

For 2011, the budget includes $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service and allows us to fully fund inspection activities 

and to implement recommendations of the President’s Food Safety 

Working Group. This and other initiatives are aimed at improving 

the USDA’s public health infrastructure. This includes an increase 

of $27 million to further implement recommendations of the Food 

Safety Working Group, to strengthen our public information infrastructure and allow us to get ahead of the pathogen curve. These 

improvements will decrease the time necessary to identify and respond to food-borne illness outbreaks which will also better protect 

consumers. 

This budget will also ensure that private working lands are conserved, restored and made more resilient to climate change while 

enhancing our water resources. The budget supports cumulative 

enrollment of more than 304.6 million acres in the Farm Bill conservation programs, an increase in enrollment of about 10 percent 

over 2009. And it supports efforts to strategically target high-priority watersheds where the benefits of conservation are greatest. 

Underlying the achievement of all the Department’s goals is a 

strong research program. Research fuels the transformational 

change that rural America needs to excel. I would like to point out 

that the 2011 budget proposes the largest funding level ever for 

competitive research grants funding with $429 million in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, an increase of $166 million 

over 2010. In addition, the budget maintains formula funding for 

research and extension at 1862, 1890 and 1994 land grant instituVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
9 

tions, schools of forestry and schools of veterinary medicine at the 

2010 level. 

The budget also includes a number of management initiatives 

that will improve service delivery, ensure equal access to USDA 

programs and transform USDA into a model organization. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for 

funding the Farm Service Agency’s IT modernization effort which 

will result in more reliable customer-focused service to producers. 

For 2011, the budget requests additional funding for continued implementation of our modernization effort to address vulnerabilities 

in our aging IT system. 

USDA is also proposing to expand the Office of Advocacy and 

Outreach which was established by the 2008 Farm Bill to improve 

service delivery to historically underserved groups, and we will 

work to improve the productivity and viability of small, beginning 

and socially disadvantaged farmers. 

In support of my commitment to improve USDA’s handling of 

civil rights matters, the budget includes funding to ensure that 

USDA has the staffing and resources necessary to address its history of civil rights complaints and to seek resolution to claims of 

discrimination and the Department’s employment practices in program delivery. 

Madam Chair, there is no doubt these are tough times which call 

for shared sacrifice. The American people have tightened their 

belts, and we believe we have done so as well. We have made some 

tough decisions. This budget reflects our values and the commonsense solutions to the problems we face. It makes critical investments in the American people and American agriculture to set us 

on a path to prosperity as we move forward into the 21st century. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
10 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 22 57780A.001
11 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 23 57780A.002
12 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 24 57780A.003
13 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 25 57780A.004
14 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 26 57780A.005
15 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 27 57780A.006
16 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 28 57780A.007
17 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 29 57780A.008
18 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 30 57780A.009
19 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 31 57780A.010
20 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 32 57780A.011
21 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 33 57780A.012
22 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 34 57780A.013
23 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 35 57780A.014
24 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 36 57780A.015
25 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 37 57780A.016
26 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 38 57780A.017
27 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 39 57780A.018
28 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 40 57780A.019
29 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 41 57780A.020
30 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 42 57780A.021
31 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 43 57780A.022
32 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 44 57780A.023
33 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 45 57780A.024
34 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 46 57780A.025
35 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 47 57780A.026
36 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 48 57780A.027
37 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 49 57780A.028
38 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 50 57780A.029
39 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 51 57780A.030
40 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 52 57780A.031
41 

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM SUPPLIERS

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Let me 

begin by referencing the USA Today articles that looked at suppliers to the school lunch program. A number of suppliers have repeatedly failed to meet program requirements. For example, meat 

packers have failed to meet program requirements 26 times since 

2006. Even more disturbing is the fact that USDA has documented 

many of the violations but taken virtually no action to permanently 

bar suppliers from participating in the program. USDA’s approach 

in the past has been to identify non-conformances and eventually 

permit the suppliers to continue to provide food to our schools. You 

are proposing finally to get tough with these bad actors, and I commend you for that. What is your assessment of the USDA’s previous practices? What specific problems existed that required the 

new initiative? What new steps will you take to permanently bar 

suppliers with multiple violations from participating in the program? How is this different from the process that was previously 

in place? What kinds of violations could cause a supplier to be permanently barred from the program? 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, we have recognized that five 

different USDA agencies are engaged and involved in some form or 

fashion in providing safe food for our school children, AMS, the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Agricultural Research Service, 

the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Farm Service Agency, 

and the Food and Nutrition Service. One of the things that we 

needed to do initially was to make sure that our testing procedures 

were what they needed to be, and so we had asked for not only a 

review internally with FSIS of AMS’s testing procedures but also 

working with the National Academy of Sciences, we are asking for 

an independent review of testing procedures, specifically as they relate to the purchase of ground beef. 

FOOD VENDOR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

In addition, we also believe that there needs to be new standards 

and requirements in terms of food safety for the purchasing, particularly for beef suppliers. And so we have called for FSIS to review AMS’s food safety purchasing requirements and to beef those 

up. We have also provided technical assistance through ARS and 

FSIS to provide technical assistance. We are not stopping there. 

We recognize that we need to do a better job of information sharing 

between these various agencies. There needs to be better information on in-plant enforcement actions, positive pathogen test results, 

contract suspensions, recall notifications, and additional information to better serve. 

We also recognize that there is a need for tightening vendor eligibility processes, which means that FSIS and AMS must review and 

evaluate meat, poultry and processed egg vendors as part of the eligibility process. FNS has to review and evaluate the methods they 

currently utilize to approach state agencies and school districts 

when they communicate a problem. We realize there may be a lack 

of aggressive communication or response by state agencies to potential problems. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
42 

FNS is also going to establish a center of excellence devoted to 

research on food safety issues. We have a similar center of excellence on food handling. We need one on food safety. 

STRENGTHENING FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

We are also going to take a look at strengthening current requirements through FSA that is also involved in purchasing commodities, utilizing our HACCP program. So there is a wide variety 

of efforts here in addition to the steps that we are taking generally 

in terms of food safety. 

Ms. DELAURO. I have a couple of follow-up questions. I am going 

to make an assumption that none of this was in place prior to your 

putting it in place. So I will dispense with the request for what the 

prior practices were. You mentioned the new initiatives which then 

are, and I am going to again presume that there was none in existence prior to your initiating these. But I have a couple questions 

that have to do with what would it take for a supplier to be permanently barred from this program? And I want to know the timeframe for fully implementing the changes. What will our evaluation 

process be? And with what you are talking about, specific performance standards and the timeframe for being able to meet them. I 

want to start with the suppliers. Beef Packers failed to meet the 

program requirements 26 times. This is not exactly three strikes 

and you are out. 

VIOLATIONS OF FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

Secretary VILSACK. I think it is important to distinguish between 

technical violations and very serious violations that compromise 

food safety. And clearly if there are repeat violations of a significant food safety standards and issues, there ought to be action aggressively taken in order to ensure that that supplier either improves their service or is not allowed to continue their service. 

There are times when what is noted is something is checked in 

the wrong box or things of that nature, and that becomes in a 

sense a technical violation. So I would distinguish between those 

two, and I am sure you would as well. 

In terms of timeframes, we want to make sure—— 

Ms. DELAURO. So let me just say, we are not going to see what 

happened with Beef Packers again and we are not going to see 

what has happened with salami being on the market for over a 

year? We keep expanding the recall on that, but we have known 

it is out there. We are not going to see that again? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would certainly hope that we would 

do a better job than we have done, Madam Chair. 

Ms. DELAURO. And that we would end their contract if they continue to repeat? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not satisfied that if we continue to see 

repeated violations that compromise the safety of our children, I 

think it is fairly important to take steps to basically say, not just 

to that company but to the industry, this is not going to be tolerated. We understand and appreciate this is a serious issue, and we 

are going to treat it very seriously. That is why we have the Food 

Safety Working Group, that is why we have taken very quick action when this all came to light. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
43 

Ms. DELAURO. Timeframes? Just one question. I know my time 

is up. Timeframe for implementation? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would simply say that I think it is important for us to evaluate this properly, and we expect and anticipate responses some time this spring and this summer from the 

National Academy of Sciences Review. That obviously will help us 

in some way, shape or form determine what steps need to be taken. 

My hope would be that we are actively engaged in improvements 

in this calendar year. 

Ms. DELAURO. Will we have the benefit of that NAS report? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am sure. All you have to do is ask, and if 

you just ask, you will get it. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Sorry. 

THE BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to just make 

a few comments. When we were in the majority, it was very difficult to pass a budget. I remember one year I think we passed it 

214 to 212, and so any move to decrease spending or to increase 

spending could have just upset the whole balance, and yet, despite 

that tough balancing act, one reason we lost the majority, we Republicans, was because of overspending. But this year alone, $1.4 

trillion deficit is going to be higher than all the cumulative deficits 

we had under the 8 years of George Bush. I believe outside this 

room that decision is going to be made. I think the Budget Committee is going to have a very tough time passing the budget, and 

if it is not a serious reduction in spending, I think the American 

people will probably make a correction on it themselves. But I remain concerned with a 26 percent budget increase since 2007, and 

the fact that we are freezing it but not until 2011, I do not think 

the American people are going to be satisfied with that. I do feel 

like that is going to be decided outside this Committee, but I wanted to mention that again. 

THE FIRST LADY’S LET’S MOVE INITIATIVE

I also wanted to ask you a couple of miscellaneous questions, and 

I will just go quickly. The First Lady’s obesity commission, is she 

having an outside group on that? Is she naming people to a commission or a panel? Is there a mechanism like that. I missed the 

press announcement because of the snow and appreciated the 

chance to go. 

Secretary VILSACK. There is a concerted effort to make sure that 

this is a partnership with the private sector and the non-profit sector and the education community and the academic community, the 

food industry. It is a wide range effort. It includes the task force 

for which there will be members. It also includes a private foundation that the First Lady has set up. Contributions have been submitted by a number of folks who are very interested in this particular area. As you know, this is an issue that has now reached 

epidemic proportions. One-third of our children are either at risk 

of being obese or in fact obese. There are serious consequences in 

terms of educational quality. We have a number of retired generals 

and admirals who are very concerned about the capacity of the 

United States to be able to meet its military concerns since 75 perVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
44 

cent of the adults ages 19 to 24 are not physically fit to be in the 

military. So there is a wide range of concern about this issue. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think you will find a lot of bipartisan interest and support from this Committee. So if we have the opportunity to suggest anybody to the panel or to participate in it, we 

would certainly like to do that. 

Secretary VILSACK. You obviously have the capacity to do that 

with your own office, sir, but if you want to submit names to us, 

we would be happy to make sure that the First Lady’s staff is 

aware of your interest. 

CHINESE FOOD SAFETY PROCESSES

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. And we are very glad that she is doing 

this. Also, you and I and a number of others and the Chair, we all 

had a lot of discussions about Chinese chicken, but I understand 

now there is some information glitches in terms of getting the underwriting that you need for safety inspection. Do you feel like that 

is going to break loose? Is this sort of just normal dealing with Chinese government sometimes or is this a serious setback? 

Secretary VILSACK. Immediately after Congress took action, we 

began the process of educating the Chinese on precisely what the 

law requires from us, and what the law requires from us is no 

more, no less than what it ought to require which is to ensure that 

there is, in fact, sufficient procedures and processes in place in 

China to assure safety. That process had begun in 2004, 2005 timeframe, 2007 timeframe, and the Chinese were concerned that what 

we were essentially doing was starting all the way back from 

square one. What we have tried to convince them is that this law 

is not going back to square one, it is simply confirming what the 

state of their law is, then making sure that an on-ground review 

of their regulations and actions are consistent with that law, and 

that ultimately we get to take a look at specific plants that need 

to be certified. 

There is a request pending from us to the Chinese for specific information that would allow us to take the first couple of steps in 

that process. There we are trying to assure them that this is not 

going back to square one, but this is a continuation of the process 

that began and we are just simply wanting to confirm information 

and have any additional changes or modifications that may have 

occurred. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, good. Certainly, I think this Committee 

wants you to put safety first, and we would also want to support 

your efforts to move forward on this. 

ARRA BROADBAND PROGRAM

You know, broadband program, the stimulus part of it, not the 

$417 million loan program but the money that was dropped on it, 

I continue to be a critic of that inasmuch as it is deficit spending 

and often is putting broadband in places there is not a problem because the private sector was doing it. Recently the President was 

in Georgia, for example, announcing some eligibility for the 

broadband stimulus money, and it was in some of the highest real 

estate areas of the state. I just continue to be a skeptic on that program because, again, all the money is deficit spending. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
45 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, if I could respond in the remaining time I have, this is a very important step that you have 

taken and the Congress has taken and the Administration has 

taken in creating a new framework for the rural economy. 

The reality is that we will never be able to attract and expand 

small business opportunities in rural communities unless they have 

access to 21st century technology. I can assure you that we are 

very sensitive at USDA. Now, obviously, there are two departments 

involved—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. And if I could interrupt you, let the record show, 

I called my seat-mate’s house one night and said last year, if this 

is going to happen, it should all be done through the USDA and 

we should not create a new department. So I am a 100 percent believer that you guys do it more efficiently. 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not want to get into the middle of that, 

but I do want to distinguish. But as it relates to our responsibility, 

the USDA portion, we are very sensitive to the need to place it in 

rural areas, into rural remote areas, into areas that do not currently have that service or in areas where with an investment, the 

service can be substantially improved. And the reason for this is 

that this is an important pillar to really creating a much different 

framework for a rural economy. What we have been doing in the 

past, with all due respect to everything that has been done in the 

past, you cannot say it has been working when you have got higher 

poverty rates, higher unemployment rates, per capita income that 

is substantially lower than urban and suburban areas, a graying 

of the population and young people basically leaving counties so 

that over 50 percent of our rural counties are losing population. We 

have got to try something different in my view. And broadband is 

an important, critical component to trying something different. 

I realize it is a deficit issue, but I also believe that if it is invested properly, it can help turn the trends in rural America 

around which will ultimately lead to higher revenues to maybe offset the deficit. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Just a comment there. We both support the effort 

for broadband to be done through USDA. I would also add that I 

think the grant component of that program, which was part of 

what the recovery program was about, was a very good addition in 

terms of trying to move into underserved areas. Mr. Farr. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS DELIVERY

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Secretary, for being here today and for your leadership in the 

Department of Agriculture. I am the only westerner on this Committee representing an awful lot of western agriculture and certainly the only Californian in the number one ag state. So I could 

sit here all day and discuss everything with you, but one of my key 

interests is in the Child Nutrition Program, and I really appreciate 

your leadership in it. 

Just an editorial comment. I have been dealing with this program for a long time, and the problem is the jurisdiction for writing 

the legislation is not with this Committee, it is with the Education 

Committee. You are the agency that administers it, and there is 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
46 

usually not much contact between the Education Committee in 

Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And I have seen 

those programs develop over the years, and we have gotten so 

many different programs in the child nutrition arena and in the 

WIC program that I really think the Department ought to look at 

coming back to Congress and suggesting that we really divide it 

into two programs, one a community-feeding program which would 

be WIC and all the other food programs that we have in the community, and the other is the school feeding programs, all the different programs that are in schools, because one of the difficulties 

is the amount of bureaucracy that has been developed as each of 

these programs has evolved over the years. And I really do think 

we can find some savings in administrative costs by just being 

smarter about how we deliver all these programs at two levels, at 

the community level and school program. 

FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN SCHOOLS

Having said that, as you know, I have introduced a Children’s 

Fruit and Vegetable Act, H.R. 4333. We have bipartisan cosponsors, and I am glad to hear that Mr. Kingston is really excited 

about it because maybe he will cosponsor the bill now. One of the 

policy provisions in that bill would be to promote salad bars in 

schools as evidence-based strategy to increase children’s fruit and 

vegetable consumption. It is right in line with the areas that you 

are moving in, and I would like to ask you to make the commitment to get those fruits and vegetables in every school in America. 

As you know, in a lot of the urban schools, and I think probably 

Jesse Jackson talked a lot about the fact that in big cities, they are 

now using processing centers to do the school packaging of school 

lunches, and in that processing has added a lot of salt, sugars and 

other things that end up not being necessarily the best dietary nutritional goods for children. And we really need to try to get back 

into that old school-based ability to have fresh fruits and vegetables in every school. 

And I would like your response to that. I know you and the First 

Lady have worked hard on this. We hope our bill will move this 

year and be a part of the whole reauthorization act. 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CHILD NUTRITION ACT

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I will be happy to get you a 

copy of a speech I delivered yesterday to the National Press Club 

that sort of outlined the framework for the Child Nutrition Program reauthorization effort. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
47 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 66 here 57780A.032
48 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 67 here 57780A.033
49 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 68 here 57780A.034
50 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 69 here 57780A.035
51 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 70 here 57780A.036
52 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 71 here 57780A.037
53 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 72 here 57780A.038
54 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 73 here 57780A.039
55 

Let me just simply say, we are absolutely committed to improving the nutritional value of these meals. The Institute of Medicine 

study that we commissioned essentially was a wake-up call suggesting indeed there was too much sugar, too much sodium, too 

much fat, not enough fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat 

dairy. We are committed to making that happen. The reality is that 

oftentimes those steps do require some additional resources which 

is why we are asking for the additional resources. 

I would also say that we are in the process of focusing some of 

our research and development efforts on obesity and particularly on 

how we can improve the quality of choices that youngsters can 

make, as well as making sure that we connect as best we can with 

the Deputy Secretary’s leadership, as best we can to promote the 

local provision of those fruits and vegetables. Opportunities for 

local producers to be able to create markets with schools can be 

amplified and assisted through USDA and through rural development. 

So there is a major commitment on our part. Let me also say 

that it is not just about more money. It is, as you have indicated, 

about trying to figure out how to spend the money that we are currently spending more effectively. We would suggest that one way 

to do that is to end paperwork in some of these school districts 

where it is fairly clear the vast, vast majority of students are in 

fact free and reduced-lunch kids and that we look for direct certification opportunities so that if a parent is qualifying for one set of 

programs they do not have to fill out multiple applications to qualify for something else. 

ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

Mr. FARR. Terrific. You are on it. I like that. Let me ask you. I 

represent the most organic agriculture in the United States, and 

probably my district is the most productive in organic agriculture, 

and I notice that you are reducing the organic research funding in 

this budget. And I wanted you to explain why. I mean, organic is 

about 3.5 percent of all food products, and with the funding cuts, 

the research comparison is you are down to about 1.3 percent. 

Secretary VILSACK. If you will permit me, I am going to ask the 

Deputy Secretary to amplify on my answer. I am just simply going 

to say that I think it is important to take a look at the overall 

budget as it relates to organic. I think what you will find is there 

is significant support in a number of areas to advance organic. We 

are also working on a tightening of regulations which should help 

preserve that market and that brand. 

Ms. MERRIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. FARR. You will need to put your button on. 

Ms. MERRIGAN. We have a number of research agendas within 

the overall REE mission area that are very compatible with organic 

research. A great new emphasis on classical breeding, work on perennial grains, a very substantial increase in the SARE program. 

So it is a matter of double-counting in a large way. A lot of the 

SARE programs, for example, is actually organic research. We estimate that in this budget there is $78 million of specific organic research, but there is additional programs that also offer up organic 

benefits. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
56 

Mr. FARR. So the bottom line for organic is you are not cutting 

it? Is that what you are trying to tell me? 

Ms. MERRIGAN. The bottom line is, it is well-timed that not only 

the REE mission area embrace organic and research needs but that 

we attend to organic agendas throughout the agencies and the Department because it is a big tent, USDA, and we see the organic 

industry as thriving, important, and we just had a national NASS 

survey that came out, the first ever, on the organic industry. And 

it showed that this is an area of great interest across the country. 

All 50 states have organic production. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. We will have a hearing next week on March 3. I 

think that is Wednesday. We will deal with nutrition and obviously 

child nutrition and how we proceed in that direction. I think the 

Administration and the agency knows about that, but it will be 

next Wednesday. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and to use your 

sports analogy, you are on your game today, Rosa. Anyway, welcome, Mr. Secretary, everybody on the panel. 

CROP INSURANCE

As you know, Mr. Secretary, crop insurance industry is very, 

very important for a state like Iowa. It is more important even 

than the industry for the farmers themselves to be able to manage 

their risk. In the budget, it looks like over five years you are planning on cutting about $7 billion out of about $20 billion. I do not 

know where we are in negotiations, but I would like to hear about 

that but also, I will just ask you directly. Is there any discussion 

at USDA about taking over risk management away from the private sector, like the direct student loan program has been taken 

over? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think our preference, Congressman, is to 

work with the industry, recognizing the important role that the industry plays in this part of our safety net. But I think we also want 

to make sure that as we work with the industry, we do it in a fair 

way to all, to the farmers and producers, obviously, to the agents 

who are impacted, to the insurance industry, but also to the taxpayers. 

I mean, I have got a chart here that I think in a very graphic 

way projects what is happening in crop insurance. You are seeing 

dramatic increases in the amount of profits, both on the agent and 

the insurance company side, even though we are selling about 

200,000 fewer policies than we sold in the year 2000. We have to 

rebalance this, which is what the negotiations are about. They are 

ongoing. We have made a recent second proposal to the industry 

in an effort to try to respond and listen to the concerns that they 

have raised, and we have made several adjustments. But I think 

at the end of the day, I think there needs to be a rebalancing here 

without compromising the capacity for producers to have this risk 

management tool and also using some of the resources to basically 

allow crop insurance to be sold on a fair basis to some producers 

that right now, under the current system, are not treated fairly. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
57 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 80 here 57780A.040
58 

Mr. LATHAM. They also assume the risk also. I mean, that is the 

thing, where you are putting the taxpayer on the hook for the potential losses out there. 

Secretary VILSACK. In 2 out of 15 years there have been small 

losses, 13 years out of 15 there have been pretty significant gains, 

Congressman. And we did not do this, if I might add, we did not 

do this without looking at this. And the Milliman’s study indicated 

that what we are proposing is somewhere in the neighborhood of 

12 percent return on the investment for the industry as opposed to 

a 16 percent return. We think that is fair. 

CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. In research funding, you are increasing fund- ing by over $50 million for climate change research, some of which 

will be used to ‘‘provide vital information needed for an agricultural 

and forestry cap and trade system.’’ You know, this has not obviously passed Congress. The hopes of getting that done probably are 

not very bright at this point. I just wonder about those research 

dollars being spent somewhere else, and as you are well-aware, the 

FAPRI report that came out of Missouri, their conclusion, producers use many energy inputs in the production of agricultural 

commodities. The direct impact of a policy change that increases 

energy costs will be to reduce farmers’ bottom lines, and we are 

talking probably 20, 25 percent utility costs on top of all the fuel 

costs and everything else. I just wonder how you react, you know, 

to this. 

IMPACT OF INDIRECT LAND USE ON THE BIOFUELS INDUSTRY

Also, the question of whether the USDA agrees on the indirect 

land use, the EPA. They are coming down on that. It is a huge impact obviously on the biofuels industry. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, let me see if I can respond to those 

comments. First of all, as it relates to the indirect land use, we 

worked in an effort to try to make sure that the RFS2 standard 

that came out from EPA recognized the important role that cornbased ethanol can play in helping biofuels future. And we were 

pleased that in fact there was an indication that corn-based ethanol, soy diesel, would in fact be able to meet the thresholds established by the RFS2. So I think that is an important point to make. 

Secondly, as it relates to the research efforts, I think it is fair 

to say that we have ongoing needs to take a look at how crop production will be impacted by more extreme weather conditions, 

whether it is drought-resistance or drought intolerance or whether 

it is flooding situations, are there mechanisms and are there processes by which we can ensure productivity of seed in those extreme 

weather conditions. 

And so I think it is important for us at USDA to focus on this. 

We also recognize that with these extreme weather conditions 

there could very well be an increase in severity of pests and disease. And so part of this research is taking a look at how we would 

be able to adapt to more serious pest and disease circumstances because of extreme weather conditions. So I think this is a valid reason for us to focus resources, and I think it is very consistent with 

USDA’s responsibilities. There are other—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
59 

Mr. LATHAM. But that is not what this is for. 

Secretary VILSACK. No, that is what it—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, it says information needed for cap and trade. 

That is what you say. 

Secretary VILSACK. Essentially what I am telling you is it is 

going to be—— 

Mr. LATHAM. That is what it says. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, if I can tell you what we 

are going to direct—what the research is actually going to be focused on, it is going to be working with adaptation to extreme 

weather conditions. You can call it climate change, you can call it 

cap and trade, you can call it whatever you want. The bottom line 

is it is about making sure that we continue to be the most productive and efficient farming country in the world. That is our intent, 

and so this research is designed to help that and focus also on 

water issues. 

We are very concerned, and I know you are, about the limitation 

of water resources in many parts of this country, and that is a result of extreme weather conditions. And we have to be much better 

at our science in terms of knowing precisely how to preserve and 

conserve water. That is one of the whole reasons why we are also 

focused on a whole new approach in our Forest Service to landscape all lands approach and focusing on using our management of 

our forests in a much more effective way relative to water. 

So all of these give rise to research opportunities. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairman, thank you very much and certainly for the testimony of Mr. Vilsack, the Secretary. 

THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

I have had an opportunity in my long life to do many things. My 

first job out of college with an ag degree was to work with the Soil 

Conservation Service as a soil scientist. So some folks say I am one 

of the scientists over here in Congress. However, that work was 

somewhat different than some of the real scientists that are here. 

Then I worked with an agency called Farmers Home Administration which was then a rural lending agency of USDA until the mid1970s. 

I live in a district that almost 70 percent of the people live outside of an incorporated area. When you approach those communities, it will say Pall Mall, unincorporated. In essence, the folks 

who live in the congressional district that I represent understand 

rural America probably as much as anyone and probably more so 

than most congressional districts because many congressional districts have a portion of an urban area or a city which comprises 

a large part of their congressional district. 

So I know when we talk about school lunch programs, how tough 

it is for small rural communities and small rural counties to be 

able to provide the basic needs of their students who attend there. 

And so I know as we look at the hot lunch programs we call 

those back home, being sure that there are nutritious foods being 

served to our children is extremely important. So I hope that we 

look, and I heard two or three of the members talking, I hope we 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
60 

look very seriously at putting some pretty strict requirements on 

nutritious food, not soda pop and not Twinkies and not what we 

call pogey bait being served in some of the dispensers. That is an 

area where I think that this Department can do unbelievable good 

for America’s rural families, especially those that have children attending school. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Now, the next thing I want to say is that I also, having worked 

with Farmers Home, is rural housing. I have been somewhat saddened when I realized that my neighbors on my street that live 

near me oftentimes are relegated—and I am not opposed to modular housing. I think there is a great need being served by that. 

But a used modular housing is not necessarily something that 

would be—we would call those sometimes substandard, and there 

are many folks in rural areas where I represent all across the district, and the 10,000 square miles that I represent are relegated to 

the point where they cannot find a loan to where they can actually 

be able to obtain housing. We need to take a serious look at reinstating direct interest assistance, interest credit housing, direct 

loans, not making subsidies to guaranteed loans. I do not disagree 

that that needs to continue, but we need to look more at transferring more and more dollars. And my understanding is that our 

Chairman of the Financial Services is moving toward maybe even 

authorizing some dollars, and my hope is that that is the case, that 

we would appropriate those that we can have help from our Department of Agriculture. 

HORTICULTURE AND THE NURSERY INDUSTRY

I met with a group of folks who provide a tremendous amount 

of employment in the congressional district that I represent, and 

the central part of it, the area of horticulture. Huge investments, 

and oftentimes not on an annual basis do they receive income. 

Sometimes it is three or four or five years before they can actually 

be able to have income. And so they have to kind of hold on with 

their debt servicing. They are having a hard time. I want to visit 

with you and send you some suggestions that the group that I met 

with about a week-and-a-half ago about how maybe USDA can take 

a serious look at refinancing some debt for those folks until we get 

through this period of time where housing moves back because basically, when you talk about horticulture or the nursery industry, 

as the housing industry goes, so goes the nursery industry. And we 

could almost destroy the farmers who are producing hundreds of 

jobs and thousands of jobs in many cases in those small rural 

areas. 

BROADBAND IN RURAL SCHOOLS

The next thing I want to say is that I have heard talk about 

broadband. It is my understanding the latter part of last year the 

rules have pretty much promulgated that now our telephone co-ops 

and others can start applying for grants and/or loans to expand 

broadband into areas. And I am excited that the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, it is not a stimulus packVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
61 

age. I want to clarify that. It is not a stimulus package. It was not 

a stimulus legislation. It is the American Economic Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. Almost $300 billion were tax cuts to working 

people and tax cuts for small business folks so they could invest in 

their business and discount that from their income. So when I hear 

stimulus, it is not a stimulus. It was not a stimulus legislation. It 

is an investment in America. It is an Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act that folks will be able to survive. In my district, when 

folks get an unemployment check after their 13 weeks or 26 weeks, 

it came from that American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. And when they get 2⁄3 of their insurance being paid for and 

they still cannot find a job, it came from that Economic Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act, not stimulus. It may stimulate their checking account a little bit and keep them from losing their house. 

So I want to talk now about broadband. I envision in rural America where I live that the small rural schools who may not be able 

to hire an extra teacher to challenge the young minds of the best 

and brightest that some day will make this Nation even greater. 

We have done wonders with education since the 1970s reaching 

down to what we would call the underserved, the special ed needs. 

The special ed needs are also there for the best and brightest. And 

I envision broadband being in every school system in rural America 

and the best and brightest teachers in this country, educating that 

youngster. There may be thousands of them at a time in that hour 

period they have set. 

INVESTMENT IN RURAL AMERICA

So it is my hope that as we move into the future we realize that 

we are making a huge investment and reinvestment for the first 

time since back in the ’80s, basically, in building America. When 

you look up through about 1980, we built our interstate systems, 

we fought four wars, we built every lake and every dam that we 

have in this country. We even built the Panama Canal and gave 

it back to them in 1979, and since then we have not invested in 

anything in this country. All we have done is invested in debt. We 

have grown from about a trillion dollars in 1981 to almost $11 trillion today. So I understand about debt, but it did not just happen 

yesterday or it did not just start last January. It has been moving 

on top of us for a long time. 

And so as we invest in rural America, USDA has been the one 

that has been the champion and the one that has provided an opportunity, unbelievable opportunities, to those of us who live in 

rural America and those of us who serve. 

I could ramble pretty much for the next 2 or 3 hours, but I think 

I will stop doing that. But I want to ask you a question. We all 

know that there are and will continue to be scarce resources in this 

country, perhaps for years to come. How do you think or could you 

make recommendations of how you would feel the USDA could 

more wisely invest in rural America from where you sit as Secretary of Agriculture? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I appreciate that question, and 

I will try to respond as quickly given the time constraints that you 

all are facing. I do think it is important for us to recognize that 

in the past, our economic development efforts in rural America 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
62 

have been focused on individual businesses and individual communities and not recognizing that those businesses and those communities are part of an economic region. Smaller communities oftentimes have capacity issues, both in terms of human resources and 

knowledge, as well as financial resources. I think we would probably do a better job of investing our economic development resources if we were in a position to allow those communities to come 

together, to band together with a common strategic vision and to 

leverage their financial and human resources toward a vision that 

focuses on making that region of the country a great place to live, 

work and raise a family. 

REGIONAL INNOVATION INITIATIVE

What we have proposed in this budget is giving us the authority 

to prove that case. By establishing pilot projects in regions across 

the country, taking a portion of the monies in the various 20 programs that we have identified that could potentially be invested in 

those regions and allowing us to work with those regions to more 

wisely leverage those resources for private investment and also to 

allow the USDA to do a better job of working with companion agencies, like the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy 

and others, to be able to leverage our resources with other government resources to really bring prosperity into these communities. 

If you look at all the academic studies about rural development, 

what they are going to tell you is that it is time we approach this 

from a regional basis, not a community-by-community, company-bycompany basis, and that we will get more bang for our buck if we 

do it that way. 

Now, we recognize that is a new concept, and we could not possibly come to this Committee and suggest that all of the money be 

appropriated in that way. We are not suggesting that. What we are 

suggesting is give us a chance to prove this case to you, and I will 

guarantee you that we will prove that it is a very successful way 

of approaching rural development. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much for being here. I think we are 

very lucky to have you as Secretary. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

CIVIL RIGHTS ADMINISTRATION

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Let me take this opportunity first off to 

thank you and commend you for going forth on your commitment 

to equal opportunity at the Department. I think even prior to your 

confirmation, we had conversations where you committed to that 

and you have gone forth with the civil rights enforcement. You 

have offered tremendous leadership in the settlement of the Pigford 

II cases, and of course you are moving forward on the thousands 

of administrative claims that are now pending that carried over 

from the last Administration, the last two Administrations. So I 

want to commend you for that and thank you. Hopefully, the funding mechanism for the administrative claims will be contained in 

either the jobs bill or the supplemental, I am not sure which, and 

maybe the Pigford in the supplemental which I understand is going 

to be proposed. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
63 

I also want to thank you for moving forward with the appointments of our State Committee. I think we have got four of the five 

appointments complete, and that is good because that has been 

holding up a lot of action there in the state. 

FARM SAFETY NET PAYMENT LIMITATIONS

I do have concerns, however, with the Administration’s proposed 

budget, particularly some reductions in the areas like the direct 

payments which the Administration has really taken forth an effort 

and said that it wants to preserve the safety net for our farmers. 

However, with southeastern agriculture which is a little bit unique 

and different from agriculture in other parts of the country because 

it is so diverse, the payment limitations issue has a much more adverse impact on southeastern farmers who do multiple crops than 

on some other parts of the country. So I have some real problems 

with that, and of course, as we work through the budget, we will 

try to deal with that. The elimination of the cotton storage and 

handling credits again are part of the safety net, and the reform/ 

reduction in the market access program, all of these are parts of 

the safety net that have assured that American farmers were able 

to compete in the global marketplace with their competitors from 

other countries that have this kind of help doing that. So I would 

like to discuss it at some point, and maybe you can allude to that. 

BROADBAND IN RURAL AMERICA

The other concern I have relates to broadband. Mr. Kingston 

touched on it. In Georgia, we have had only one grant under the 

Recovery Act, and that was in North Georgia. I have had multiple 

applicants in our area, and I have met with all of them who serve 

rural areas, and none of them has been approved. It does not appear that they have the prospects of doing it, particularly with the 

formula that we understand is going to be—one of the considerations is the ratio of grant-to-loan in the application. We have 

rural, poor areas, and they really need to be able to compete, and 

they do not have the resources, which is why we insisted that 

USDA, RUS, be the people to do that. And we had a big fight over 

that in the stimulus. So we really would like to have you to visit 

that. 

USDA’S ROLE IN DOL’S H2A PROGRAM REGULATIONS

And the final thing I wanted to mention is the H2A program. We 

have got some real concerns there with the regulations that are 

about to be implemented and the impact that it will have on our 

produce growers, fruit and produce growers and would like to know 

if USDA is actively involved with the Department of Labor in trying to promulgate those regulations in a way that will not adversely impact those producers. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I will try to respond to all your 

points. Let me sort of go in reverse. The H2A issue, we acted in 

an advisory capacity to the Department of Labor. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
64 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION REORGANIZATION

Mr. BISHOP. Excuse me, and you can submit this other one for 

the record. The reorganization that you had talked about earlier 

with the Under Secretary of Administration, you can submit that 

for the record or we can talk about that later. I just wanted to add 

that on the record. 

Secretary VILSACK. And we will provide you written comment on 

that. The H2A, we provide at advisory capacity. Obviously that is 

a Department of Labor ultimate call, but we have provided advisory direction and will continue to do that. 

[The information follows:] 

As part of the reorganization of the staff offices and administrative services of the 

Department, numerous functions have been consolidated under the Assistant Secretary for Administration in an effort to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of 

the Department. Due to these increased responsibilities, we are considering legislative language to create an Under Secretary for Management. An Under Secretary 

for Management would be able to work more effectively with the other members of 

my Subcabinet to improve operations of and the services delivered by the Department. 

BROADBAND IN RURAL AND REMOTE AREAS

On the broadband issue, let me just simply say, we are still in 

the process of not only reviewing applications but also making announcements about applications that have been approved. I think 

until we have completed that process, I would hope that you would 

give us an opportunity to prove to you that we are cognizant of the 

need to get these resources in rural and remote areas, as those that 

exist in your community. There may be technical issues with the 

applications. I would suggest that if you can get permission from 

those who have applied to give you the opportunity to visit with the 

RUS folks—there are privacy issues—but if you have that permission, I would certainly encourage you to do that so that you know 

precisely what the status of those applications will be. 

MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM

On the Market Access Program, I think it is also important to 

point out that we are substantially increasing other resources in 

the export systems area. We are working very closely with our collaborators and cooperator programs within other countries. That 

has been flatlined for an extended period of time, and it is the entity that provides assistance to commodity groups to encourage promotion of the American brand. It is not focused on—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Name brands. 

Secretary VILSACK [continuing]. Things of that, you know, the 

same thing the MAP program is focused on. It is focused on a 

longer term, providing technical assistance, providing the research, 

breaking down the sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to trade 

that we see popping up from time to time. We are also proposing 

additional technical assistance, to be specifically focused on specialty crops. Ultimately, at the end of the line, there are additional 

resources in export promotion than there was last year. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
65 

COTTON AND PEANUT STORAGE

On the issue of the cotton storage, simply cottons and peanuts, 

basically the only two commodities that have that. We think that 

there is some market distortion that occurs as a result of that. Cotton prices are going up, and so we are not certain that there is a 

need for that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, we just did a Farm Bill. 

Secretary VILSACK. The only thing I would say is we are in a 

slightly different circumstance than we were when the 2008 Farm 

Bill was passed, and if I may, because of the recession and because 

of the impact that that has had on the decisions that you all have 

had to make, we are faced with some serious issues relative to the 

debt and deficit which we have to address. 

DIRECT FARM PAYMENTS

And then let me just simply say about direct payments because 

I think this is important, if I can answer your question for one 

minute. It is important first and foremost to understand that this 

is a significantly different proposal than the one that we proposed 

last year which was ill-thought-out and not particularly appropriate. This is really focused on a very small percentage of farmers. 

We calculate that of the 1.4 million farmers who currently qualify 

for direct payments and things of that nature, only about 30,000 

across the country are going to be impacted. Around 5 percent of 

producers in Georgia will be impacted. Ninety-five percent of producers will not be impacted. 

And I think it is also important to recognize that when we talk 

about a safety net, we have to talk about the whole package, and 

the whole package includes the research money that we put in, the 

export promotion money that we put in, the efforts in commodity 

purchases. And if you look at the totality of support, I think you 

will find that we do indeed have a strong safety net in this country 

and one that is fairly compliant with trade responsibilities. And if 

you look at the overall picture, I think what you are seeing is a 

very small percentage of farmers who, under our thresholds, are 

doing fairly well with the $500,000 in adjusted gross farm income 

and up to $250,000 of adjusted gross non-farm income. Somebody 

could make in theory about $600,000 to $700,000 and still get a 

check from the government. You know, if we are going to be serious 

about deficits, we have to look someplace and this was one place 

to look. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

just sort of continuing with that, as you know, in the southeast one 

of the reasons why farmers bump up into that higher income category is because in order to get the economies of scale, the son and 

the daughters and the uncles are really more directly just mom, 

dad’s and the children’s farms get combined. And that is why the 

income goes up. It is not always an accurate picture. And we will 

have this discussion with you I know as this goes on. But one of 

the things I wanted to point out is that BCAP does not have an 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
66 

income limitation, and there are a lot of people that are making far 

more money than farmers do who participate in BCAP. So that 

might be something you want to look at. As I expressed earlier, as 

I had my doubt about BCAP anyhow and facing the deficits that 

we have. 

MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM

The other thing I wanted to mention, MAP had been called corporate welfare in the past, and I wonder how you would respond 

to that. And then a third point I want to make, and Mr. Farr would 

be interested in this, but last year one of our witnesses was actually a farmer from Georgia. He was an organic farmer who was 

telling me he could not sell any of his produce locally, particularly 

to the School Lunch Program. And I was wondering if we offered 

in this Committee some report language to encourage USDA to 

break down some of those barriers in the school lunch program so 

the local farmers could sell produce to the schools. Is that report 

language necessary? Because I know you are doing some things on 

it. 

And then number four, this is my last thing, I think that we 

have developmental agriculture money for Zimbabwe. But we do 

not have it for Botswana because Botswana has an income-per-capita issue, but they are a very pro-American ally in the area, particularly as compared to Zimbabwe where we have sanctions. And 

I wonder if we should not take a second look at that. Not 100 percent sure because, again, tight budget limitations. But here you do 

have one country that is, you know, trying to do the right things 

and move in a very good positive direction in a region of the world 

that, you know, we need good allies, and yet, they are not getting 

development out of agriculture money as I understand it. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I wonder if I can ask permission to get you a written response on that question because as it 

relates to those specific countries because I am not as well-versed 

on those specific countries. But I would say that there is an effort 

within USDA to cooperate with USAID and the State Department 

on our feeding initiative, our international feeding initiative. 

[The information follows:] 

The U.S. Government targets its assistance to meet the needs of the recipient 

countries. In Botswana’s case, it is a great development story. In 40 years, Botswana has moved from one of the world’s poorest countries to a middle-income country. Its economy is growing as fast as the economies in East Asia. With this growth, 

Botswana is not facing food security issues that other countries confront, but Botswana does have a high incidence of HIV/AIDS. The U.S. Government has been providing assistance through the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. 

During 2004–2008, Botswana received more than $300 million to support HIV/AIDS 

prevention, treatment, and care programs. 

By contrast, Zimbabwe is facing multiple humanitarian problems, including severe food insecurity. One of the key targets for U.S. assistance has been to provide 

food aid and other funding to improve that country’s food security. 

INTERNATIONAL FEEDING INITIATIVE

Mr. KINGSTON. Could I interrupt one second? One of the things 

I was wondering is USDA actually runs the program but we fund 

it, correct? We, USDA, funds it? 

Secretary VILSACK. We fund it. USAID basically manages the 

part of the program, the one part that we are not requesting addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
67 

tional resources we would have some impact on. We also have companion case programs which we have a little bit more of a say on. 

But I would say that we came into office with the understanding 

that we needed to take a look at simply doing more than providing 

food assistance, that what we really needed to do was to provide 

greater technical assistance and greater assistance in these countries so that they could become more self-sufficient, and as they become more self-sufficient, they build an economy. And as they build 

an economy, they become better trading partners with us over 

time. Perhaps the best example of this is what we are trying to do 

in Afghanistan and Pakistan with USDA officials there working 

with the Afghan ministry to try to substantially increase productivity and rebuild an agri-business economy. 

So that is sort of the overarching theme, and I think you know, 

you cannot just look at the food programs in isolation. You have 

to look at what we are also trying to do on this development and 

capacity side. 

SCHOOL-TO-FARM ISSUES

As it relates to school-to-farm, the Deputy Secretary is very engaged in this. We have today tactical teams, SWOT teams we call 

them, as part of our Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food effort, 

going into school districts and going into local communities and 

making the link between local production and local consumption, 

trying to figure out what the barriers are. And then hopefully, 

what we hope to be able to do, is use rural development resources 

to build the supply chains that do not exist in some of those communities that would allow you to get enough critical mass to meet 

the need of a school on an ongoing basis and also to provide technical advice as to how crops might be grown during more difficult 

weather conditions. 

And we are not just focusing on rural communities in this area, 

we are also looking at how we can help urban centers meet their 

nutritional needs. 

BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

I appreciate the concerns that you have raised about BCAP. We 

have tried to address some of those concerns with a termination of 

the Notice of Funds Availability that was outstanding that caused 

a lot of angst and concern. We have put a proposed rule that we 

are in the process of receiving comments on. Those comments will 

be due, I think, by April, and then we will try to fashion those into 

a final rule that makes sense. Some of the things we have asked 

people to comment on, should there be a differentiation or a tiered 

approach in terms of how much reimbursement we provide per ton 

for certain products, should there be a lack of support for doing 

what you are already doing. Should you have to prove that you are 

actually doing more in terms of producing more energy from renewable sources if you are already doing that. Are there processes that 

BCAP simply does not qualify for, and we are asking people to 

comment on those. That may have somewhat of a limitation. I 

know it does not address your issue as it relates to income levels, 

but it is an indication that we are sensitive to your concerns. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
68 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yeah, I appreciate that. And Madam Chair, if I 

can have just 30 more seconds, I wanted to say I think the income 

limitation thing should be consistent if that is what the—if we are 

looking at ways to reduce the budget. 

I saw that you were asking for 64 slots in Afghanistan. That is 

a very interesting program. I am very glad you are doing that. I 

think we should be doing that in Iraq as well, but we will talk 

about that later. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we do have people in Iraq as well doing 

somewhat similar circumstances but not quite as comprehensive as 

in Afghanistan because frankly, the need is different in Iraq. It is 

a bit more sophisticated in terms of agriculture than it is in Afghanistan. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I am glad you are doing that. And then just one 

last comment. One of the inadvertent beneficiaries of BCAP is the 

American taxpayers are subsidizing European fuel, and in this 

economy, I think that that is something that we really do not want 

to do. 

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Secretary, first of all, let me associate myself 

with a comment on the increase in the folks going to Afghanistan. 

I have several questions about that which I will hold for later in 

terms of getting some idea of how we evaluate their work and success of that work. 

What I would like to do is to suggest and we will think about 

how we try to put together a program since most of the farmers 

in this world are women, how in fact we are trying to assist women 

farmers around the world and to try to build that kind of infrastructure and capacity so that it will increase their production levels, and I continue to believe what we need to do is deal with emergencies. But beyond the emergency, how do we build capacity. 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CHILD NUTRITION ACT

With that, let me move to the nutrition reauthorization. You released your priorities at the Press Club yesterday, an excellent 

commentary, and it includes improving nutrition standards, increasing access to meal programs, increasing education about 

healthy eating, establishing standards from competitive food sold 

in schools, serving more healthy foods, increasing physical activity, 

training people who prepare school meals, providing schools with 

better equipment, and enhancing food safety. I support all of these 

initiatives, and I think you know that and have for a number of 

years. I am not sure how much we can make an impact on these 

issues with $1 billion each year. It is $10 billion as I understand 

it, over 10 years. Can you break down the $1 billion dollars to the 

different priorities? Such as how much do you recommend increasing the reimbursement rate for the school lunch program? How 

much would that cost, what is the cost of expanding the at-risk 

supper program to all States, and are you planning to submit additional information to the Congress, outlining the specifics of the 

proposal. The specific proposal is behind these priorities. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, first of all, let me say that we 

see this as not just a $1 billion. We see this as $1 billion plus. The 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
69 

plus comes from some of the efficiencies that we think a direct certification, paperless application process can create within individual school districts that allow school districts to have resources 

that are freed up that are currently allocated to administration, 

freed up toward these other priorities. And we are fairly confident 

that there will be indeed significant savings from what we are proposing under direct certification and reduction of paperwork. 

As it relates to whether or not I can tell you today precisely how 

many dollars are applied to various items, let me simply say that 

on the reimbursement side, what we are looking at is inciting the 

right kind of behavior. So to a certain extent it is dependent upon 

school districts accepting the challenge that we put forward to 

them, which is that we expect more fruits and vegetables, healthier 

foods in these diets, and we are willing to provide you resources if 

you can prove to us that you are ready, willing and able to accept 

that challenge. This is not necessarily a blanket increase which 

could potentially fund just the status quo. We are not interested in 

doing that. We are interested in really focusing on improving the 

system. So it somewhat depends how many school districts step up 

to that challenge and how quickly they can step up to the challenge. We would be more than happy to provide as much detailed 

information as Congress wants, but we also recognize that your responsibilities are such that you are going to want quite a bit of say 

in all this, and we want to work with you. 

Ms. DELAURO. I would be interested—I have further questions, 

I must get them to you. 

I would be interested in the view of the concomitant savings and 

where you think we are going to make those savings and what savings do you think we are going to achieve doing this? This is like 

the healthcare bill. Where are the savings going to be, you know, 

achieved so that we can then look at how we fund these. Again, I 

support these initiatives. My concern is whether or not we are 

going to be able to carry them out because I think they are valid. 

But the savings side of this will be very important as we take a 

look at what criteria we are going to place on schools, et cetera, 

and school districts in terms of dealing with these issues. 

NATIONAL EXPORT INITIATIVE

Let me move next to—in your budget you propose an increase of $54 million for the National Export Initiative, doubling exports in 

5 years. The President I guess has a goal of doubling exports in the 

next 5 years. 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. 

Ms. DELAURO. You have not said you are going to do that. 

Secretary VILSACK. Given the fact that we have a significant surplus in agriculture today, what we hope to be able to do is to break 

down barriers in five countries that currently are making it difficult for us to trade and increasing our trade surplus by several 

billion dollars. 

TRADE WITH CUBA

Ms. DELAURO. It would be interesting to know which countries 

make it difficult for us to trade. But further, I would like to say 

that I would like that list, $54 million is going to FAS. Quite honVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
70 

estly, there is one market very close to our shores which no one 

mentions, and you do not mention in your testimony and that is 

Cuba. We currently allow agricultural exports to Cuba through a 

number of restrictions that are in place because of the embargo. 

Exporters are denied access to private commercial financing or 

credit. All transactions must be conducted in cash in advance or 

with financing from other countries. We put no restrictions on any 

other country except Cuba in that regard. 

Even with the restrictions, the United States has been the leading supplier of food and agricultural products to Cuba. A 2008 report by FAS stated the United States has been Cuba’s largest supplier of food and agricultural products since 2002. FAS also concluded that Cuba has consistently ranked among the top 10 export 

markets for U.S. soybean oil, dried peas, lentils, dried beans, rice, 

powdered milk and poultry meat. A 2007 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission concluded that the U.S. share of Cuba’s 

agricultural fish and forest imports would rise from 1⁄3 to between 1⁄2 and 2⁄3 if all trade restrictions with Cuba were lifted. Given the 

clear impact it would have on exports and on farmers, do you support the lifting of the embargo as part of your export initiative? 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, your question is a very timely 

one and important one. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Peterson—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Just submitted a bill which I read earlier this 

morning. And it emphasizes the complexity of the discussions about 

trade because oftentimes it is not just simply about a trading relationship, it is about a more complex relationship which I think is 

certainly true in Cuba. We are obviously interested in working with 

the Congress, working with other administration departments to 

increase trade in Cuba and increase trade around the world. But 

we want to do it consistent with our values and consistent with 

what other priorities we may have in other areas of the government, whether it is a national security priority or whether it is a 

foreign policy priority. So I think it is important and necessary for 

us to have consistency here. And we were happy to work with the 

current conditions. We were pleased that the Treasury Department 

made it a little bit easier for folks who wanted to export to Cuba 

by not requiring cash before the shipment left but doing it similar 

to the way other exporters are currently treated in terms of providing cash at least at the time before title is transferred. That 

made sense. We are happy to work with folks. But trade is extraordinarily complicated, and sometimes what seems to be a relatively 

simple thing, just because there are other issues involved, becomes 

quite a complex thing. 

[The information follows:] 

Below is the URL address to the USTR 2009 National Trade Estimate Report on 

Foreign Trade Barriers. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/2009/2009-national-trade-estimate-report-foreign-trad 

Ms. DELAURO. I understand the other issues involved, and I understand the complexity of trade when one would like to know 

those countries that we are having difficulty trading with today 

and why we are having difficulty with that. And the other piece of 

this is if the end goal is consistency, I would just say to you that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
71 

our trade policy with regard to Cuba is about the least consistent 

for trade and national security or diplomacy or anything that we 

have embarked on in a very long time. If we wanted to deal with 

consistency, it would just seem to me that there would be a real 

necessity for review of our entire trading policy and I will leave it 

at that, Mr. Secretary. Ms. Emerson. 

Ms. EMERSON. Thank you. Sorry I am late, but I am ranking on 

another committee, and we were having the IRS Commissioner and 

I did not want to stand him up today. 

ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION

But anyway, thank you, and I would like to associate my first 

comments with the Chairperson’s. But I want to talk to you a little 

bit about animal traceability, Mr. Secretary, and I really do have 

to congratulate you and the Department for getting out into the 

field and really listening to the producers. I think that has been 

very, very helpful, and I also appreciate the fact that the Department has recognized, and if I might quote, a vast majority of participants were highly critical of the NAIS program and certainly 

the $100 million plus that we have spent on the program, not to 

really have anything, is problematic. But that did not start with 

you, so we will leave it at that. 

But I think in just listening to comments of producers since last 

week when, or was it the week before, that you all announced 

changes in the program, I am concerned to some extent that you 

responded more to the public relations problem, perhaps not really 

addressing the underlying discontent of producers. 

My producers are just so concerned about mandatory traceability 

system, whatever the name of it is, and they are concerned about 

the reporting requirements. They are concerned about the recordkeeping. They are concerned about civil and criminal liabilities and 

there are concerns probably more than anything to what they perceive is an underlying threat to their privacy. And changing the 

name from NAIS and requiring the states to enforce rules written 

in Washington, D.C., is not going to change their concerns. So I 

hope that you will recognize that and work directly to address 

them. 

ANIMAL DISEASE TRACEABILITY

In the meantime, as a representative from a state that is very 

hostile to NAIS in any form whatsoever, we have many, many, 

many, cow-calf operations. I think we are third in the country, but 

we have very few feedlots. So there are a lot of interstate sales. 

And because of that, could not this, number one, be considered a 

mandatory requirement for our producers or operators in Missouri? 

And secondly, what would be USDA’s reaction or response to a 

state which refuses? And I mean, seriously refuses by statute to 

implement a traceability system at all. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think first and foremost, it is important to understand why we need this, which is if there is a disease 

outbreak. The ability to determine where it is and to confine it is 

certainly not just beneficial to that producer but it is beneficial to 

the entire market. And every producer in your State of Missouri 

could potentially be negatively impacted if we do not have a system 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
72 

in place that would allow us to focus on disease traceability that 

allows us to get to the heart of the matter, which is how do we 

identify and react and respond to a disease outbreak. What we 

were interested in is having a system that works far better than 

the one we had. When only 35 percent of producers are participating on the cattle side, it is fairly clear that this is not a system 

that is going to be particularly helpful in that ultimate goal, which 

is to be able to identify a disease outbreak and be able to contain 

it. 

And I think as people recognize that what we are proposing is 

first and foremost, a limitation on what livestock are impacted as 

you mentioned, that is part of the reaction to the concerns that 

were expressed, that if I am just producing something for my 

neighbor or myself, I should not have to do this. We understood 

that. 

CREATING A NEW ANIMAL ID SYSTEM

We also understand that we want to work with the states to create a system the states are satisfied with and happy with. We want 

to engage them in responding to a number of the questions. So for 

example, we do not foresee that the Federal Government will be 

the data collector. We do not see that that is necessarily something 

that is our role. We think the data could be maintained in the respective states. We do not think we should be the arbitrator of 

what technology works because different states have different requirements or different states feel different technologies would be 

more appropriate or less appropriate. Our view is that there are 

probably some very significant low-cost technologies that would 

work just fine to allow us to do what we need to do with this system. We think that there needs to be a conversation on liability, 

but we recognize that the states are going to have some input on 

that, and we did not want to prejudge what that input would be. 

So what we committed to was a comment that we are going to take 

that old system and put it aside, we are going to put a new system 

in place, but we are going to have partnerships with states. My 

hope would be, and I am not trying to avoid your question, but my 

hope would be that we would not have a state, after all is said and 

done and after this is all fleshed out, that would say we are just 

simply not going to do this, because they would recognize that it 

is in their best interest to be able to have some capacity to identify 

at least what state a disease outbreak may have occurred in that 

would allow us to contain it, allow us to respond to it and allow 

us to make sure that it does not harm the market any further than 

it might. And that is really what this is about. In some livestock 

operations this is not an issue. In pork and poultry, I think there 

is a greater acceptance, but in the cattle industry there was not 

and we need to figure out how to do a better job. 

Ms. EMERSON. I mean, I hear what you are saying but I do hope 

that you all will be prepared to figure out what is going to happen 

should a state really decide not to do this. I mean, just to be realistic, I think it is quite possible that it could happen. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, you are from the Show Me State, and 

I appreciate that. 

Ms. EMERSON. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
73 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr. 

CALIFORNIA’S PLANT PESTS ERADICATION

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, I am sure 

your—complimenting you on your choice of Chief of Staff, Karen 

Ross—would be very interested in my question here because I understand that the European grape vine moth, a serious pest for 

grapes, has been found for the first time in the United States in 

Napa Valley in California, and I just wondered what the Department’s plans were to deal with this new threat to California table, 

raisin and wine grape industry and what funding resources might 

be committed to help with the efforts at the state and local levels 

to eradicate this? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I am prepared to talk about 

citrus greening and emerald ash borer and a variety of other—— 

Mr. FARR. Light brown apple moth. 

Secretary VILSACK. Light brown apple moth. I can talk about 

that. And we have resources dedicated. I will have to ask permission to get back to you on that specific set of issues. But I think 

your question underscores an important role that USDA has, an 

important role research has in terms of identifying these problems 

and trying to figure out strategies that will work before they become very significant, and the ones that we have mentioned have 

become very significant and we are putting significant resources 

behind trying to eradicate or contain—— 

Mr. FARR. I appreciate what you are doing with light brown 

apple moth. Ground zero is my district, and we have a breeding lab 

set up there now. Hopefully your plan, which I think is much better than the state plan, will be implemented. 

[The information follows:] 

APHIS has been working with the California Department of Food and Agriculture 

to develop a delimiting survey for areas where the pest has already been detected 

as well as a State-wide detection survey. Once the surveys are complete, APHIS and 

California cooperators will determine what additional actions are needed. APHIS is 

still exploring funding options to conduct the surveys. 

CALIFORNIA’S CUT FLOWER INDUSTRY

Let me ask you another. I represent most of the cut flower growers. I got all these issues in my district. Twenty percent of the flowers sold in the United States are still grown in California and 

about 110,000 jobs. What we have been trying to do is to set up 

a logistics center to bring all the flowers locally to one transportation hub and allow—because the Colombians which we have indirectly helped with the—I mean, I was a Peace Corps volunteer in 

Latin America and in Colombia, and I certainly want to help Colombia have an alternative to the drugs, but I think we made it 

awfully easy for them not having any tariffs and so on to sort of 

take over our flower industry in this country and trying to put it 

back together by creating this shipping center. And I really appreciate Deputy Secretary Merrigan because I know she has been 

working with the industry to find resources at the agency to fund 

this center, and it censors the center to be run by the State Charter Commission, the California Cut Flower Commission, and would 

make sales of their flowers more competitive across the country. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
74 

And they are asking for a one-time $15 million grant to make this 

transition for the industry feasible. Are we capable of doing that? 

Can you update us on what might be the progress of this request 

for the California cut flower industry? 

Secretary VILSACK. With your permission, I will have the Deputy 

Secretary, since she has been working on this, respond to that. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. 

Ms. MERRIGAN. Mr. Vilsack and I are deeply interested in the 

flower industry. 

Mr. FARR. Did the light go on? 

Ms. MERRIGAN. There we go. I was just joking. I said Mr. Vilsack 

and I are deeply interested in the flower industry, so of course we 

are working on this. I have recently had an opportunity to talk to 

leadership in the cut flower industry. There is very little domestic 

industry left as your comment underscores. It is a struggling industry—— 

Mr. FARR. Twenty percent of the market. 

Ms. MERRIGAN [continuing]. With a variety of problems. 

Mr. FARR. It is not bad. It was 100 percent. 

Ms. MERRIGAN. Yeah, so I think there are multiple challenges, 

and we have just begun the conversation and we really do look forward to finding a pathway for that industry to survive and hopefully build in the coming years. In terms of the particulars on this 

grant, we have not come to any resolution, but the conversations 

have begun, sir. 

Mr. FARR. So how long does that usually take before you decide 

whether to assist with grant monies? Is that a long time? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, part of the challenge is to 

make sure that we find the right program in terms of the requirements and restrictions that Congress may have placed on the distribution of resources. And that may have a lot to do with location, 

may have a lot to do with which program would work and whether 

or not we can figure out a way in which either our resources or perhaps other resources could be made available. I would say that we 

do take this area very seriously. In fact, ironically, my next event 

after this is to talk to the Garden Club of America that is meeting 

here in the Capitol several hundred strong from around the country. So we understand and appreciate the importance and significance of this and of this industry to your district and to the country, and obviously as we look at rural development, as we look at 

new employment opportunities we ought to be looking for ways in 

which we can provide resources to have a business that would 

make sense who is going to employ people. We ought to figure out 

a way to help. Now, what that is and how much it is, obviously we 

still have to work on it. 

Mr. FARR. It is a really interesting comment, the largest rose 

grower in the United States is in my district, put out of business 

by the Colombians. He is now the world’s largest orchid grower 

growing Colombian orchids, and nobody can put him out of business because he is the only person in the geographical region that 

can send to the Asian market and the U.S. market. So you know, 

you just get smarter in the United States. We can beat people at 

this trade game. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Latham. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
75 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Mr. Farr. I will 

match you soybean for soybean, okay? 

Mr. FARR. You can have them all. 

Mr. LATHAM. Now come on. More corn than you have. 

Mr. FARR. We do not have any subsidies. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, do you want me to come to 

your aid here? I would be happy to. 

ARTHROPOD-BORNE ANIMAL DISEASE LAB

Mr. LATHAM. Please, Mr. Secretary. One thing of interest in my 

district certainly, that the Arthropod-Borne Animal Disease Lab 

from Laramie is moving. The ARS wanted it to go to Ames, and 

it is going to Kansas, apparently. Do you have any update where 

we are on that move or what the situation is? Is there cooperation 

going to happen with the Animal Health Center there at Ames 

with this facility or any kind of update? 

Secretary VILSACK. There is currently an evaluation taking place 

of the Kansas location. A consultant has been hired to take—— 

Mr. LATHAM. You would agree it should be in Ames? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would be happy to visit with Senator Roberts, and the three of us can work together on this. 

[The information follows:] 

The relocation of the ARS Arthropod Borne Animal Disease Research Laboratory 

(ABADRL) from Laramie, Wyoming to Manhattan, Kansas has already begun. Sixteen permanent employees have accepted relocation packages. Two employees have 

already been relocated; another two employees will relocate to Manhattan by the 

end of March 2010, and the remainder of the employees will relocated by June 2010. 

Construction contracts have been awarded for a new insectary in Manhattan and 

for moving the tissue culture laboratory from Laramie to Manhattan. Both tasks are 

scheduled to be completed by May 31, 2010. Laboratory and office space have been 

identified for the ABADRL employees in the ARS Center for Grain and Animal 

Health Research Laboratory in Manhattan. Laboratory renovations to accommodate 

ABADRL in Manhattan are in the planning stages and the contract is expected to 

be awarded by March 19, 2010 with a May 31, 2010 completion date. Several offices 

on the University of Wyoming campus have been vacated and returned to the University of Wyoming and the first two laboratories will be vacated by the end of 

March 2010 and returned to the University. Cooperative research has been planned 

between ABADRL scientists and Kansas State University (KSU) scientists, collaborative grants co-written and plans for the use of KSU research laboratory space by 

the ABADRL scientists. 

The ABADRL and the National Animal Disease Center (NADC), Ames, Iowa work 

on different animal diseases, and therefore, the expected interactions between the 

two laboratories will be limited. The ABADRL program conducts research on animal 

diseases that are vectored by insects (Rift Valley Fever, Bluetongue, and Vesicular 

Stomatitis) while NADC conducts research on many non-vectored, domestic animal 

diseases. NADC lacks an entomology program that is needed to work with the insect 

vectored diseases. Both programs, however, are broadly coordinated by the same 

ARS national program leaders, and there will be commonly shared disciplinary expertise and ongoing technical consultation among the two groups. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. I do know that there has been a consultant 

hired to take a look at the challenges and safety requirements that 

this facility would require. I will tell you that if there is not an intent between folks to have close cooperation, there should be. There 

should be an ongoing conversation and far better communications 

than perhaps there have been in the past. 

Ms. DELAURO. There are three votes coming up. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
76 

BIOFUELS/BIOENERGY INDUSTRY

Mr. LATHAM. Going back to the biofuels industry, I think we are 

sending some mixed messages. There was a Spanish company a 

couple years ago that from the Department of Energy got a $70 

million grant to build an ethanol plant in the United States and 

there are other foreign companies that have invested in my district, 

one particular plant of about $100 million, and they do not qualify 

for or are not able to participate in the Bioenergy Program. And 

I know there are rules being written right now at OMB. I do not 

know if you have any comment on that, but I think, you know, 

want investment in the United States. We want to create jobs here. 

We want to improve our economy. The biofuels industry is obviously very important for us. Could you add any comment on that? 

We are sending really mixed messages here. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think that is one of the reasons why the 

President asked a number of Cabinet secretaries and administrators to put together a biofuels task force report that lays out a 

much more cohesive and strategic vision for this industry. And we 

have done that. What we have found from our review is that there 

were overlapping and inconsistencies in terms of decision-making, 

who was going to do what. We now have laid out an understanding 

that this is an industry that we think has regional potential. In 

other words, this is not just simply going to be located in one part 

of the country. We really want it to be located in all parts of the 

country because we have a fairly high threshold we have set for 

ourselves, 36 billion gallons. We think that there are multiple ways 

to produce biofuels and that there is room for everyone’s way, so 

to speak, to create job opportunities in this industry and create an 

industry that allows us to have greater energy independence. We 

also think it is important to distinguish between what USDA ought 

to be doing and what the Department of Energy ought to be doing. 

BIOFUELS/BIOENERGY INVESTMENTS

What we found was that we had conflicting research challenges. 

We were both focused on feedstocks, and the Department of Energy 

probably has greater competency and efficiencies and conversion 

technology, and we have probably better focus on feed stock development, so we ought to be just focused on that, our core competency, and they ought to be focused on their core competency. We 

ought to be focused on things that can be implemented within the 

next 10 years. They ought to be focusing on things that have probably got a horizon far beyond 10 years. And so we have a division 

of responsibility. And we also felt the necessity of setting up 

timelines working back from the 36 billion gallon goal so that we 

could measure whether or not we were making success or not. So 

we are in the process of putting that task force together. 

I would also say that it is important for people to recognize that 

it is not just the Energy Title of the 2008 Farm Bill that provides 

resources for these facilities. There is also the possibility of using 

some of our traditional rural development programs, this regional 

development concept I talked earlier. 

Mr. LATHAM. My point though is that if it is a foreign investment, they are not eligible for that. Now, they would be, if the CCC 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
77 

funds are being used, where there is no restriction, but they are 

tying this into rural development where we are discriminated 

against investment in the United States just because this comes 

from a foreign source, and it is huge. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there is huge potential, and again, I 

think we can be creative and innovative to find other alternatives 

or other ways so that we basically create enough resources so the 

capital needs of this which is very, as you know, highly intensive, 

are met. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. We have three votes. I am going to 

try to get Mr. Davis in to move quickly and Ms. Emerson before 

we go to vote, and then we will come back. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I will be kind of 

brief. That is difficult for folks to do at this table. 

Ms. DELAURO. Question first, Mr. Davis. 

GRASS-FED BEEF FROM TENNESSEE

Mr. DAVIS. Question first? Okay. There are two issues, grass-fed 

beef in my district, whether or not it can be processed in Tennessee 

and shipped outside the state. Today it currently cannot be. The 

new Farm Bill that we just passed would authorize some ways 

maybe where that could possibly happen. I look forward to working 

with you maybe to help expedite that process. The reason being, 

there are no substitutes, very little, for any type of beef, but there 

are for commodity products that is being used to feed ours. 

FOOD SAFETY PROCESSING EQUIVALENCY

The second question that I wanted to ask about, comments have 

been made about re-importing poultry or importing processed food 

products into this country. I have become more and more aware as 

I go to the grocery store and look every time that I buy an item, 

the country of origin that that food originated. Are you comfortable 

that as we see poultry either processed in another country, grown 

in another country, are you comfortable that we have the same 

standard of inspecting that food as we do here in the United 

States? There are at least three poultry processing facilities in the 

area that I represent. They go through very rigid inspection by 

USDA on-site inspectors. I am concerned that as we see corporate 

America whose good name was built by the American producer, the 

American worker, the American consumer being willing to put 

their label on anything that comes into this country for a price. 

And my fear is that the patriotism of corporate America is not the 

same as our fighting men and women on the battlefields. Do you 

have a comfort zone that in countries that may be 1,000, 2,000, 

3,000 years old that the food that is being shipped here is as safe 

as what we are producing and processing here in the United 

States? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I am comfortable that the 

mandate from this Congress and from every Congress has been 

quite clear to the food safety folks that there needs to be equivalency in terms of processing. And if there is not equivalency, there 

should not be processed product coming into this country. Especially in light of recent concerns, we are I think more acutely aware 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
78 

of the need to make sure that we are doing a better job every day 

on equivalency in food safety. 

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING

As it relates to labeling, you know, I appreciate the fact that you 

are like a lot of American consumers. I think consumers are interested in knowing where their food comes from and appreciate the 

capacity to know that. And that is one of the reasons why we are 

focused on making sure that we are implementing the COOL program as I think it was intended by Congress. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mrs. Emerson. 

RURAL ELECTRIC LOAN PROGRAM BUDGET CUTS

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, the RUS Electric Loan 

program has, as you well know, helped rural electric cooperatives 

deliver portable electricity to homes across the country, and for the 

rural electric co-ops that depend on RUS programs, the average 

household income in their service territories is on average about 14 

percent below the national income level, and I can attest to that 

having a district that is more covered by rural electric co-ops than 

by the investor in utilities. And so this program has been tremendous, and it has really kept costs down for working Americans during this tough economic time. Obviously you can know where I am 

going with this. I am not happy with the budget cuts of $2.5 billion 

for the program, and I think what is equally troubling is that it 

prevents RUS lending for peaking natural gas plants as well as environmental upgrades to existing power plants. And I think that 

those cuts kind of contradict the President’s goals of investing in 

cleaner energy. 

So can you answer this question for me? How does reducing the 

electric loan program either advance the Administration’s energy 

goals or save taxpayers money, particularly when the program has 

a negative subsidy rate and brings funds into the Treasury? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there are other opportunities that we 

have within RUS to provide assistance and help to the industry, 

and I think part of what we need to be doing is to determine 

whether or not we can look at those other alternatives. For example, I know the industry has approached us on a number of occasions to take a look at the fact that when a loan is made some time 

ago, that there has been appreciation in the value of the assets of 

a particular Rural Electric Co-op. And because of our lien position, 

they are prevented from utilizing that increased value in equity. It 

is conceivable that we might be able to work with the industry to 

figure out ways in which we can protect our loan position but perhaps be a bit more flexible than we have been relative to that increased value, which will give them the capacity to expand. I think 

the President has been quite clear in his intent to promote renewable energy sources, and we wanted to be consistent with his intent 

and what we have essentially indicated to the rest of the world we 

are going to do, which is to focus on renewable resources. And we 

think that there are ways in which we can balance the need for 

supporting traditional approaches and also jumpstarting non-traditional renewable energy technologies. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
79 

Mrs. EMERSON. And I understand that and I appreciate it, and 

you know, coming from an ag district, I greatly embrace that idea. 

But I do think that we should have our options and have the technology in place to actually replace one with the other before we pull 

the rug out on an existing system. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, you know, I have actually been in a facility in Missouri that is basically creating energy from agricultural 

waste. And so I think the technologies are there. I think we need 

to ramp them up, and I think that is what we are trying to do. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, I am not in disagreement with that, but I 

still think we have to do both until we are comfortable with getting 

the cost down for the new piece, and I do not think you would disagree with that. 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not disagree. It is just a question of 

whether we can be more flexible and innovative so we can do both. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Secretary, we are going to just recess and get 

back here. I know Mr. Kingston is coming back, I am coming back, 

and we will do that as soon as we can. There are three votes. The 

last two votes are 5 minutes. So we should be back shortly. 

Thanks. 

[Recess.] 

NATIONAL ANIMAL ID PROGRAM

Ms. DELAURO. I talked to Mr. Kingston’s staff, and we can proceed. He will be here shortly so let me move through some questions, Mr. Secretary. The National Animal Identification Program, 

and I listened to your exchange with Mrs. Emerson. As you know, 

the Congress appropriated $147 million for the program. We still 

do not have a workable system but it has been clear to me for a 

while that the program is not working, and we need to make significant changes. You recently proposed a major change in the program. Quite frankly, in light of that I was surprised that there was 

no mention of animal ID in the written testimony. 

The new framework which you announced envisions a 

traceability program that would be owned, led, and administered 

by the states, as I understand it. I have several questions about the 

framework and how this will be implemented. What is the effective 

date of the requirement that all animals moving in interstate commerce be identified? 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, we are scheduling a meeting 

to begin the process with the states in March, next month, and I 

will probably be in a much better position to tell you how prepared 

and over what time period it will take states to be prepared to do 

that following that meeting and would ask permission to get back 

to you with specifics after that meeting. I think it is important to 

emphasize that we have put together a very skeleton proposal here 

because we think our partners need to be engaged in helping craft 

it. One of the problems in the past was the perception that this 

was a top down, dictated kind of situation which did not garner a 

lot of support from the grass roots, and if this is going to work we 

have to have support in the grass roots. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
80 

ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION ENFORCEMENT

Ms. DELAURO. How and by whom will this requirement be enforced? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are going to work with—USDA has a responsibility obviously to work with our partners, and our expectation is that we are going to come to an agreement with the state 

ag commissioners and secretaries on precisely how this is going to 

operate, and that there will be an understanding of who has got 

responsibilities. I will say that we envision that the states will 

have access to the information because there are serious confidentiality issues that have been raised and privacy issues. We perceive 

that the states will apply this only to interstate. 

Ms. DELAURO. But if you are going across state lines, who has 

the jurisdiction to enforce all this? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is essentially what is going to be 

worked out. What I suspect will happen is in a number of regions 

of the country, there is going to be a regional approach. It is not 

just necessarily going to be state-by-state but there are going to be 

groups of states that will probably agree based on the nature of the 

livestock that they have that a system in each state will be somewhat consistent. 

Ms. DELAURO. What are the penalties for violations? These are 

going to be worked out? Let me just ask this. Is 48-hour trace back 

still the target? 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not think it is necessarily tied to a 48- 

hour number. I think it is important for us to figure out. There has 

been a 72-hour discussion, there has been a 24-hour discussion. I 

think what we are trying to figure out is what is actually doable 

and what is appropriate under particular livestock circumstances. 

We have a pretty good program with sheep, a pretty good program 

with poultry, a pretty good program with pork. I do not think this 

is necessarily going to change much of that. I think the cattle is 

where we are going to be focusing a lot of our time and attention 

and resources. 

Ms. DELAURO. So are you telling me that in terms of if you got 

a cow that crosses a state line without any identification, that is 

the kind of thing you are going to be talking about in March. With 

an ID what happens? We do not have any idea about that at the 

moment? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is correct. And what technology will be 

used to identify that cow. We want a cooperative partnership here, 

which we did not have under the current system. We spent $130 

million, $140 million, and I cannot tell you today that we have a 

system that works. I can tell you that there are components of it 

that will probably be applied so that the entire amount of money 

was not wasted, but today I want to preserve the right of the states 

to allow us to jointly form a program that will work. That is what 

we heard from the 15 different listening sessions that we had 

throughout the country. 

COST OF THE ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

Ms. DELAURO. What costs do you expect the Federal Government 

to carry? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
81 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think the cost of technology, once we 

determine what the appropriate technologies are, I would assume 

that the government, the Federal government, we have indicated 

to states that we want to, and we should, pick up the cost of the 

technology, and we believe there is some low cost technology strategies that would be effective to provide us to trace back to the 

states, and then the states can determine whether or not they want 

any more detailed trace back within their jurisdiction. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am going to make a couple comments to you, Mr. Secretary. It is $147 million that we have spent on this program. There is a request now, I guess, for 14.3, which is about 9 

beyond what we did last year, 14.2, 14.3. I must be honest with 

you, I do not understand how we are going to have a system based 

on more than 50 state tribal system, state system, et cetera, how 

it is going to work. I do not believe it is going to work. I have a 

list here of international cattle ID and traceability programs, mandatory programs, Argentina, Australia, Canada, EU, Japan, South 

Korea, Uruguay, all these people started, Argentina, 2007, Australia, 2002, Japan, 2003, South Korea, 2004, Uruguay, 2006. 

United States of America cannot figure this out. 

And I am going to be very clear with you on this as I have in 

the past. I want to wait to see what this system is all about before 

we take $14.3 million and add it to this process. I have an article 

here, and I am sure you have seen the article where U.S. weighs 

how to track diseased livestock. Let me make something of a conclusion here. It cannot work, it cannot work. We will not have it. 

I fought long and hard on this issue. I have given every opportunity, provided—this committee has provided resources through 

this. If we cannot do it, well, then we will not do it. We will not 

spend good money after bad. And then we will take our chances on 

the international market. I do not have a dog in the hunt in Connecticut, and essentially that is what these folks are saying, their 

product will be suspect. Ultimately, that is not going to be my decision. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, we think this system can 

work, and I am not going to accept responsibility for what has 

taken place prior to my being in this office. We went out and we 

listened very carefully to the people who are impacted by this decision. Thirty-five percent, 36 percent of cattle producers were participating in the program. That in any measure is not a successful 

program. The Congress decided it had lost confidence in the program, and we felt it was appropriate and necessary to figure out 

a different way. I will tell you that our goal is to have a system, 

have a system in which the states and the Federal government cooperate, in which there is greater acceptance by the cattle industry, 

and that we utilize the most efficient and effective cost mechanisms 

for allowing us to have the traceability we need to be able to contain animal disease and to be able to assure our trading partners 

of what I am confident, which is that we have a safe and quality 

product, and we are going to work hard to make that happen. 

Ms. DELAURO. I believe you will work hard. I am going to work 

very hard to make sure that I understand what it is and until we 

have truly information that says this is moving forward—my Committee can vote in any way they want. I know I will not be for anVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
82 

other $14.3 million. I just will not do it. That is a waste of money. 

We are talking about cutting costs. Let’s figure out how to do it. 

All these other countries have figured out how to do it. We ought 

to be able to do it. Let me move to women farmers, and I applaud 

the work that you all have done with the Pigford case and African 

American farmers. 

PARITY FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MINORITY FARMERS

It is my understanding that last week on behalf of USDA the Department of Justice attorneys met with lawyers for the Hispanic, 

Native American, and women farmers, who are looking to settle 

thousands of pending claims that are again related to historical 

discriminatory practices. They are very similar, if not identical, to 

those in the Pigford case, as I understand it. The DOJ indicated 

on February 18 that it had wrapped up the second Pigford settlement, which will total about $2.2 billion and DOJ expressed an interest in settling with the other three groups at parity. As you 

know, I have introduced legislation that is designed to compensate 

women farmers for the discrimination they suffered at the hands 

of various USDA offices. 

The statistics for women are egregious. And I want to ask you, 

do you think it makes sense to compensate all of the discriminated 

groups, Hispanics, Native Americans, in addition to women and African Americans and to include all that in the same bill so that we 

can make sure that there is in fact parity? 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, as you know, the settlement 

with the Pigford II plaintiffs has a fairly tight time line, a March 

31 time line, and we certainly hope that Congress would work with 

us to make sure that that time line is met. I think there are some 

differences with reference to the other cases. And let me be clear, 

it is our goal and our intent to get this chapter, these series of 

chapters, closed in USDA history, but because of the fact that several of these cases have not been certified in the same way the 

Pigford case was, and in light of the fact that there is sort of a 

precedent for how we approach Pigford, which is not necessarily 

what anyone has agreed to in the other cases, it is going to be necessary for there to be discussion and deliberation between the 

plaintiffs’ lawyers and the Department of Justice on amounts and/ 

or a process, and that is not as mature as it was in Pigford. 

So I am a little concerned about basically saying that it is, you 

know, one piece of legislation because I am not sure that that can 

get done. I would like to think it could get done. 

Ms. DELAURO. What I would like to ask is if you will help us to 

get that done because then we can move forward and be done with 

what is an ignominious chapter in our history, and I understand 

what you are saying, but if we can work cooperatively to get this 

done. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think that you either need an amount 

or a process. What you did with Pigford is you put an amount on 

the table in the first Pigford, which led ultimately to a resolution. 

But, frankly—— 

Ms. DELAURO. We have a process in terms of the legislation and 

amount. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
83 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. And we have not had that in the other 

cases, and we either need an amount or a process or an agreement 

between the parties as to an amount of a process, and we are 

happy to work with whoever is willing to get to either an amount 

or a process or both. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes. Is that for women and Hispanics? 

Secretary VILSACK. It is for all—— 

Ms. DELAURO. It is women, Hispanics, and Native Americans, 

and their claims have not been recognized. They have not been allocated for class action so that is why we are working with the Justice Department. 

Secretary VILSACK. Some of them have and some of them have 

not. But let me just say a very clear statement. This is a lot harder 

than it ought to be. 

Ms. DELAURO. Agreed. Agreed. 

Secretary VILSACK. It is a lot harder than it ought to be. 

SOUTH KOREAN TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Secretary, when do you think the Administration is going to move on the South Korean trade agreement? The 

President mentioned it, I believe, in the State of the Union address, 

and you had talked about the need to expand our exports, and that 

is, of course, a very valuable ally in the Pacific rim. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I think the intent of the President, as he expressed in the State of the Union address, is to move 

as aggressively as possible on both Korea, Panama and Columbia, 

as well as on the trans-Pacific efforts. We need to be focused on bilateral and multi-lateral trade opportunities, and we frankly need 

to be—within USDA we need to be very focused on breaking down 

barriers. The Chairwoman asked for examples of countries. We are 

in the process of dealing with Russia on poultry and pork and it 

has been a process where we need to really break down those barriers and basically respond to questions that are raised, either sanitary or applied to sanitary issues. It needs to be an aggressive effort on all fronts. 

Mr. KINGSTON. If you had to put a time line on it though, do you 

think they would move forward on it say within 6 months or 12 

months? 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not want to speak for the President or 

Ron Kirk, the U.S. Trade Representative. From our perspective, we 

recognize the sooner it is done the better because obviously agriculture benefits with these trade agreements, and certainly the Colombia and Panama trade agreement in particular, we can pretty 

much quantify the benefits. Korea is a little bit more problematic 

because it depends on the commodity that you are dealing with. We 

may have some issues relative to rice, for example, that may make 

that a little bit more complex. 

SNAP ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Mr. KINGSTON. On SNAP, you want to continue to waive the able 

bodied person requirement for eligibility, and, you know, that was 

a hard fought part of welfare reform. Welfare reform in general 

was very difficult to get passed. Lots of naysayers, lots of the sky 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
84 

is falling kind of mentality but during that period of time 14 million people were on welfare, and it went down to 5 million people, 

a reflection also of a good economy, but it was a successful program. And what I see over and over again in the ag bill is that we 

just chip away at it bit by bit to the degree that it is always well 

intended but then it always gets abused. And I am concerned about 

the message that we are sending on that, so just your comment. 

Secretary VILSACK. We think a limited extension is appropriate 

given the fact that we are still dealing with a fairly high unemployment level, and many of those who are unemployed are able bodied 

individuals who are looking for work. I would also say that we distinguish this, at least in my mind I distinguish it, from some of the 

other assistance programs in that this is a direct economic stimulus. I think a lot of times of people do not recognize or appreciate 

the stimulus impact and the effect that these provisions in this program has. We have been able to pretty well document that for 

every dollar that you invest in this program there is a $1.84 of economic activity. 

It just stands to reason if people are in a position to purchase 

appropriate numbers of groceries those groceries have to be 

stocked, they have to be trucked, they have to be processed, they 

have to be produced. Someone is retaining a job or getting a job because of that. And so we see this a little bit differently. We recognize we are not asking for a permanent change in the rule. We are 

simply asking for an extension of it so long as we are dealing with 

a weak employment circumstance and situation. We believe it is 

going to get better. We think it will get better. We hope to see improvements during the course of this year but it is still fairly obvious we’ve got a 10 percent unemployment rate, and we need to respond to that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. At what unemployment rate would you consider 

the time to drop that waiver? 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not have a specific answer to that question today. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I am just wondering if we should address what 

you are talking about through a trigger and just say, okay, when 

the unemployment gets down to whatever. 

Secretary VILSACK. We would be happy to visit with you about 

that. 

[The information follows:] 

The time limit on SNAP participation was enacted when the unemployment rate 

was under 6 percent. I understand that it was enacted largely to achieve budget 

savings and I am not convinced it is a welfare reform measure. With the reauthorization of this program coming up in 2 years, we need to review the appropriateness 

of a time limit and the full range of options for enhancing the self-sufficiency of 

SNAP participants. 

Under current law, States can assign able-bodied recipients to employment and 

training activities. I think this makes the most sense: Improving the employability 

of people so that they’ll be better positioned to find jobs as our economy improves. 

SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

Mr. KINGSTON. Also, on the School Lunch Program and many of 

these other type programs, I am a philosophical believer that people should pay something, whether it is a child paying a nickel or 

15 cents or a quarter or whatever, I think culturally we need to get 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
85 

into the mindset that there is no such thing as a free lunch. And 

with the national debt that we are looking at, with Medicare going 

broke, Medicaid having problems, it would appear to me that it 

would be in our national interest to instill a culture that you need 

to do something, and obviously collecting a nickel for a school lunch 

is not cost efficient but that is not—on a micro-school, school level 

it would not really be the objective. The objective would be nationally to try to get into people’s mindset that things are not free. 

CREATING SCHOOL GARDENS

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, with due respect, I have a little trouble with that concept as it relates to children. I think there 

are ways in which we can instill in youngsters an understanding 

of nothing is free. For example, we are encouraging schools to focus 

on gardening and creating school gardens and having the youngsters tend those gardens and then using the produce from those 

gardens in the School Lunch Program. This is an educational opportunity. It is a physical activity opportunity. It is consistent with 

the First Lady’s Let’s Move Initiative. We see that as perhaps a 

more effective way of sending the message about—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, that would fall in line with my philosophy 

as well. How many schools have that program? What percentage is 

that, a very small percentage or is that actually something that is 

trying to be done on a serious basis? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would not be able to tell you with accuracy 

how many schools or what percentage but I can tell you 

anecdotally, from my travels around the country, that there are a 

number of schools that have embraced this notion and are learning 

about, Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food efforts to try to help 

the People’s Garden Initiative. I can tell you that we started our 

own little garden at USDA that spawned 125 locations across the 

country. We have seen a substantial increase in gardening generally as a result of the First Lady’s garden. I think I saw one statistic, 30,000 more gardens. We have seen the seed companies 

doing a much more robust business because of the expansion of 

gardens, so I think this is something that is a fairly significant 

movement that is taking place in the country, sort of a return, if 

you will, to the way we used to be. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department does not collect information on the number of schools that have 

school gardens. However, we join you in supporting school garden efforts through 

USDA grant programs, and through our new Know Your Farmer Know Your Food 

initiative. Farm-to-school encompasses many types of programs and school experiences such as planting and tending school gardens, educating children about nutrition, and of course, purchasing fresh, locally-grown farm products. 

SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

And the second thing I would say about the School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program is remember the genesis of it. 

The genesis of it was in 1946 when there was deep concern about 

whether we would have enough able-bodied people to do what 

needed to be done to defend this country. Now you’ve got retired 

generals and admirals basically expressing the same legitimate 

concern. Seventy-five percent of our kids today are not physically 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
86 

fit for military service. That is an issue that I think all of us ought 

to be concerned about, not to mention—not to bring up a sore spot, 

not to mention health care issues. If we think we’ve got problems 

today, a generation of—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. I am not debating that aspect. I would say culturally, for example, somebody like you who has had a very successful legal career, been a governor and doing a great job as secretary, did you have an allowance when you were a child? 

Secretary VILSACK. I did, but my wife did not. We talked about 

that yesterday. And she has a better job of maintaining—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Did you have household chores, for example? 

Secretary VILSACK. I had to pick up the papers around my house. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The reason why I ask that, I often ask people 

that question, did you have work to do around the house, chores, 

and most people over the age of 30 would say yes and then the next 

question is did you get something out of it? And 100 percent say, 

you know, actually I did. It was helpful. And when you say you do 

not want to have a child pay for something, I am not sure what 

age would be appropriate, but I do know that you can start a child 

on the right path at a very young age and instill a work ethic that 

is important. 

Secretary VILSACK. I would not want to discourage—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. I know I am rubbing fingernails on a blackboard 

at this point. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS PARTICIPATION

Secretary VILSACK. I would not want to discourage participation 

in the program. That is another concern. And it is already difficult 

enough to get parents engaged in this, which is why we have—we 

have seen a disturbing trend, the SNAP program increasing significantly, not necessarily seeing the same level of increase in our 

School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Part of it may be 

that the application system is complicated. It does not get home. 

It does not get filled out right. We are actually looking for ways, 

at least as it relates to this program, where we are ensured that 

every youngster who needs help is getting the help. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I would also say, and I know I am way out 

of time and this is a good philosophical discussion for us, food 

stamps is at an all time high, WIC is at an all time high, 10 million people. So I would say you actually have a pretty good participation program and that those numbers need to go up, but I am 

still concerned that the lessons that so many of us had as children 

in terms of work, I think we lost an opportunity there. 

CHARGING CHILDREN FOR SCHOOL LUNCH

Secretary VILSACK. I think we can do it without necessarily 

charging a nickel for lunch. 

Mr. KINGSTON. As long as there is a correlation and a culture 

then I think that is important. 

Ms. DELAURO. I will just make one comment to my dear friend, 

Mr. Kingston. This institution voted for $256 billion in relief for 

state taxes to people who make $3.5 million or $7 million a year. 

These folks are not struggling to put food on the table. They are 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
87 

eating high on the hog. The folks who are engaged in the food 

stamp program today can barely put food on their table. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I also have to make a comment. I would be glad 

to invite you to the other side of my district called the other America which is the America living in a culture of poverty where those 

values that you may think ought to be in every family just do not 

exist in that culture. It is very difficult to instill those values when 

you are struggling just to cope because you may not be able to read 

and write, because you may not be able to have the skills of the 

job, because you did not grow up in a community or a house where 

you had loving parents that could support you and give you things 

to have chores with. I can guarantee you that kids who live in poverty have a lot of chores but they are not the same chores that you 

and I would have growing up. We do need to take care of that other 

America, and I am proud that we do. 

SUDDEN OAK DEATH SYNDROME AND CONSISTENT PLANT PESTS

PROTOCOLS

Anyway, I want to switch now to plant pests. USDA regulates 

when there is a declared pest, plant pest, you regulate it. You also 

have in law that no state can have inconsistent regulations. Yet for 

a plant disease in California, for example, the sudden oak death 

syndrome, we have states that have imposed additional standards 

which has had an effect of excluding plants grown in California 

and Oregon from entering that state. And I wondered how you 

might be able to get involved in making sure that we have a consistent national standard that will work to essentially not allow as 

we have in these other states to sort of ratchet up interstate regulation wars so that we can move our product from California and 

Oregon and other states to states that are not allowing states with 

sudden oak death syndrome to transport their plants. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I am not sure I am going to 

give you a good answer to that question other than I think we are 

very interested in making sure that we are spending resources to 

provide states with the resources and the capacities and the university systems with the capacities, A, to prevent and/or to eradicate pests and to do it in a way that allows folks to have some confidence that we respect the impact it has on markets. So, for example, we are continuing to support the National Clean Plant Network that we are trying to set up, which is an effort to try to make 

sure that there is seed that is protected and available. We last year 

or just recently announced over 200 projects that could potentially 

be funded. We are working with universities, with state departments of agriculture in way of providing some consistency. 

And there are a number of surveys, a number of issues that are 

involved. This is a very complex set of issues. There is no question 

about it. And we are committed to trying to do what we can within 

our regulatory and marketing programs as well as our research 

programs. 

[The information follows:] 

APHIS is responsible for establishing Federal regulations on plant health issues 

including what treatments or other requirements are necessary to prevent the 

spread of plant pests. In this case, APHIS has been working to keep dialogue open 

between the two States and with other concerned States in the South on the issue 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
88 

and worked to explain the risk assessment data and other scientific rationale behind 

the Federal regulations. 

Mr. FARR. Well, you know, we are a big huge nursery state, and 

so is Oregon, and I think it is South Carolina that will not allow 

those plants in, and it is felt that that is your responsibility to 

make sure that states do not ratchet up additional standards which 

are not related to the pests that you are helping these states regulate, California and Oregon. 

Secretary VILSACK. There is a fine line obviously that we draw 

and that we have to respect the capacity of states to make decision 

for themselves. At the same time, we have to make sure that whatever decisions are being made do not unnecessarily, in an inappropriate way, negatively impact market opportunities. 

Mr. FARR. Yeah, I think that is all we are asking is if you have 

protocol for a treatment and the states have those treatments in 

place then sort of that fairness doctrine of other states should not 

say, well, then we alone are going to exclude products in that state. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, this gets to the challenge of science and 

whether or not folks believe our protocols are strong enough and, 

if not, do we need to pay attention to that. If they are strong 

enough, we need to be able to make a convincing case to state ag 

commissioners and secretaries that they—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, that is what we are asking. 

Secretary VILSACK. There are ongoing conversations with State 

Ag secretaries and commissioners on a monthly basis on a wide variety of issues. The Deputy is involved in a conference call every 

month where these issues are discussed. 

SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT

Mr. FARR. All right. Well, then we will follow up with the Deputy. You know, this school lunch program that we are talking 

about and whether there ought to be reimbursement, the one thing 

that I notice in schools is that we do not means test that kid when 

they get up on the morning and get on a school bus. They do not 

say does your family have a high income, so if it does you pay to 

get on this bus. If you are low income, you get on the bus free. 

When that child goes to school and walks into the library, they do 

not say, well, you have to pay to check out a book because your 

family is from a high income and you get the book free because you 

are low income. We do not means test for getting on a school bus. 

We do not means test for getting a library book. 

But then the child stands in line to be hungry, we means test 

them, and it is just having the discriminatory lines in schools is 

just awful and we have got to just change that. People tell me that 

if kids who are hungry do not want to admit that they are poor because they do not want to have to stand in the line with the poor 

kids. What a way to separate children at an early age and start 

putting this discriminatory factor on it just so that we can have 

free and reduced meals versus paid for meals. 

And it seems to me we know enough information to block grant 

these monies. The same census tracks, the same schools get the 

money every year, and why we have to go out and qualify every 

parent for every program in a very paper heavy process. I really 

appreciate your idea of using technology and electronics that if the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
89 

parents qualify for the SNAP program, or for the WIC program, 

then the children automatically qualify for the School Lunch Program. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH AT CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you may not be aware 

of this, and I do not know if the Chair knows it or not, but Clemson 

University is actually studying a package for any ag product but 

particularly meat and poultry that changes colors when the food 

product is no longer fresh. And that is something that—I do not 

know if they get USDA funding on it but it is to me a pretty exciting thing, emerging technology, and the passion that I know Rosa 

has for food safety and you share as well, but I wanted to mention 

that to you because that might be something somebody wants to 

look at and encourage. It is not on the market yet but they feel 

pretty strongly that it is marketable and that it is going to happen. 

EPA REGULATIONS ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr. Secretary, the farmers in my area are very concerned about 

EPA regulations on global warming, and it is very common that I 

hear from them on this. Have you studied what the EPA regulation 

will do to farmers, what is the down side of that to them? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I do not know that the regulations 

have—it depends on what regulation you are referring to. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Greenhouse gas emissions. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think it is difficult to assess in the absence 

of specific proposals coming from the EPA. I would say this. I think 

the EPA is cognizant of the importance of agriculture and the importance of making sure that steps that are taken are not unnecessarily negative to the ability of agriculture to continue to produce 

the food and fiber and fuel and feed that we depend on. In talking 

with Administrator Jackson, I know that there is a sensitivity. I 

was appreciative of the fact that she allowed EPA folks to go out 

and visit a farm in Iowa and an ethanol production facility in Iowa, 

which made a difference in terms of the RFS2 and the biofuels opportunity, so I think there is an openness for learning and openness for discussion. 

Candidly, I think there needs to be more of that conversation between the EPA and the farm community so that each knows what 

each is trying to do because I think there is potential for more 

agreement than disagreement. I have heard the same concerns you 

have heard, which is why I have encouraged that line of communication to be more open. I would also say that one of the reasons 

why I was supportive of efforts at setting up an offset program and 

system legislatively was to make sure that there were corresponding benefits. As we look at trying to deal with issues involving climate change, there should be corresponding benefits in my 

view from the studies that I have seen from the University of Tennessee, a corn grower study recently that major commodity groups 

could in fact potentially be positively impacted by the offset program, so it is a matter of how it is structured and how it is set 

up. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
90 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REGULATIONS

It could be an economic opportunity for farmers if it is structured 

properly. I would also say that we are cognizant of emerging markets in water and habitat conservation and that is one of the reasons why we are setting up the Ecosystem Market Program that 

you established in the last Farm Bill. We recognize the need for 

verification and validation in those markets. So I think there is opportunity here. It is just a matter of structuring it properly. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you feel that USDA is sufficiently at the table 

with EPA in terms of discussions informally or formally? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would offer as an exhibit the RFS2. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, let me hold right now. 

CHINESE POULTRY IMPORTS AND FOOD SAFETY

Ms. DELAURO. Secretary, we received earlier this week the first 

status report on Chinese chicken and what is required in the 2010 

appropriations bill. I just want to make a couple comments because 

we are going to explore this issue again later in the year with a 

hearing on trade and trade and food safety. But for my colleagues, 

I think it is important to note that it seems to me anyway that 

USDA is aggressively encouraging the Chinese to seek equivalency 

determination for the slaughter operations, and if that is granted 

then they could send their own domestically raised poultry to the 

United States. So this is not sending U.S. or Canadian products to 

China, processing it, and sending it back here. This is bringing 

Chinese grown poultry products to the United States. 

So to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here, I think we 

need to think about how this impacts poultry producers in their 

districts and their states and just nationally. It appears as if from 

the letters that I have looked at that China has so far refused, flatly refused, to provide information on their new food safety law to 

FSIS as they are required to do. Why? Because, this is my view, 

the equivalency process has become about trade and not food safety, and they are going to rely on market power to get equivalency 

without showing that their food is safe. 

ILLEGAL IMPORTS FROM CHINA

So again, as I said, this is an issue that we will explore later 

with a trade and food safety hearing. It is also important, I think, 

for my colleagues to know that products from countries without 

equivalencies are coming into the U.S. There have been six recalls, 

at least half of them involving China. I have pictures of the products here. These are products that are coming into the country illegally. And these are people with, as I say, without equivalency, half 

of which are coming from China. Back to the report. There are a 

number of actions that have been or will be shortly taken by 

USDA. There are a number of letters, five or more, with the Chinese government, meetings in China, meetings in Washington. 

It looks like in essence here we are seeking to give equivalency 

to China rather than China looking for equivalency to be able to 

get it. So I make that statement, and I am sure that you have disagreements with it. I have heard the answer in the past, but I am 

frankly troubled by what I see coming out of this. But I have a couVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
91 

ple more questions. I will make that statement. But if you would 

like to say something in that regard, Mr. Secretary, please feel free 

to do so. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, we understand our responsibility under the appropriations language that was approved, and 

we are making every concerted effort to make sure that we are following the letter and the intent of that direction. I think the intent 

is to ask the Chinese to establish and provide sufficient proof of 

their activities consistent with our law, and then once that is done 

we go to the next step, which is not necessarily approval. The next 

step is in-country visits to assure that there is in fact consistency 

and action with what the language—what the verbiage is in their 

rules and regulations. That would follow specific plants, inspection 

of specific plants. So there is quite a bit yet to be done. I do not 

know that I would characterize our actions in quite the same way 

you characterized them with respect. 

In addition, we are going to continue to look for ways in which 

we can beef up point of entry re-inspection efforts by FSIS and provide information from other countries that are complying with the 

Chinese so that they are aware of the fact that this is not asking 

them to do more or less than what we ask anyone else to do. 

LACK OF CHINESE FOOD SAFETY COOPERATION

Ms. DELAURO. In your letter to me, and I will make this my last 

comment, and you are preparing a response. I understand that. 

But the letter from China which China states that it does not need 

to provide any additional information on its food safety. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that goes to the discussion we have 

been having with them on whether or not this constitutes going 

back in time or whether this is just an updating of things from the 

last time we corresponded. And, you know, we are continuing to 

have conversations with them. We are not going to go to the next 

step until this step has been satisfied. Of that you can be assured. 

FOOD SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE

Ms. DELAURO. That is assurance. If I can, I want to talk about 

food safety in general. I have concerns. I would be less than honest 

with you about where we are on food safety. I look at FSIS recalls 

this year for E. coli and Salmonella, the amount of product recalled 

for E. coli contamination is more than four times that in all of 2009 

and more than half of that in 2008. Salmonella, single recall this 

year is more than half that and six recalls in 2009. There were no 

recalls for Salmonella in 2008. Projected out to the end of the year, 

you can extrapolate that recalls for both pathogens would total 

nearly 55 million pounds. 

We seem to make progress and then we kind of fall back. I mentioned Huntington Meat before but we have now a criminal investigation because quoting USDA, and I quote, ‘‘The investigation has 

uncovered evidence to show that the food safety records of the establishment cannot be relied upon to document compliance with 

the requirements.’’ I strongly support HACCP. I do. But I think 

that we have gone too far in removing FSIS inspectors from the active role they had prior to HACCP, and we have not had oversight 

as to whether the company’s HACCP plans are effective. This is a 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
92 

little bit like almost apples and oranges here, but it is like saying 

you can put a plan together. 

We are going to do that with animal identification, but then it 

is up to you as to what you do. It is almost as HACCP, you put 

the plan together and then it is up to you. We do not know if the 

plan is effective or not or we do not have jurisdiction about whether the plan is effective or not. So again for me it is too much reliance on industry self-policing and I think Huntington is the result. 

Do you believe we need to modernize HACCP? 

FSIS HACCP REGULATIONS

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. And I think we are proposing additional 

resources to make a significant step in that regard by expanding 

regulatory sampling and other needed efforts within HACCP. 

There is an additional $10 million in the budget requesting that. 

I think there are a number of the infrastructure of food safety that 

need to be enhanced. 

Ms. DELAURO. And I know with the Food Safety Working Group, 

one of the key recommendations was to focus on the need to give 

FDA and FSIS improved statutory authorities including the ability 

to access basic food safety records at facilities, the ability to establish performance standards to measure the implementation of proper food safety procedures, and mandatory recall authority. We are 

familiar with the legislation as it relates to FDA and it passed the 

House obviously, not yet in the Senate. But the bill in the House 

exempted FSIS from its provisions. What are we going to do with 

regard to the authorities for FSIS? 

Secretary VILSACK. One of the things that we are attempting to 

do is to provide a strategy that focuses on prevention, focuses on 

enhanced surveillance and risk assessment and focuses on recovery 

and recall. In all three areas, we are trying to take steps to improve our safety record. So, for example, we are proposing in this 

budget additional strengthening of our public health infrastructure 

that would allow us to identify trends and utilize data more effectively to figure out if we have got emerging problems. We are proposing additional acceleration of pathogen identification. We are 

proposing additional resources for research in the food safety area 

to allow us to get ahead of the pathogen curve as I said earlier. 

We are proposing a strengthening of our communication system 

so that the various agencies of government will communicate more 

effectively when there is a problem and we can respond more 

quickly when there is a problem. We are focusing on all 50 recommendations to the Food Safety Working Group that refer specifically to FSIS in an effort to try to implement those. 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR FSIS

Ms. DELAURO. Well, I understand that and I applaud that. This 

was a recommendation of the Working Group. FSIS has been exempted. This is about statutory authority. And I for one do not understand why FSIS is exempted from this particularly, as I see, it 

comes out of the recommendation of a group that is moving this 

initiative forward. I would hope, and I hope that you are thinking 

about and talking about statutory authority for FSIS. And let me 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
93 

ask you this. Are you? It is kind of yes or no. Are we going to move 

to that with regard to FSIS? 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, I think before you move there 

you have to know precisely what that move entails, and I think you 

have to make sure that the regulatory structure is in place to be 

able to understand and appreciate the risks that are associated 

with that. I mean if you take a look—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Mandatory recall, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, I would be happy to have a 

conversation with you about case law and about regulatory administrative procedures that could potentially open up significant challenges for us to do the job that you want us to do. That is what 

we are concerned about, and so we are focusing on strengthening 

significantly our capacities. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am going to take it that this recommendation of 

the Food Safety Working Group is not going to be implemented. 

Secretary VILSACK. I would not necessarily conclude that, Madam 

Chair. I would not necessarily conclude that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr. 

DISCRIMINATION SETTLEMENTS FOR WOMEN AND HISPANIC FARMERS

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not know if I had a 

chance to thank you for your incredible public service not only as 

a governor but coming to the Administration here in Washington. 

You have a lot of fans out in my district. Some even wanted to 

leave their jobs to work in the presidential campaign. There is a 

lot of respect for your work. It is delightful to have you here. One 

of the things that I wanted to just follow up on because you ended 

with a statement on the Pigford settlements in relation to the minority settlements for women and Hispanics. Do you agree that 

there has been some discrimination and that there is a class in 

these categories that should reach some settlement and should the 

settlement be as it was for black farmers, and how could that be 

resolved in a less arduous procedure? 

Secretary VILSACK. The opportunity to settle Pigford was the result of two things. One, you had in place by virtue of a previous 

settlement a process by which Pigford claimants could expeditiously have their claims adjudicated because you had a class action certification by the court and you had two tracks that they 

could go down. Because there were late filers who did not understand the system, that process again was reopened by Congress 

with a specific dollar amount, $100 million in the Farm Bill, which 

gave rise to the fact that that was not going to be adequate to deal 

with those numbers of late filer cases. 

So in place you had specific dollar amounts and you had a specific process, and you had class certification. That is not necessarily 

the case in some of these other cases. It is clear that there are people who feel that they have been discriminated against, and it is 

clear that we are dealing with not a few cases, a handful of cases, 

but potentially thousands of cases. So in Garcia, the Garcia case 

has not yet been certified. It has not been certified as a class action. There was a process and went through the court system, and 

I do not know all of the ramifications for why it was not certified, 

but I know it went as far as it can go. So, therefore, you do not 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
94 

have one single group of lawyers representing. You do not have a 

defined group of people that you are aware of precisely how many 

claimants there might be as you had a good sense in Pigford, and 

there is no dollar amount on the table. 

The same thing is somewhat true in Love and Keepseagle a little 

bit, which is a Native American case, is a little bit different because there is a little bit more definite—it is more defined, whatever that word is. So my counsel to those who are interested in getting this resolved is either establish a dollar amount or establish 

a process or both, which is what you had in Pigford because if you 

have a dollar amount then that—— 

Mr. FARR. Does Congress need to do that? 

Secretary VILSACK. You have done it in the past. And if there is 

a dollar amount then the process will be created to—— 

Mr. FARR. For settlement. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yeah, to reach that amount. If there is a 

process, the process then allows you to define the number of cases 

that are valid which in turn leads you to an amount so that you 

are in a position where you know you are not paying more or less 

than you ought to under the circumstances, and you get a process 

that is far more expeditious than the process that we have been 

undertaking for the last 15 or 20 years. 

LEGISLATION TO COMPENSATE WOMEN AND HISPANIC FARMERS

Mr. FARR. So you are endorsing the Chairwoman’s process? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am endorsing the Chairwoman’s effort to 

try to get at a dollar amount or a process. Now I do not know 

whether the dollar amount is the right amount or not, and, frankly, 

I do not know anybody that really knows that because you do not 

know how many claims there are. But if you put a dollar amount 

on the table, you will find out whether that was too much or not 

enough, but without a dollar amount and without a process then 

what you have to have are plaintiff’s lawyers in a room trying to 

settle a case and the problem with that, in some cases, is they may 

not represent all the people who have claims because you have no 

defined universe of claims. They are just whoever thinks they have 

been discriminated. That could be 60,000 people. It could be 

600,000 people. Give us a dollar amount or give us a process or 

both and we can get these matters resolved. Absent that, it just becomes having to try individual cases, and in Garcia’s case you are 

talking about tens of thousands of cases. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr, if I could just jump in here on this. The 

piece of legislation, Mr. Farr, that we have put together does both 

establish a process, a special master making the determination, 

and it does in fact have a dollar amount. The dollar amount is $4.6 

billion, which is in the legislation. Both process and dollar amount 

are in the legislation. 

Secretary VILSACK. And I recognize that, Madam Chair. Again, 

I do not know that the $4.6 billion is the right number or the 

wrong number. I just know that you got to have a number or a 

process or both, which your legislation does. 

Ms. DELAURO. And trying to deal with full parity. We believe we 

can move, and obviously we need to deal with the Hispanic farmers 

and the Native American farmers, but on the women farmers, ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
95 

gresswoman Eshoo and I have introduced this legislation which has 

a process and dollar amount. 

CATFISH INSPECTIONS RULE

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Secretary, our friends on the authorizing 

committee in the Farm Bill of ’08 included catfish under USDA inspection guidelines, and I am not sure it was a great idea. As you 

know, it was really probably a trade move to keep Thailand or Vietnamese catfish from coming into America in full force. And there 

was some glitch in terms of what was a catfish and what was not 

a catfish. I remember there were two different kinds. I do not remember the type and the pronunciation even if I had it in front of 

me but what I do know is that USDA had till November ’09 to promulgate the rules on it, and that has not happened even though 

there has been $15 million the budget each year to come up with 

those rules. 

Are you guys dragging on purpose on this or what is the delay? 

And I am not sure it might be a good thing to drag on because I 

know there is some real question about it. 

Secretary VILSACK. There has been no intent and no purposeful 

delay on the part of USDA. This is a complicated set of issues. 

There are actually 39 different varieties of catfish and it depends 

on what definition you use and what scientific definition or biological definition. It is a complicated set of issues. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Why do not you just tell me what the top ten are? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would be happy to provide that in writing. 

We have submitted a suggested set of rules and a structure to 

OMB and it is in the process of being reviewed by OMB, which we 

obviously do not have complete control over, but we have submitted 

what we believe is the appropriate way to proceed given what we 

think Congress’ intent was from the language of the bill, as well 

as the colloquy which you yourself were engaged in, which I have 

read. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And I agree with you. It is a lot more complicated 

than our authorizing friends realized, and somebody said this is a 

great example of be careful what you wish for. Thank you. 

FLORIDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

Ms. DELAURO. I just have a final couple of questions. One is for 

Mr. Boyd, Mr. Secretary. He could not stay. And that is the State 

of Florida is still without a rural development director, and just 

wondering when the Administration plans to fill the position. 

Secretary VILSACK. We want to fill these positions as quickly as 

we possibly can. The process that we are utilizing is a fairly extensive and intensive process that unfortunately has caused us not to 

be able to do this as quickly as some would like, but our goal is 

to get these positions filled as quickly as possible. And we will 

reach out to Congressman Boyd with more specific information. 

Ms. DELAURO. That would be great because he mentioned also 

that the FSA administrator, that position was just very recently 

filled so they are feeling some stress there so that would be helpful. 

Secretary VILSACK. I understand. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
96 

REGIONAL INNOVATION INITIATIVE AND HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING

INITIATIVE

Ms. DELAURO. I will tell him you will be in touch. Thank you. 

A question on the two initiatives that you are proposing, the Regional Innovation Initiative and the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. As I understand it, the Regional Innovation Initiative is to set 

aside 5 percent of funding for programs in Rural Development, the 

Agricultural Marketing Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Forest Service. The Healthy Food Financing 

Initiative is 10 percent of funding from some of the same rural development and agricultural marketing programs. This means that 

many programs will have up to 15 percent set aside for programs 

such as community facilities, business, and agricultural marketing 

programs. 

In many instances, these programs are over-subscribed by communities in need and no real increases were proposed for most of 

the programs to help offset the set asides. So my concerns on the 

initiatives, and I appreciate what you are trying to do, is what 

measures are you going to put in place to determine the effectiveness of these programs, how will you evaluate the success of them? 

Why are setting aside funding for these Initiatives more important 

than the loans and grants made every day through these critical 

programs? Who is going to make a decision on who is eligible and 

what will be funded? 

Secretary VILSACK. This is a competitive process, so we will work 

through Rural Development to determine which regions are in a 

position with leadership and a strategic vision to be able to take 

full advantage of this. The purpose of this, frankly, again with all 

due respect to the efforts that have been underway for many, many 

decades to try to help these rural areas, candidly, Madam Chair, 

when you have a higher unemployment rate and you have a higher 

poverty rate and you have a per capita income that is in one study 

I saw $11,000 per capita less than urban and suburban areas, and 

you’ve got an aging population and you have fewer college educated 

folks, and fewer high school folks, educated folks in rural America, 

and you’ve got fewer young people in rural America, I would suggest that we need to take a look at trying to do something a little 

differently than we have done. 

And one way we can do that is by suggesting that it is not just 

about an individual community on its own trying to figure out this 

Rubik’s Cube of trying to figure out economic opportunity. It is 

really about bringing communities together and creating enough 

critical mass that you actually create centers of economic activity 

and then surround those centers of economic activity with communities that can support the quality of life that people are looking 

for. And part of it is an analysis of what you do best in a community and in a region, and what with broadband, with energy title 

of the Farm Bill, with ecosystem markets, with our natural resources, tourism, hunting and fishing, and Know Your Farmer, 

Know Your Food, and local production and local consumption how 

we might be able to generate more economic activity than you had 

in the past. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
97 

GENERATING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN RURAL AMERICA

Now in order to do this, you need people that get this, and once 

you have those folks, you can show the rest of the country how you 

could be more effective with the resources that you have. Again, I 

am not necessarily being critical of the choices that were made in 

the past, but if you look at where resources have been invested, 

you are talking about relatively in many cases minimum wage. You 

are just slightly above minimum wage opportunities. When you invest tens of millions of dollars in convenience stores, for example, 

you are not necessarily creating a healthy place for someone to buy 

food nor are you creating an opportunity for real advancement or 

economic opportunity. 

You are saying, in essence, rural America is a great place to 

drive through, and if you build a hotel it is a great place to spend 

the night, but you may not want to locate there. And I would like 

to be able to reverse that. I would like to be able to show people 

that there is a real future in rural America. And so recognizing 

that there are limited resources, we are asking for permission to 

take a portion of those resources and basically show how this 

would work. On the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, here is the 

reality. If you do not have a grocery store in these rural communities and these urban centers, if you do not have access to a grocery store, you do not have access to fruits and vegetables and nutritious food. It is just that simple. 

And as we study this, we find that just about anybody can operate a grocery store at 95 percent success, but what you need to do 

is get to 100 percent success. We need to be able to have the flexibility and utilization of these tools to be able to figure out in each 

individual area where there is a food desert, why do you have a 

food desert. Is it lack of workers? Is it the cost of commercial real 

estate? Is it the security issues? Is it supply chain? We need to analyze that and then we need to be able to have the flexibility within 

our programs to be able to target resources to meet that need long 

enough for them to be able to get a critical mass of customers to 

support their operation the right way. 

Ms. DELAURO. I understand that with regard to the food initiative. One of my concerns is it is 5 percent then plus the 10 percent. 

That is about $50 million. I am anxious to take a hard look at what 

happened in Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania has been working 

in this effort to see what it costs. I, quite frankly, am not sure, you 

know, if 35 or 50 can get you to where you want to go because I 

understand what you are saying about the food desert. I understand about the convenience stores where people pay more. But we 

are looking at serious sums of money when you are looking at developers going in and putting in a place. And that is under Treasury, I understand that, your grants and loans, et cetera. But I am 

going to take a very hard look at—actually I talked to my colleague, Allyson Schwartz, you know, and want to find out how 

Pennsylvania has worked, what was the mix of state, local, federal, 

et cetera that would make the program work. Working model, you 

know, hey, those are the kinds of efforts we need to try to be engaged in. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
98 

I look at some of the programs where there are some serious— 

you are going to have to answer questions in terms of specifics, not 

just from me but from folks who are going to look at 14 percent 

on community facilities direct loans, 14 percent on guaranteed 

loans, other areas. These are—— 

Secretary VILSACK. What you want to be able to do is target 

those resources that actually result in leveraging resources and creating more economic activity. 

Ms. DELAURO. Sure. I want public-private partnerships for infrastructure. I am trying to get the Administration to buy this concept 

and so forth and put it under Treasury so we can borrow on the 

capital market, and we can build roads and bridges, get it regional, 

out of the way, et cetera. They are telling me that it would add to 

the deficit. So I understand the concept and I am for it, but I also 

want to see that we are looking at the dollar amounts that are 

going to be required to get us where we want to try to go is what 

I am saying. 

ECONOMIC RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Mr. FARR. I represent the coast and what the federal government 

did was a coastal zone management plan, and it required every 

community by states submitting these plans by local jurisdictions. 

We have never done that for rural America, rural economic by regions, because I agree with the Secretary. You cannot do this on 

a piecemeal. You got to really have a plan that includes it all. I 

am very keen on it because I think that the growth industry—I am 

Chair of the Tourism Caucus in Congress. I think the growth industry in tourism is rural tourism and it is ag tourism. I mean 

wine tasting is one of those. It has perfected it. But it does not 

have to be limited just to wine. 

And because you sell the rural culture when you get people out 

into the rural areas, but you have to make it convenient when you 

bring in that outside dollar. At the same time we are selling the 

rural character when we do farmers markets, and Marcy Kaptur 

on this Committee had been very active in getting those farmers 

markets in urbanized, inner city areas where there is no culture of 

shopping for fresh foods and vegetables. So I do believe you are 

right, but I think the Administration ought to really require these 

economic rural development plans for rural America and then base 

all of our agencies giving and grants based on a plan that is going 

to carry out all these things. 

Secretary VILSACK. I have been a small town mayor, Representative Farr. I have been a governor of a rural state. I have spent the 

last 25 years of my life trying to figure this out, and I am convinced that if we continue the current system of just focusing on 

individual communities making individual product applications, 

you are going to continue to have the same results you’ve got, and 

I think rural America deserves better. 

Ms. DELAURO. I believe they do, and I think we ought to deal 

with resources that get us to where we want to go. And I know this 

Committee is prepared to do that and we want to work with you 

on that and take a look at what, in fact, you think it is going to 

cost. And if that is the case, you have to think out of the box, and 

that is why I talk about infrastructure in the way that I do. That 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
99 

is the only way you get to growing the economy rather than just 

doing something for the moment, and that is what creates jobs, et 

cetera, for us for the future. 

I am going to submit for the record questions on the Texas food 

stamp program and the Indiana program, on the Iowa refinery assistance program, and Farm Service Agency IT, which has been an 

issue of great importance to all of us on this Committee over the 

years in looking at what additional kinds of funds would be needed 

for that and what the changes are in that process and where we 

are going. And with that, let me say thank you to you, Mr. Secretary. I know you only have 20 minutes between this and another 

hearing so our apologies for the delay. But I thank you very, very 

much for your candor and to the rest of the team. This hearing is 

concluded. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
100 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 186 here 57780A.041
101 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 187 here 57780A.042
102 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 188 here 57780A.043
103 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 189 here 57780A.044
104 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 190 here 57780A.045
105 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 191 here 57780A.046
106 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 192 here 57780A.047
107 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 193 here 57780A.048
108 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 194 here 57780A.049
109 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 195 here 57780A.050
110 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 196 here 57780A.051
111 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 197 here 57780A.052
112 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 198 here 57780A.053
113 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 199 here 57780A.054
114 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 200 here 57780A.055
115 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 201 here 57780A.056
116 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 202 here 57780A.057
117 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 203 here 57780A.058
118 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 204 here 57780A.059
119 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 205 here 57780A.060
120 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 206 here 57780A.061
121 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 207 here 57780A.062
122 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 208 here 57780A.063
123 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 209 here 57780A.064
124 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 210 here 57780A.065
125 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 211 here 57780A.066
126 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 212 here 57780A.067
127 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 213 here 57780A.068
128 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 214 here 57780A.069
129 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 215 here 57780A.070
130 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 216 here 57780A.071
131 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 217 here 57780A.072
132 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 218 here 57780A.073
133 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 219 here 57780A.074
134 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 220 here 57780A.075
135 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 221 here 57780A.076
136 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 222 here 57780A.077
137 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 223 here 57780A.078
138 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 224 here 57780A.079
139 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 225 here 57780A.080
140 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 226 here 57780A.081
141 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 227 here 57780A.082
142 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 228 here 57780A.083
143 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 229 here 57780A.084

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(145) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT 

WITNESS 

PHYLLIS K. FONG, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

MS. DELAURO OPENING REMARKS

Ms. DELAURO. The hearing is called to order. Good morning. 

First let me welcome our speaker today, Phyllis Fong, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As you all 

know, Ms. Fong is the senior official responsible for audits, evaluations, investigations, and law enforcement efforts relating to the 

USDA’s programs and operations, and really the go-to official for 

dealing with questions of waste and fraud at the Agency. 

As such, today counts among more of the more important hearings held by this subcommittee. And I want to say ‘‘thank you’’ to 

you, Ms. Fong, for being with us today, and providing the testimony. And I am going to leave it to when you begin your testimony 

to introduce your fellow panelists. 

Overall, it seems like OIG is doing a very good job of monitoring 

the expansive program areas at the USDA. 

Since the start of Fiscal Year 2009, the USDA IG has issued 

nearly 80 audit reports on topics including the ARRA Oversight, 

the Economic Recovery Program Oversight, Food Safety, Organic 

Products, Animal Fighting, Public Safety, and the integrity of numerous payment and loan programs. 

We here on the Subcommittee rely heavily on these IG reports 

in an effort to evaluate the successes and the shortcomings of 

USDA programs. 

Some of your findings over the past year have been eye-opening, 

to say the least. According to your reports, USDA is falling short 

in how it carries out a range of programs, including producer eligibility for financial support, the organic program, and perhaps most 

troubling, one of USDA’s most solemn responsibilities, that’s food 

safety. 

On this latter front, IG reports have questioned the integrity of 

our food safety enforcement, and even the very system we use to 

evaluate the success of food recall. 

In addition, some longstanding problems, such as residues of pesticides, heavy metals, and antibiotics in our meat continue to 

plague our public health and safety. 

And OIG has found that there is an across-the-board need to improve program administration, and a particular problem of coordination involving multi-agency initiatives. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
146 

So I hope that today we can walk through some of your findings, 

talk about ways to ensure the OIG’s valuable recommendations are 

integrated into USDA operations. Implementation of your recommendations is as important as the studies themselves. And the 

Department must work hard to ensure that any systemic problems 

afflicting the Department are addressed. 

At a time of fiscal constraint, when we are working overtime to 

ensure that every penny in this coming budget is well spent, the 

last thing we want is to have you take the time and the effort to 

produce these reports, and then to have your recommendations and 

findings collect dust on a shelf somewhere, while faulty programs 

continue. 

With that in mind, I wanted to mention the staffing situation at 

OIG. The Fiscal Year 2011 budget before us proposes an appropriation of $90.3 million for OIG, a 1.8 percent increase, or $1.6 million 

increase over last year’s level. 

While the number of full-time equivalents at OIG will remain 

steady at the estimated 2010 level of 600. 

After conducting some research, I discovered that over the past 

30 years since OIG was established, the number of FTEs in the office has gone from 970 in 1980 to 550 in 2009, a reduction of 43 

percent. That’s a lot of manpower to lose. And I want to make sure, 

Ms. Fong, that you feel that OIG still has the staff and the resources in place to meet its critical obligations at the Agency. 

I say this, because, as you know, USDA’s programs are not only 

very wide-ranging, but often extremely complex. And the OIG’s office is fundamental to the Department’s proper functioning. 

With that in mind, Ms. Fong, I appreciate your dedication to the 

long-term strength and integrity of the agencies that you review. 

As with previous years, I am sure that my colleagues and I will express great frustration at times today about problems at the Department. 

However, there is a recognition here that you are not the problem, and that you are testifying today simply to highlight the problem areas that exist. 

So we thank you for your great work. And now let me yield to 

my colleague from Louisiana. Rodney. 

MR. ALEXANDER OPENING REMARKS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Fong, as always, welcome. We’re glad for you to be here today. 

This subcommittee greatly recognizes the important role that you 

and your staff provide us, and giving us information that we need 

and proper oversight in the investigations that you are conducting. 

One of the most important roles, of course, that you play is reviewing the existing laws and regulations, and making recommendations to Congress as to how we can have a more effective 

USDA. 

They’re extremely important functions that you carry out, and we 

are anxiously waiting to hear your testimony today, and would like 

to ask some questions about what some of your requirements are, 

what some of the auditing work is that you’re doing. 

So we look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
147 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Ms. Fong, we would 

be delighted to hear your testimony, and understand that the full 

testimony will be part of the record. And you are welcome to summarize in any way you might want to. 

Thank you. 

Ms. FONG. Thank you. 

MS. FONG OPENING STATEMENT

Good morning, Chairman DeLauro, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Hinchey. 

It’s a pleasure for all of us to be here again to testify before you 

and to give you an oversight of what we are doing at OIG. 

And before I start, I’d like to introduce my colleagues here this 

morning. 

Starting on this side of the table, we have Jack Lebo, who is the 

Deputy Assistant IG for Management, and is our expert on budget 

questions and resource; Karen Ellis, who is the Assistant IG for Investigations, manages our Criminal Investigation Program; Gil 

Harden, our new Assistant IG for Audit, manages that program for 

us, the heart of what we do in many ways; and Bob Young, whom 

I think many of you know was formerly the Assistant IG for Audit, 

is now in a new capacity with us, in charge of our Recovery Act 

Oversight, which is a very big part of our portfolio these days. 

With that, as the Chairwoman recognized, we have submitted a 

full written statement. So I just want to offer a few comments on 

the areas that we have been really focused on in the last year to 

18 months. 

Basically, the two areas that I would like to highlight for you 

today are the work that we are doing to oversee Recovery Act funds 

within USDA; and the work that we are doing in Food Safety, as 

you recognize, a very important priority for us. 

In the Recovery Act arena, as you all know, USDA received a tremendous amount of money in a number of programs to address the 

economic situation in the country. And as part of the oversight of 

those funds, the Subcommittee saw fit to give OIG about $22 million to provide oversight. 

And so we have engaged in a plan to look at every dollar in recovery funds that is coming into USDA. We have a plan to look at 

every program that is receiving recovery money, in order to make 

sure that the potential for fraud, waste, and abuse is minimized, 

and that those funds are being delivered effectively. 

I want to highlight for you that we have, as part of that oversight program, developed a new way to provide recommendations 

to the Department. Instead of waiting until the end of, say, a 

lengthy audit process to come up with a comprehensive list of 

issues, what we are doing now is going in, looking at internal control issues, looking at eligibility issues. And at the point where we 

find significant issues that we want to raise to management’s attention, we do that in a real-time way, so that the Department can 

take action quickly and ensure that the money goes in the right direction. 

And I think we have been quite successful in issuing those. We 

issued about 30 of those what we call ‘‘fast reports’’ last year, and 

got very good response from the Department’s program managers. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
148 

They recognized the issues, and in many cases took action to 

straighten out or strengthen their internal controls. 

In a number of areas, of course, we still have concerns, and so 

we are continuing to do audit work to ensure that those programs 

are running effectively. 

The next area that of course we want to just spend a few minutes on is the area of food safety. And as you recognize, we have 

issued several very significant reports this past year. 

We looked at inspections at a beef processing facility in California, and what that meant for the inspection process that FSIS 

engages in. 

We looked at beef recall procedures. We looked at harmful residues in beef. And we did a comprehensive look at the organic program. 

And we will be very happy to talk about those audits in detail 

in response to your questions. 

And of course, in addition to doing work in these two areas of 

very important priority to all of us, we are doing, as we always do, 

the full panoply of work across the broad array of USDA programs, 

including nutrition programs, farm programs, rural development, 

and USDA’s financial management and IT security activities. 

These are areas that we continue to devote a substantial amount 

of time to, because of their significance. 

In closing, I’d like to thank the Committee for the support that 

you all have shown to us, both in terms of encouraging us in our 

oversight, and in terms of providing resources to us. You have done 

more above and beyond the call of duty, in many ways, in terms 

of giving us oversight resources for the disaster programs that 

came out a few years ago, for the Recovery Act, and of course in 

our annual appropriations. And we do truly thank you for that support. 

I’d be happy to talk to you about our request. 

And with that short summary, we stand ready to address your 

questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
149 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 239 here 57780A.085
150 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 240 here 57780A.086
151 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 241 here 57780A.087
152 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 242 here 57780A.088
153 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 243 here 57780A.089
154 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 244 here 57780A.090
155 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 245 here 57780A.091
156 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 246 here 57780A.092
157 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 247 here 57780A.093
158 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 248 here 57780A.094
159 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 249 here 57780A.095
160 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 250 here 57780A.096
161 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 251 here 57780A.097
162 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 252 here 57780A.098
163 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 253 here 57780A.099
164 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 254 here 57780A.100
165 

FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION SERVICE

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the summary. I don’t know when we’re going to have votes this morning, 

but I know they will come, because it’s going to be an early departure, so we want to make sure we have the opportunity for a great 

conversation. 

Let me just start with regard to food safety and with FSIS. In 

the report you issued last September, you reviewed the oversight 

FSIS conducted on the recall of products by the meat company involved in a massive recall in 2008, the Hallmark Westland Company. Can you discuss your findings on this issue? It appears that 

FSIS made needless mistakes, reflecting a basic failure of management at the Agency. 

Ms. FONG. Yes. We did, as you know, an extensive audit of the 

Hallmark facility. We were called in to look at the pre-slaughter activities at that plant, because there were very significant concerns 

about inhumane handling of the cattle. And we were concerned 

about whether those events were isolated, or systemic. 

And we went in there, we looked at it, and we found that there 

were some issues with respect to the Hallmark staff and whether 

or not they bypassed required inspection steps. And we found that, 

in fact, there were some deliberate actions on the part of Hallmark 

staff. 

Ms. DELAURO. There were some deliberate actions, did you say? 

Ms. FONG. That was one of our findings. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

Ms. FONG. I will also say we do have an ongoing criminal investigation into that, so we can’t really talk much about the specifics 

on that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. FONG. We also found that with respect to FSIS, that their 

in-plant staff, the people who are on site, did not fully carry out 

their responsibilities with respect to inspection procedures. They 

took some short cuts. 

There were some issues about whether or not there is sufficient 

supervisory oversight, span of control. Their use of information systems was perhaps not as good as it could have been to pinpoint 

problems that had been occurring over a history of time. The formal training program for the inspectors could use improvement. 

And we found basically that the sampling process for residues 

was also not followed, which then led to our subsequent residue 

audit. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. FONG. And as a result of that, Hallmark of course engaged 

in a significant recall. And we then followed up with an audit on 

that recall process, because we wanted to see if that was being 

handled appropriately, given some of the recall issues we had seen 

in prior years. 

And in effect, we found that while FSIS had actually taken steps 

to implement some of our prior recommendations, in that they had 

put into place a statistically-based sampling process, that the way 

it was put into effect in the Hallmark recall was not effectively 

done. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
166 

And so we pointed out that, you know, they had issued recall notices to a large number of customers of Hallmark, and it turned out 

about 40 percent of them truly had not purchased the product. 

There was no way for them to substitute entities to be sampled. 

And so there were some real lessons to be learned from that process, which we summarized in our audit report. 

Ms. DELAURO. Let me just interrupt you for a second, because 

your report is pretty thorough on what you found. 

Some of the things that you just said, aren’t those pretty much 

basic to, you know, proceeding? I mean, dealing with statistics, 

dealing with—you know—in a way that allows you to carry forth 

its mission of recall? 

I mean, are we looking at some very basic steps in this process, 

that are either overlooked, or there are shortcuts taken? Or what? 

Ms. FONG. Well, to talk about it in terms of the Hallmark situation, where the in-plant staff didn’t follow the procedures that FSIS 

had set out, that should not occur. 

You know, if the Agency sets out in writing guidance for its staff: 

‘‘This is how you’re going to do inspections; this is how you’re going 

to sample; this is how you’re going to . . .’’—then the staff should 

be carrying out those procedures. 

Ms. DELAURO. I understand that. But I think you said that they 

sent the material out to places where they were not part—they 

didn’t receive any of the product, or in fact, they may have been 

out of business, as I read your report—and there was no way to 

make any kind of substitution from this master list, if you will. 

How would you characterize that procedure? 

Ms. FONG. Clearly, I believe that was the first recall that was 

handled under their statistical sampling process. It was a new 

process for FSIS. 

Yes, I think that experience very clearly indicated that that was 

a gap in the process that needed to be thought through. There 

needed to be steps; FSIS needs to have steps where if they’re going 

to do a recall and they go down the master list, and they send out 

the notices, and there are a number of entities who haven’t purchased the beef, there needs to be a way to substitute for the statistical sample, or it won’t be valid. 

And I think that recall very clearly demonstrated that that was 

a step in the process that needs to be fixed. Yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. That sounds pretty basic to me, that if you can’t 

find the places that are, you know, where the risk is, that once 

again flies in the face of risk-based inspection procedures. 

And you know, you can count to ten and then take eleven, and 

count—that’s maybe a nice way to do it, but you know, it’s a shot 

in the dark. And it just seems to me, after all the discussions we’ve 

had about this, this effort in recall, that we would be a little bit 

more sophisticated in our methodology of being able to identify the 

places, where we have to be. 

And so my time is expired. I would just say this too. You concluded that only 59 percent of the verifications were relevant to assessing Hallmark’s recall; 41 percent of the companies FSIS contacted about Hallmark’s recall, 83 of 203, were not useful for determining the recall’s effectiveness. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
167 

FSIS conducted effectiveness checks at 65 companies that did not 

purchase the recalled product, 12 that were not in the business of 

buying and selling meat, and five that were out of business. 

The result, which I think is critical in terms of the result, you 

concluded was: FSIS’ conclusion that Hallmark’s recall was successful is not statistically supportable. 

I think the record needs to show that: This process, this procedure in which they move at this—and if it’s Hallmark or if it’s 

somewhere else, it is not statistically supportable. 

And with that, Mr. Kingston, do you want to go? Or I will go to 

Mr. Alexander, who made the opening statement? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me go to Mr. Alexander. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And let me thank him also for opening this up. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Great. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I was actually chairing another meeting, so I 

apologize for being late, Ms. Fong. It’s always good to see you and 

your team. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Alexander. 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, ma’am. 

A couple of questions. The risk management. We find that in 

your audit you did, you found as many as 22 errors. Or there were 

several errors, and you made 22 recommendations to correct some 

of those errors. 

But yet we found out that Risk Management has said ‘‘No’’ to 

over half of those recommendations that have been made. What do 

you do next? 

Ms. FONG. Okay. I understand your question to be talking about 

the Risk Management Agency and crop insurance, and the audit 

that we issued about a quality control system for AIPs. I just wanted to make sure that I’m talking about the same audit. 

Yes, that is an area where we have been involved for a number 

of years, as you know. We have issued several reports. We continue 

to be—frustrated may be a strong word, but it is clearly an entrenched issue that we keep coming back to. 

You know, we’ve tried to raise awareness through many of our 

reports, our management challenges, our semi-annual reports, our 

testimonies. We’ve testified several times in the last few years on 

these issues and these reports. 

I will say that we issued a number of recommendations, as you 

point out. Many times the agencies will reach agreement with us 

on our recommendations. We call it management decision. It means 

that they recognize the value of our recommendations, they agree 

to them, and they agree to take action. 

I will say that on that particular audit and on that particular 

issue, we have not had an easy time reaching decision, management agreement with RMA. There seems to be a conceptual or philosophical difference between our offices as to the best way forward. 

We continue to follow up on it. We will continue to do audits and 

issue recommendations. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
168 

At this point, as you probably know, we do not have the authority to actually take the action ourselves. We are not authorized to 

run a program. And so we cannot say to RMA, ‘‘You will do this.’’ 

What we have done is, of course, brought it to your attention, 

and to the attention of the Agriculture Committees on both sides. 

And we do talk with the leadership at the Department about our 

concerns on this. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Why don’t you elevate that to the Secretary then? 

Ms. FONG. The Secretary actually has indicated a tremendous 

amount of interest in these issues. We have briefed the front office, 

the Deputy Secretary, the Secretary, on those reports. I believe 

that he has indicated to us that he is very concerned about this 

issue. 

And I think as we look at the development of the Crop Insurance 

Program and the renegotiation of the standard reinsurance agreement that’s going on right now, we see that the Administration is 

proposing some measures to tighten up oversight of the program 

and to address the amount of compensation that the AIPs are getting. 

So I think that there is some movement forward on these issues. 

Ms. DELAURO. If the gentleman would further yield? Because I 

want to join my colleagues in this effort. And you have plenty of 

time if you have additional questions, Mr. Alexander. 

But because this is on my mind as well as Mr. Kingston’s and 

Mr. Alexander’s, as I looked at the Agency response, and 14 of the 

22 recommendations, RMA did not agree—now, you go through 

your whole audit report, laying out where the difficulties lie, what 

the problems are, where we’re not in compliance, and then we have 

what they disagree with. 

They did not agree with our recommendation to develop a comprehensive, systematic, well-defined, integrated strategy for its 

compliance-related efforts; or our recommendations to conduct and 

document an overall risk assessment of program operations to identify major program vulnerabilities and focus and coordinate and 

prioritize resources on high-risk areas. 

This is, again, basic to whether or not this Program is functioning, and at what cost is it functioning, when you look at liability, going from $35 billion to $91 billion in four years? 

Now the Secretary—you know, there needs to be some real 

strength behind doing something about this. And that does go to 

the Secretary’s level, and as well as to the authorizing committees, 

to deal with this issue as well. 

It may have been justified to go from 35 to 91; but we haven’t 

got a clue as to why it went in that direction. And in agency that 

says some very basic issues, they don’t concur. And therefore, will 

anything happen, Ms. Fong? Realistically, honestly. Will it change? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. And quite honestly, during the last year and all 

the debate about financial meltdown—not making light of your response—but we’ve heard repeatedly from people in positions of 

leadership, like you’re in, say ‘‘We don’t have the responsibility to 

do that.’’ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
169 

Who does? That’s what we, you know, we’re very concerned about 

it. And—— 

Ms. FONG. I think—— 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Go ahead. 

Ms. FONG. I didn’t mean to interrupt you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I’m sorry. 

Ms. FONG. I think we all share a sense of that we’ve been in this 

for the long haul. We’ve done a lot of work, all of us. We all have 

our roles to play in this process. 

I will say that where we think, in situations where there is an 

entrenched issue, the only way that progress is made, in my perspective, is when all of us who have a stake in it get into alignment 

on it, and we all recognize that we have a challenge, and we all 

work within our spheres of influence to move the ball forward. 

And crop insurance has been a very sensitive issue. I think there 

have been numerous attempts to look at it legislatively as well as 

from a management perspective. There have been numerous proposals in the last few years to amend the program. And I think 

there are some proposals on the table right now. 

Clearly, the industry has its own views on it, which may differ 

from the views of oversight people like GAO and the IG may differ 

from the views of the Administration, which seems to be very much 

wanting to address this issue. 

And so I think all of us are going to have to work at it to the 

best that we can. 

We will continue to do our part, which is to continue to go in 

there, document the issues that we see, the abuses, the management failures. We will continue to raise these issues in every forum 

that we can. 

And I will continue to talk to the Agency administrators and the 

Secretary. And if there’s anything else that you see that I can do, 

I’m sure that you will ask me to do that. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. 

Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Inspector General Fong, thank you very much. Thanks for what 

you’ve been talking about, and thanks for the answers you have 

given to the questions. And thanks for the job you do. It’s very, 

very important. 

NATIONAL ORGANICS PROGRAM

One of the things that you mentioned was the organic foods, 

which is something that strikes me as very important, because a 

lot of people are attracted to it, because they think it’s something 

very special and something very secure and safe. 

The organic farming movement in this country has just blown 

up, as I understand it, over the past ten years. It’s just grown and 

grown and grown. 

So it’s not always clear what constitutes an organic product, 

what really makes it up and how secure it is. A lot of people are 

talking about it. Every place you go to buy food, you see that sign 

up, you know, or the advertisement on various kinds of products. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
170 

So I’m wondering just a couple of questions about this. Can you 

explain to us how the Department defines and certifies an organic 

product? And explain how the Department delegates authority to 

enforce standards to what seems to be private contractors. And 

what does it mean to be ‘‘a certifying agent,’’ working on behalf of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture? 

And then just finally on this issue, in your opinion, does the Department effectively regulate, does it effectively regulate the organic food industry? 

Ms. FONG. Okay, well—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Just for one second. I would just say this to Mr. 

Hinchey. I think everyone should have at his desk—we did a chart 

here on the findings from the National Organic Program. So if you 

have a—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. Very good. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. 

Ms. FONG. That’s very helpful to me, too. Thank you. 

Yes, as you point out, the organic industry is clearly something 

that is at the forefront these days for health and safety reasons, 

as well as environmental reasons. And I’m going to invite my colleague, Gil, to address some of your questions. 

But I do want to say, up front, that we are, of course, very concerned. It’s a new program for the USDA. There’s new legislation 

on it. And we are very concerned with the effectiveness, because of 

how effectively the program is run, because so many people do rely 

on that certification that something is organic. And in fact, we 

want to make sure that that certification is good. 

So Gil, if you would like to address that? 

Mr. HARDEN. The heart of the matters that we reported on really 

reflect on the processes and where there were weaknesses and how 

they decide whether the certifying agents are good. 

I don’t know that I can articulate right off the top of my head 

the exact process, but there is a process they have in place—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. Mm-hmm—— 

Mr. HARDEN. That we did find weaknesses with. 

And the other part of your question that we still have to do work 

on, which we plan to do later this year, is part of what makes 

something organic is whether it’s approved to be on what’s referred 

to as—that’s called the National List of Prohibited Substances—so 

it’s the stuff that you can’t use. 

And so we plan to do work later this year, which wasn’t part of 

our current audit as to how the processes they use to move products on and off that list, that would allow farming operations or 

certifying agents to allow things to be used. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Okay. 

Well, thanks very much. I think this is an important issue, and 

I appreciate your attention to it. And I appreciate this organic program here that we have. 

DAIRY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

In the brief time that I have, I wanted to ask you another brief 

question. It’s about dairy farming. And I don’t know if you’re very 

focused on this. But it was something that was addressed in the 

comments that were being made. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
171 

The situation here, well, we know that, you know, the dairy 

products, when you buy them in the stores, the price isn’t going 

down. The price is going up, if anything. But the price of the products for dairy farmers has gone down. 

In fact, in New York the state dairy prices, the price per 100- weight of milk in New York has dropped to $16.70 from more than 

$21 a year ago, which is more than a 20 percent decline. 

I signed a letter with a number of other people to Secretary 

Vilsack, and we signed it three weeks ago, urging him to take some 

of the same steps that he took last year, as well as provide assistance to the dairy products price support program. 

And the purpose of that, of course is to keep these farmers there, 

so that, you know, the variety of farming will continue, and the 

stabilization will continue. 

So to help stabilize market prices specifically for cheddar cheese 

and non-fat dried milk, those kinds of things are being paid attention to. 

So the question I have is: Has your office, do you in any way 

focus attention on this? Have you audited or reviewed the DLAP 

or the DPPSP program recently? Has anybody taken a look at that? 

Do you think they’re effective in what they do? And will you commit to overseeing the Department’s response to the current pricing 

crisis? 

Ms. FONG. I can tell you that during my tenure at OIG, I don’t 

believe we have ever looked at that program. And if any of my colleagues recalls it, please speak up. 

I’m aware of the crisis of which you speak, and that there are 

some very significant issues going on right now. 

My sense is that that is a program that’s run by AMS. Is that? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Hmm, yes. 

Ms. FONG. And we actually have not looked at many of the industry kinds of programs. We’ll probably get into the soybean issue 

later this year. But that would be the first, I think. 

But we would be very happy to talk with your staff—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. Okay—— 

Ms. FONG. To get a little bit more information about your interest, and to see if there is anything there that we could initiate. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Okay. And maybe you could follow up with a contact to Secretary Vilsack. 

Ms. FONG. Okay. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thanks very much. 

Ms. FONG. I’ll mention to him that you raised that today. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

FOOD NUTRITION SERVICE PROGRAMS

Ms. Fong, there is a fairly high error rate in the SNAP and 

School Lunch Programs. Correct? 

Ms. FONG. Right. 

Mr. KINGSTON. How high do you think that is? Any estimate? 

Ms. FONG. Oh, you know, I don’t have the precise number. I do 

know that it is on the high list for improper payments that is published government-wide. And because of that, FNS is required this 

year to analyze those rates, and to come up with an action plan to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
172 

bring the improper payment rates down. And we will be involved 

in that process later this summer. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Then, why did they get a clean opinion? 

Ms. FONG. On the financial statement audits? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes. 

Ms. FONG. Right. Let me turn to one of my audit colleagues here, 

who might have a good insight into that. 

Mr. HARDEN. They do have a plan to address those improper payments, as part of their financial statements. But that doesn’t exactly affect how it’s presented on the financial statements themselves. 

It’s a different type of program error. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Can you walk me through that? And the reason 

why I say that is—and my colleague, Mr. Farr, off the record 

made—you know, I really and truly feel that your job is to measure 

all programs blindly, without prejudice, whether they’re, you know, 

a constituency group or not, that’s involved, that’s sensitive, that’s 

great, or whatever. 

You know, four inches ought to be four inches. And if it wasn’t, 

can you imagine the impact, you know, on industry? And I can tell 

where we’ve got the best example of this is Moody’s and Standard 

& Poor’s probably contributed to the financial meltdown, which led 

to TARP and all the panic on Wall Street, maybe just as much as 

anything else. And somehow they escaped scrutiny. 

You know, we should be bashing Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, 

you know, a great bipartisan fashion in the wake of looking at 

what went wrong on TARP. 

And it would appear to me that we look to you for purity—just 

pure objectivity rather than, you know, ‘‘Okay, well this one is 

somebody likes this one, so we got to let him escape.’’ 

Mr. HARDEN. There’s a difference—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. And I also want to say this. I feel the same on 

any overpayments for farm programs. They should just all be 

measured with the same ruler, so to speak. 

Mr. HARDEN. Let me see if I can clarify for you what we’re doing 

on the financial statements versus the actual improper payments 

themselves. 

When we’re looking at the financial statements, we’re looking at 

whether FNS allocated that money or obligated that money to the 

right places. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. HARDEN. So they obligate, for instance, SNAP or School 

Lunch, through state agencies, so it’s spent by states and overseen 

by state agencies throughout the country. 

When you’re expressing an opinion on the financial statements, 

yes, FNS gave it to the right people. 

When you’re talking about the improper payments, or where 

SNAP payments went to the wrong people, that’s where you’ve got 

to get into the eligibility and what went on on the ground. That 

doesn’t affect—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Retailers—— 

Mr. HARDEN. Retailers, or, you know, or the individuals. And 

how the state oversaw the money that USDA gave them, to make 

sure it went to the right people. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
173 

So that’s the distinction, and we look at audits of whether there’s 

recipients or retailers spending the money wrong. And you can go 

after and try and get that money back. But that doesn’t mean that 

when our FNS made the original obligation to state A, B, or C, that 

that was a wrong thing. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. So the clean opinion rating would be simply did they allocate money to the right agencies? 

Mr. HARDEN. And their financial statements. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Financial statement oriented. Okay. 

Now the second part of it involving states overage or misuse of 

the program, or you know, whatever: Who grades that? If that’s the 

water’s edge—are you saying you don’t go past the financial statement part? 

Mr. HARDEN. For the financial statement audit, we don’t go past 

the financial statement. In other audits that we do, in looking at 

the various programs, we will look at the oversight throughout the 

program, where, take school lunch for an example. We haven’t done 

in a while; but the way we would approach that is to look at how 

FNS oversaw the money that it gave to a state; how then that state 

has obligations as to how it gives it to a school district. 

As the school district, you know, make sure that the right kids 

are coded for the right type of lunch. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The financial statement you do annually by statute. When is the other audit done? What triggers that? 

Mr. HARDEN. Those are ones that come up in terms of priorities, 

in terms of how we do our annual planning. So I mean, those come 

up—like RMA, and we talk about the compliance activities that we 

saw as something as being a high priority to do. 

School lunch things haven’t been of that level recently, but 

we—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. How much was the overage in RMA, do you 

think? 

Mr. HARDEN. That number I don’t have right off the top of my 

head. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, why don’t you just guess? 

Mr. HARDEN. That I would have to get back to you on. I don’t 

have that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, would you say it was ten millions? Or hundreds of millions? 

Mr. HARDEN. We’ve—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. You’ve got to know. And let me you tell you why. 

And I don’t want you to get back to me on this. And I’m not picking 

on you. 

But you made a judgment decision to go further on them than 

on this other one; so certainly you have that information. There 

would not be any reason to get back to me. Correct? 

Ms. Fong? I mean, somebody in your Department made a decision that RMA was a higher priority. And I just want to know, how 

was that decision made? That’s not an unusual question. I don’t 

know why you couldn’t answer it. 

And I’m not trying to pick on you, this is not personal. But certainly you have that information. 

Ms. FONG. I’m not sure that I understand what your question—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
174 

Mr. KINGSTON. All right, here’s the question. 

Ms. FONG. Okay. 

Mr. KINGSTON. You said that you do the financial statement 

audit on an annual basis just standard. And then you do—and I’m 

not sure what word we’re looking for—but the program audit based 

on priorities. 

So I’m just saying, how did you figure out which one was a priority and which one wasn’t? 

And I don’t have any idea myself. One may be billions of dollars, 

and one might be hundreds of millions. But I am assuming you 

know, because you made the decision that one was a priority. 

Mr. YOUNG. If I could, one of the reasons that the Food and Nutrition audits haven’t been a higher priority is because when we do 

those reviews, we’re making the same recommendations. The FNS 

officials agree with us. They simply say it’s very hard to get their 

arms around those problems. 

We do the reviews, we come up with the same type things. 

They’ve tried various things over the years to reduce, you know, ineligible lunches, these types of things. Their success rate has not 

been good. 

So as far as trying to do the audits again, show them the same 

things, we have given priority to other new areas that we haven’t 

looked at. 

Mr. KINGSTON. But you don’t have an idea how big one problem 

is versus another? I mean, I understand what you’re saying. From 

a pragmatic standpoint is ‘‘Okay, we’ve been here, we’ve done what 

we can do on it. This other one might be a little bit more solvable, 

so we need to put our time in there.’’ 

Correct? 

Mr. YOUNG. Correct. As far as the risk, the amount of money, 

there was—FNS has tried to come up with a figure as far as what 

the improper payments are. They’ve had a very difficult time. 

They did that sample roughly two years ago, that projected 

school lunch. And I don’t have that figure here. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think it’s $850 million. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Because we brought it up to Secretary 

Vilsack—— 

Ms. DELAURO. It’s gone from $850 million to $241 million over 

the years. That is what is stated in your reports here, that over the 

years they have seriously made progress with this, because they 

have stayed on it, they focused on it. The error rate is 5 percent. 

There probably is no other program in which we have spent as 

much time looking at who is eligible, who isn’t eligible, what retailers are skimming the process. 

And they’re listed here as to who’s been caught, what kind of jail 

sentences they had. 

Quite frankly, there hasn’t been this level of scrutiny with a 

whole variety of federal programs that we have. Including—including ones that we mentioned here today and others that have not 

yet been mentioned. 

I mean, you’ve got data and facts. It’s not 811. That was several 

years ago. It’s been changed. You ought to know that, because Mr. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
175 

Kingston asks a valid question. And we ought to be able to get 

valid answers to these questions. 

Mr. KINGSTON. In reclaiming my long-expired time—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KINGSTON. That’s what we’re really looking at, is just how 

to quantify it? You know, because when I say clean opinion, I’m 

thinking—you know, I understand now. 

But I’m just trying to figure out, well, you know, where are good, 

where are we bad? Where do we, as a committee, need to be focusing? And where do the authorizers need to be focusing? 

And so that’s why that information is important. 

And again, getting back to that kind of the blind judgment of, 

you know, four inches is four inches, that’s what we want is the 

objectivity and the purity, which—if there’s one government agency 

that has a high opinion, it’s the IG’s office. 

I mean, I think everybody can agree on that. So that’s why, you 

know, we just want the cold, hard data. And then, you know, we 

can look at it accordingly. 

And I thank the Chair for your indulgence. 

Ms. DELAURO. No. These things have to be gotten right, because 

there are implications on whatever program it is. We’ve got some 

good programs. They need to be strengthened. We need to look at 

them, and how, in fact, they can help to make a difference, whatever the constituency is. 

But let’s get the right numbers, and let’s have the accurate set 

of facts in order for us to be able to move forward. 

Otherwise, we move in ways that are detrimental, again, to 

whatever constituency comes under this jurisdiction. 

Mr. Bishop. 

PEANUT PRICE DATA

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I will shift the subject for a 

few moments. In your testimony, Dr. Fong, you mentioned that an 

audit conducted by your staff last year suggested that the accuracy 

of financial assistance to peanut producers, which is primarily 

based on peanut price data supplied by the industry, is not deemed 

by your audit to be reliable market data. I have several questions 

I would like to ask regarding that. 

You referenced that peanut shell is voluntarily provided price information. My first question is, do you have any evidence that the 

information that they have been providing to the National Agricultural Statistics Service is inaccurate or fraudulent? And if not, why 

would we be assured that a new regulation or law would make any 

significant change to the price data that is available today? 

The second question is, under our current trade agreements, our 

price data is determined by a formula that is established by the 

ITC, the International Trade Commission. For the 2002 and the 

2008 Farm Bill language, both encouraged USDA to consider the 

world market price when determining peanut prices. The peanut 

industry is living under two sets of pricing formulas. Why can’t 

USDA use a formula that is similar to the ITC as opposed to 

NASS? We changed the program from a supply management program to a market oriented program. And Congress wanted to see 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
176 

more peanut exports, yet USDA doesn’t take world market peanut 

prices into consideration when it establishes the formula. 

And the third question, why do you argue for mandatory price 

transparency but refuse to discuss the formula or the black box for 

determining the USDA posted price each week? Our producers 

don’t believe that the formula has sufficient weight from the world 

market based prices for peanuts, but don’t have any way of 

verifying what weight is given to it. And so, we would like there 

to be a little bit more transparency and would like for you to explain to us why you are not recommending that. 

Ms. FONG. Let me make a few comments on those and then I will 

ask my colleagues if they would like to also comment. On the peanut data issue, your first question was whether we had found that 

there was inaccurate or fraudulent data at some point in the process. And the reason we got into this audit was because a year or 

two ago there was a situation where I believe there was some concern about whether or not there was inaccurate data. And we 

looked into it—our inspection group at that time looked into it and 

found that there had been inadvertently reported inaccurate data 

which resulted in the department and the reporting entities having 

to go back and recreate, reconstruct, and fix that problem. 

So we at that point said, how did this happen? How can we work 

so that it doesn’t happen again, which is why we did the audit. And 

as you mention, we concluded that because the data is based on 

voluntary compliance and it is not verified by NASS, that we can’t 

be assured that the data is accurate and we feel very strongly that 

because of the potential implications in terms of cost—you know, 

if you have a penny differential here or there over the course of a 

year, it could have a 33 million dollar effect—that it was essential 

that good reliable data be collected, and that is why we made that 

recommendation. 

Now, we did not look, as far as I know, at the ITC trade agreement process and the use of the ITC formula. I think that is a really interesting thought. We haven’t had a chance to assess that, and 

I think that is something that we should take a look at to see if 

that would be a good alternative. I am sure NASS is thinking 

about that already, and we would be happy to talk with your staff 

further to see if there is anything further that we can do. But that 

had not been on our radar in terms of our recommendations. 

Mr. BISHOP. We have had through my office and through the 

peanut industry have had a significant amount of correspondence 

with the department over the years about the peanut price setting 

process. And this black box which has a magical formula in there 

that nobody knows but the people inside of USDA, also there is no 

predictability, there is no sunshine if you will, that will allow people in the industry to have any idea what you are basing that on 

except a general conclusion of your statements—I say not you, but 

the department—general conclusion of your statements. And we 

have been trying to get some identifiable criteria that could be 

looked at objectively by everybody as opposed to just having to 

wonder what the genie was going to come up with. So the sooner 

you could address that, I think the happier all of us would be. And 

of course the—I think it would assist you and well, assist the department in assuring accurate payments and reliable price data. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
177 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Mr. Alexander. 

CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM—— 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, ma’am. Touching on something Mr. 

Kingston was talking about, the survey can be clean and still smell 

badly. Now let’s talk about the conservation program, the conservation security program, whatever. One might find it hard to believe 

that a Member of Congress that represents district that is heavily 

dependent on farming would be somewhat critical of the program. 

It just seemed to me like it is a way for the Federal Government 

to pay men and women to not to farm on land that might not be 

suitable to farm on to begin with. 

Now the conservation program, it scheduled a billion dollar budget for 2011. And we are told that half of the contracts that you 

have surveyed were deemed to be going to people that didn’t qualify for those contracts. Now, we don’t know how many you surveyed. Did you survey all of them? Or if one is told that half that 

you surveyed were going to illegitimate people then we have to assume that all the surveys, if you surveyed all of them, then half 

of them would be abused. That is a lot of money. What are we 

doing to recover that? 

Ms. FONG. Well, to just address your initial comments about the 

survey and what the 50 percent means, when we do these reviews 

and surveys it is not possible for us to look at every single recipient, so we structure a statistical sampling which means that if we 

look at a certain number and we get a result, we can be confident 

that it would be projected to the full portfolio that statistics will 

hold. So that is what we did for the CSP program. We looked at 

75 contracts; we used a statistician to pull the right number and 

the right range. And of that 75, 38 it turns out went to unqualified 

recipients, which is a fairly high percentage, very high percentage. 

And I will say to you that I do know that the Secretary is very concerned about that statistic and is working to implement some corrective actions within that program. 

Now, your next question about what can be done to get the 

money back I think is a very interesting question, a very good 

question. If generally speaking, if somebody is ineligible to participate in a program and they provide inaccurate or false information, 

they should not be allowed to retain that benefit. And there are, 

different, perhaps ways that the department could consider going 

after that in terms of possibly civil false claims, actions, or actions 

on the contract itself. And I would think that NRCS should be talking to the General Counsel’s Office to see if there are appropriate 

ways to go after that. Certainly, if there is any indication of criminal wrongdoing, we would anticipate that those cases would be referred to us to look into. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I don’t see how one could even question criminal 

doings when we are told that—and I think 38 is a lot more than 

half of 75—but, we have people we know of that are in jail today 

for abusing Medicaid and Medicare. How many are in jail today for 

abusing this system? I mean if we are told that there is a billion 

dollar budget, over half of that is going to the people that don’t deserve it. And if we are somewhat non supportive of the entire program to begin with, then that really makes you sick. And what I 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
178 

would like to ask is, if you can identify some names of people or 

businesses that have been charged with criminal activity—and I 

certainly think this is stealing. If outside people are charged, do we 

ever consider filing charges against people on the inside? I mean 

checks have to be written, and if they are going to people that don’t 

deserve those checks, then do we ever question those writing the 

checks? 

Ms. FONG. One of my colleagues has advised me that we did in 

this situation, where we did the audit and found the number of 

people that provided false information, we contacted the prosecutors in a number of areas and asked them to consider a prosecution 

but we were—it was declined, the prosecutors declined. And that 

could be for any number of reasons. It could have been the dollar 

thresholds weren’t high enough, it could have been any—it could 

have been a priority setting process. And so what that tells us is 

that in those cases, criminal investigation is not an open avenue 

but there may be some other avenues that the department—— 

Mr. ALEXANDER. When you say prosecutors, I’m sorry, are we 

talking local district attorneys or—? 

Ms. FONG. It would have been the federal Department of Justice. 

But you know, to get to your other question, whenever we do audit 

and investigative work and it appears that there may be inappropriate conduct by department employees, we do follow up on that. 

We do have a number of employee integrity cases going on at any 

time, and we are not hesitant to pursue wrongdoing either within 

the department or outside the department where we see that there 

may be evidence of that. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. The point being Madam Chairman, if you would 

indulge me, I have heard stories of people in Louisiana that bought 

property paying for that property with conservation money, no intentions ever to farm on that. And that just goes against the grain 

for me. I don’t like that. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. I just would one quick question and very briefly 

because I am somewhat out of line with just following up here. But 

my colleague is absolutely right. Who has the authority to get this 

money back? Who? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We need to file charges against some prosecutor 

for—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Who is it within the federal jurisdiction here? We 

have information about improper payments, 38 out of 75, we must 

have identified whoever it was that got these funds improperly. 

Who then moves to getting the money back? Where does it go? You 

won’t cover it, you don’t have the authority to get the money. Who 

has the authority? 

Ms. FONG. In the first instance it would be the program manager 

who once we tell them you have some ineligible participants and 

this is the reason why we say that, they then can take that information and they should be talking with the General Counsel’s Office to determine what avenues are available—— 

Ms. DELAURO. So the department USDA then goes to the General Counsel’s Office? 

Ms. FONG. The program officials at NRCS should be talking with 

the General Counsel to see—— 

Ms. DELAURO. The White House general counsel? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
179 

Ms. FONG. No, no. USDA—— 

Ms. DELAURO. USDA’s general counsel. 

Ms. FONG. To see what legitimate options are available to pursue 

this. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Can I jump in on this? I don’t get it. I mean is 

the government just too big that we can’t fill in the potholes anymore in the roads, and this is just one of these potholes that we 

just shrug and say it should be done down the hall, not us? 

Ms. DELAURO. Close to doing business. I mean I don’t understand. 

Mr. FARR. Well, we make the law. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, the law is made though. 

Mr. YOUNG. That same question. I raised that question with the 

administrator as far as going back and collecting money. One of the 

problems that they are having and the agency is trying to take action, the problem they have is that program was extremely complex. I am not saying I agree with this, I am just saying what we 

were told. That the program was one of the more complex programs—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Yeah, but you figured it out as if there was an improper payment. You figured out the complexity of it, you got to the 

answer. Their job now is to make a justification. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, the problem is, what they are saying is to go 

back and collect it as far as going the legal route because of the 

complexities of the program, it makes it very difficult to do that. 

Now that is the reason that we were given for not moving out. So 

that is—— 

Ms. DELAURO. We have some fundamental issues here to really 

try to deal with here. Mr. Farr—oh, I am sorry, was it Ms. Kaptur? 

I am sorry. 

USDA LOCAL FOOD PROCUREMENT

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome. Thank you for 

the work that you do. I am very interested in the Inspector General’s Office and its ability to provide insight on how USDA programs are actually operating. My particular focus this morning is 

really a question once I explain what I am interested in, and 

whether you can provide any insight into this. 

I am very interested in how USDA programs overall benefit local 

farmers. And I am wondering how a measure could be developed 

by county looking at dollar inflows into those counties from USDA, 

and to what extent those dollar inflows help local agricultural, a 

local community agriculture. Let me give you an example. In the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, if one could measure 

all the dollars coming into given counties, and the counties I am 

more interested in are the 10 poorest urban areas in the country, 

I would like to know—as a start I am interested in those; I represent one of those—how those programs benefit local farming. So 

for example, if the local school system is buying beef or vegetables, 

who actually redeems those SNAP coupons? What are the mechanisms that exist in those places? Which companies benefit? Which 

local farmers benefit? Do you have the ability to develop a mechanism to do that? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
180 

If I take another USDA program, the Seniors Farmers’ Market 

Coupon Program, I know that one works for local agriculture because I have seen it work. So local people benefit from local producers. The WIC Program I am not sure about. I don’t really 

know—I know the WIC Farmers’ Market Coupon Program functions at some level in my area, but I don’t know how much. I go 

to the store in the winter time in my region, which is a greenhouse 

capital for our whole part of the country, and I see peppers on the 

shelf that are local supermarkets from foreign countries. But I 

don’t see anything from our local producers who can produce under 

glass all year. And I am saying, what is going on here? 

So I know you seek wrongdoers and you have a heavy focus there 

and we need you there, but I am wondering if you could provide 

us any insight into measuring the impact of USDA programs across 

a variety of categories, and its connect to local community agriculture. Do you think about that? Do you have a way of doing that 

or providing us with information? Then I can make a decision, oh 

legally up here what can I do and the law to help local agriculture 

first? 

Rather than providing more money for foreign inspections, which 

I am all for when I look at the amount of fruits and vegetables 

coming in here from other countries, and you know so much of this 

isn’t really tested. Our farmers, we know where the peppers come 

from; we can track it right back to where it has grown. So I am 

very interested in how effective USDA is in connecting to local agriculture. Could you comment on that, please? 

Ms. FONG. Let me offer some comments and then I will ask my 

colleagues if they would like to comment also. That is a really interesting question, and you are right that we haven’t really focused 

on that. And I will say that in terms of teasing it apart, what we 

would need to be able to do is to have some good information systems, data systems, that can track recipients of each of the programs and dollar level, so that we really know where the money 

is flowing, so that we could then extract that money, that information and do the kind of analysis you are talking about. 

I will tell you, I don’t know if USDA agencies have that capacity 

currently. I just don’t know. In terms of an analogy, when we look 

at the recovery money—as you might know, the Recovery Act set 

up a board to develop a website called recovery.gov, which is intended and it is a break through website that is supposed to be 

able to track every dollar recovery money across the government 

from every program down through the federal departments through 

the state and local agencies to the recipients and sub recipients 

down to the local person on your neighborhood block who actually 

gets the contract, the grant, or whatever it is. 

And that has taken quite a bit of time to actually design and get 

it up, but it is a ground breaking website, and it has actually been 

successful. So for example, if I get on that website and I plug in 

my zip code, I can see you know, within a three block radius who 

in my neighborhood got money from which department for which 

program, and how much it was. The reason I mention this is because I think that is going to be the wave of the future for government agencies and information technology. Now that we know that 

technology can be used to do that, even though it is an expensive 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
181 

and time-consuming process, my guess is that we will start seeing 

these kinds of websites develop across federal agencies. 

And at some point, you know, I would hope that USDA would 

have that capacity as well so that we would be able to track every 

dollar appropriated and every program down to the recipient at the 

grassroots level, and be able to do that kind of analysis. And that 

would of course be in the public’s interest as well so they can see 

where their money is going and who is getting it and for what purposes. But in terms of where we are today, I am not sure that we 

are there yet. 

Ms. KAPTUR. With your power at USDA, I would really challenge 

you to consider some pilot counties, and to think about your programs and their impact on local agriculture. And though I don’t 

have the authority to represent the city of Detroit, I go there frequently and it is a place of great need. I see this giant farmer’s 

market downtown and I see lots of local possibilities there; that is 

a town with no supermarkets in the city. And it is very important 

for us to understand where the dollars flow now, and we can do 

urban agriculture in Detroit; it’s being done in some instances already. I have met the Vietnamese woman selling snow peas and so 

forth. 

We need to use USDA’s power to help local people and local 

farms in those regions succeed. So I would—Ma’am I don’t know 

if it is within my purview, but to ask if they could construct some 

type of prototype analysis for—take the top 10 poorest, however 

you want to measure it, top five—and come back to us with how 

USDA’s programs actually link to local agriculture and support the 

development of local agriculture. 

Ms. DELAURO. Why don’t we talk about that and what kind of 

request we want to try to make. Mr. Farr. 

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate this report. I think it is succinct and—I appreciate your stating it in 

goals, and one of them is management improvement. The question 

I have really relates to your authority to essentially do perhaps reinstatement or restatement of the law. I am very concerned and 

Jack Kingston brought it up about—although we have different 

view points on it—on auditing children in the nutrition program. 

I just kidded him that some people have more interest in auditing 

Sesame Street than Wall Street. 

But the concern I have is that we need to really make food nutrition in our schools a high priority in our healthcare bill, the 

wellness aspect certainly a goal of the First Lady and the President. Yet if you look at the program, and to do that you are going 

to need more money, and we are at a zero sum game, and what 

I find is that the administration of the nutrition program is so costly. We spend more money on auditing and administration than we 

do on food, because we don’t want to feed the kid who may have 

too much money in—his family may have too much money—give 

them a free meal. You know, we are talking about cents; dollars 

and cents, not billions of dollars. If the wrong person gets fed I 

think the reduced meal cost is 40 cents and for a full meal it is 

about $2.50. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
182 

So the question really goes, and does your—looking at this law 

because you are responsible for auditing and seeing whether it is 

being carried out—you also make recommendations as to how the 

law can be streamlined and you know, for nutrition programs we 

have one for every meal. We have administration for each. Breakfast is a different administration than a snack, is a different administration than a lunch, is a different administration than an 

after school program, different administration than the WIC Program, different administration from other poverty programs, and 

yet it all may affect the same child. 

I mean there is incredible bureaucracy here that needs to be 

tackled, and that has not been done by any Administration. And 

it seems to me that the people who can understand that are the 

people who have to get down and do the sort of auditing. There 

must be some times where you say this is—we have just created 

kind of a dumb-dumb process here. And in that do you feed back 

to Congress? Is there like, hey we ought to really—we ought to look 

at this different. We ought to find a better way of measuring cost 

effectiveness. 

Ms. FONG. I think you raise a really interesting point about the 

many food programs that exist in the government. It is not something I think we ourselves have focused on in terms of the duplicate, potentially duplicative administrative costs for each of the 

programs. But I think we just heard that GAO issued a report last 

week on many—I think they mentioned that there are 20 or 30, 40 

food programs in the government, and that there may be some potential benefits to be gained by considering some—consolidation. 

Mr. FARR. Consolidation. Oh, I totally agree. 

Ms. FONG. And I have not yet had a chance to read the report, 

but I am very interested in that whole topic. We certainly need to 

take a look at it from our perspective which we haven’t done yet. 

Mr. FARR. But do you do this—my first job was auditing in a legislative analyst’s office in Sacramento, California. And what I 

found out in auditing school programs, categorical school programs, 

and the legislature essentially gave this mandate to go out and find 

out which works and which doesn’t, and then come back and tell 

us what we ought to eliminate. 

Now, what we found was that the way the programs were designed and the measurement tools they had didn’t relate to be able 

to relate to outcomes. It really got back to legislature. You have got 

to rethink and redesign this program in order to get the outcomes 

that you really want to have. You know, that is not what they 

wanted to hear. They just wanted the black and white, good and 

bad. And you would never be able to solve the goals without changing the ask languages. And it seems to me that is one of the things 

I have noticed in Congress, we never come back to people that are 

involved in the trenches. There must be a lot of people out there 

administrating laws that we created. It would just say, where did 

they come up with this one? Because it just doesn’t make sense. 

And how do we get that feedback? Is it your responsibility or your 

authority, or is that the audit—? I mean, I don’t know. 

Ms. FONG. That is something that we do view within our purview, and we do make recommendations where we think legislative 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
183 

change is necessary, after we do an audit and we find whatever we 

find. 

If we think the cause of the problem is that the legislation is not 

clear or perhaps is not what it should be, then we will come back 

and say we think you really need to reconsider a definition on this 

or put some controls on that. 

One of the examples that we were talking about earlier this 

morning was the peanut, the collection of data on that. The legislation does not require NASS to verify data. It does not require producers to give the data. It is a purely voluntary program. 

We did make a recommendation that we believe NASS should be 

given statutory authority to verify that data, and that it should not 

be voluntary. 

That is one example of where if we identified it as a legislative 

issue, we will bring it forth. 

Whether Congress is able to then take that issue and run with 

it, it is kind of out of our hands at that point. 

Mr. FARR. I understand that. For those of us who are interested, 

I am particularly interested in how to clean up the nutrition program so we get a better bang for our buck. 

My argument is look, we do not measure kids that get on the bus 

as to their financial well-being or when they check out a library 

book, but if you go in to get a meal, all of a sudden, your parents 

have to prove they are poor for you to be able to eat. 

The people you are talking about, proving how they are poor, 

they do not know how to do that. They are poor and they do not 

know how to do things like that. 

It is an awkward system. You wonder whether the requirements 

equal the costs, what the value of the enforcement is, when the 

outcome is to try to get kids to have nutritious meals, and we also 

have to change what we are feeding kids in schools. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Ms. Fong, I want to go back. I do not know if I should ask Mr. 

Young or Mr. Harden these questions. It may lend itself better to 

the record in this case, a followup, but I would like it to be timely. 

I would like to know on the conservation stewardship program, 

CSP, which Mr. Alexander was talking about, what is the trend, 

if 50 percent of this is going to ineligible people, what was the 

trend? 

You have been auditing them for many years; correct? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. We are up to 50 percent. Is that going down? Is 

that coming up? How long has that trend line been tracked going 

back five years, going back ten or whatever? 

When did we stop worrying about it? If we are not worrying 

about it, does that correlate with the trend line? 

I think the next question is something that the Chairwoman and 

I think the whole Committee—who is next? We need a schematic 

as to where the breakdown is. You are reporting this information 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
184 

to somebody within the agency and there seems to be you do not 

know, it is important, but I have other things. 

I understand that. Up here, you do have a full load every day. 

You go out, audit it, you report to Congress. Who do you report to 

in the USDA and what do they do about it? I just want to know 

that ladder. 

I would like to have kind of a schematic, a flow chart, but more 

importantly, I would like—I hope the Chairwoman does this—a report on whose desk is this sitting on. I would like to know that not 

just for CSP but everything else. 

My other question is in terms of the farm payment programs, do 

you know what the error rate is in that program, in farm payments, just in general? I know there is an error rate in that. Do 

you know offhand? 

Mr. YOUNG. There is a variety of farm programs. 

Mr. KINGSTON. There are some payment limitations that have 

caused some problems and then just eligibility. I would like to 

know that. It would appear that if we are not going to do anything 

with this information, then you are going to continue to have a 50 

percent error rate. 

One other question, which you may know right now on CSP, of 

that 50 percent, how much of it is a mistake and how much of it 

is fraud? 

Mr. YOUNG. We have no estimates on how much is actual fraud. 

They are still working on trying to collect that money. It is not 

something they have given up on. 

That was an unique program. The error rate we found there was 

substantially higher than some of the error rates we found in other 

audits that we have done. That program was not in existence for 

a long period of time. 

It varies by program and with the Improper Payment Act, one 

of the responsibilities of the agency managers is to ascertain what 

their error rate is or what their improper payments are. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you have legislative recommendations on it? 

Mr. YOUNG. On CSP? 

Mr. HARDEN. The program itself changed with the 2008 farm bill. 

It went from the conservation security program to the conservation 

stewardship program. What NRCS has said to us is a lot of the 

fixes or the recommendations that we had for the CSP will help 

them better put the next program in place. 

Mr. KINGSTON. It just would appear to me that on a program like 

that, if you have a 50 percent error, maybe 50 percent fraud, 

maybe 50 percent incompetency, whatever the reason, it would almost be to the level that the Secretary would go back to us and 

say you just need to kill this program for now or you greatly need 

to trim it until we can reshuffle and try to work this thing out. 

You are saying there are some legislative recommendations, but 

since it is a relatively new program, they are still finding their 

way? 

Mr. HARDEN. I do not believe we made legislative recommendations in that report. 

Mr. KINGSTON. You did on the peanut program. 

Mr. HARDEN. Right. The program itself changed as we were looking at it. What we started looking at was the conservation security 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
185 

program, and then that program disappeared and came back as the 

conservation stewardship program as part of the 2008 farm bill. 

When we go to look at it again, we will be looking at the new 

program, and what they have said is we will take recommendations 

made to the old program for the new program and make sure they 

strengthen them in that way. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I know I am out of time. 

Ms. DELAURO. Just quickly, with the legislative recommendations made with regard to the old program, were you on your way 

to that or did it just stop in midstream and then you—— 

Mr. YOUNG. No. 

FSIS RESIDUE INSPECTION

Ms. DELAURO. I would like to go back to FSIS and the residue 

inspection. I found that particularly troubling. Really disturbing reports about FSIS. 

You found some problems were identified as far back as 1985. 

Would you walk us briefly through your findings and tell us what 

the gap in management is at FSIS that allows programs like this 

to go unaddressed for 25 years? 

Mr. HARDEN. Actually—— 

Ms. DELAURO. This is residue. This is metals, antibiotics, et 

cetera, that are not being tracked. This is a serious public health 

issue. 

Mr. HARDEN. The coordination here, the real big problem that 

goes back a long way is not solely with FSIS. We are USDA and 

we can make recommendations to them. The biggest problem is 

their coordination with FDA and EPA on this issue. 

FDA sets the standards for the residues from the drugs. The 

EPA sets the standards for the residues for the chemicals. They 

need to work together to set those things up. 

That is the heart of the matter as to the key recommendation we 

made there, FSIS, you need to get that coordination re-energized 

and make sure that you have it at the right level and you have the 

right people at the right meetings so you can make the decisions 

you need to make in terms of what we are going to test versus 

what we are not going to test, how you are going to rotate things 

in and out, and if there are disagreements between the three— 

FSIS is the one that is on the front line to do the testing, but they 

cannot hold anything back if there is not a level to say it is over 

or under. You have to have the right people there to help make 

those decisions. 

Ms. DELAURO. First of all, I might just say in terms of your report you say ‘‘FSIS does not attempt to recall meat even when its 

tests have confirmed the excessive presence of veterinary drugs.’’ 

Mr. HARDEN. I agree. That is a huge problem. When we found 

that, it was very disturbing to us. I know the Secretary has recently said now that he is looking at it, there may be a different 

answer for that, as I viewed the press on that particular issue. 

We found it important to bring it forward because similar decisions were not made elsewhere, and that is where we make the example of what we are comparing it to is the hallmark recall where 

it was not a Class 1 recall, it was a Class 2, but yet you had the 

largest beef recall. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
186 

The residues would fit, if you do not want to say it is Class 1, 

why it would not be comparable to a Class 2, which they do work 

with companies to do those results. 

Ms. DELAURO. You have said this and very clearly about FDA, 

EPA, FSIS, is there anybody in charge? Is there a person that is 

in charge of any of this? 

Mr. HARDEN. No. The way they have approached it is very much 

from a coordination standpoint, which that goes back to a 1984 

memorandum of understanding. That is where we said you need to 

go back and make sure that is up to date, so that you have somebody that is in charge, you have some way of resolving whatever 

problems there are between the different people. 

Ms. DELAURO. There is no one in charge. I am going to say this, 

as I have said in the past, and this is in regard to food safety. No 

one is in charge. No one has authority. No one is responsible. There 

is no accountability. It is diffuse. 

Therefore, we cannot get to answers, we cannot move the process 

because no one is in charge of food safety in the Federal Government in the United States of America. No one. 

You lay out the case. Three agencies that cannot come to identifying knowable chemical difficulties. It is annullable scientifically. 

They cannot either define the standard and they cannot enforce the 

testing of the standard. They do not recall it when they find it. 

The public has every reason to believe that there is gross ineptness here, on this issue, unlike CSP, the public health is at risk. 

People can get sick. People can die. There is no one in charge. 

I have one last piece on FSIS. I really throw up my hands, but 

since 2000, your office has done by our count 34 audits of FSIS covering a broad range of issues. 

In these reports, your office has made 396 recommendations to 

improve the Agency’s operations. As a result in many cases, 

changes have been made and the program has been improved in 

the specific areas that you identified. 

However, while one thing gets fixed, the next audit of FSIS finds 

new problems. This is an area and an agency with a single area 

of responsibility, inspecting meat and poultry plants. That is what 

their responsibility is. 

It is not rocket science. I am exasperated. I am tired of this. 

Again, I believe if the American public had any idea of what their 

exposure is on this, there would be a real outcry. 

There is a fundamental issue here. This is years and years and 

years. What has to be done to change the culture at FSIS? You continue to do reports. You do audits. They sit on a shelf. They evaporate. It does not get implemented. Some of the stuff does. 

We keep hearing the same things over and over again, and we 

cannot come to changing the infrastructure in a way that allows for 

a procedure or a process to move forward affirmatively. 

You all have looked at this. What is your judgment on trying to 

change the culture at FSIS? 

Ms. FONG. Let me offer a couple of comments and then I will invite my colleagues, as always, to participate. 

You are right. We have done an awful lot of work in this area 

and it has been one of our top priorities for all the reasons that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
187 

you state. I will say that in my own tenure here in the last eight 

years, we have had some ups and downs. 

I am harking back to the BSE situations and some of the trade 

issues that came out of that, the recalls, I will say as you also recognize, there has been some improvement. 

For example, the BSE surveillance process, it has really settled 

down and it is probably now where it needs to be. On equivalency 

of inspections, Canadian beef and other kinds of beef, we have seen 

improvements. 

Normally, what it takes is a crisis and then a report, an analysis, 

and then reaction. 

Of course, there are areas that still do need further work, and 

what we find whenever we do an audit is that FSIS will take those 

recommendations and they will focus on them in the heat of the 

moment and we will get some forward movement, but then we always find spin-offs, issues that we had never realized were issues, 

so we will pursue those. 

It looks as if it is an agency that has challenges that perhaps 

some people may say have not been met. I will say that we would 

say there have been some successes. 

We also recognize it is a very tough mission. Inspecting food in 

slaughter houses takes a certain kind of employee. It takes a certain dedication to the mission. It is a very tough mission, very hard 

on people as individuals. 

All the classic things that I can say to you about how you change 

an organizational culture, you start with tone at the top. I think 

it is critical to have excellent leadership from the top down because 

that dedication to the mission and clear vision of what the agency 

is up to has to be the first step. 

Of course, you would look at the workforce, and is the workforce 

getting the kind of training it needs? Are they all fully professional 

to the extent we would all want them to be? I think that has been 

an ongoing challenge. 

You also look at are the procedures in place within the agency 

to make sure the employees, once they are trained, do they know 

what they are supposed to do, is it clear? 

We have had a number of findings in those areas, and in some 

cases we find that the procedures are good, but people are not following them. In other cases, we find that no, the procedures really 

need to be established. 

There is that whole range of issues. 

Ms. DELAURO. Maybe we need a single food agency where they 

concentrate on food safety and we do not have to have multiple 

agencies not doing, quite frankly, anything to address this issue. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the Chairwoman. I think you have expressed the frustration a lot of us have, and I think rather than 

to beat up on the Inspector General—— 

Ms. DELAURO. I am not beating up on the Inspector General. She 

knows that. 

Mr. LATHAM. My concern is we have turned over our responsibilities in Congress by not doing the oversight of these agencies, 

whether it be this committee or the authorizing committee, to find 

out what the heck is going on, and we are so worried about starting 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
188 

new programs and spending more money elsewhere, that we are 

not doing what we should be doing here. 

Just to have oversight hearings on these agencies, and it is not 

just FSIS, we do not do oversight on anybody, and to expect the 

Inspector General to find out all the bad stuff going on without us 

doing our job, I think is misplaced responsibility, that we need to 

do our job here. We should have the power rather than turning everything over to the Inspector General. 

OIG BUDGET

I would ask you, the President is only asking for an additional $1.6 million for your office. It appears the workload is increasing 

as Congress charged you and your fellow Inspector Generals for policing the massive stimulus bill that was passed, and this committee did not really have a hearing on our $28 billion share of the 

stimulus bill. We never had one hearing and never had a discussion in the Committee. 

Is this request adequate? Do you need additional funding to do 

your job? 

Ms. FONG. That is always a tough question to answer. 

Mr. LATHAM. Did you ask for more? 

Ms. FONG. I think we have some needs that we had wanted to 

fund, for example, we wanted a stronger IT system to track our investigations, but we are finding another way to fund that. That is 

being taken care of. 

With the Recovery Act money that we are getting within the IG 

Office, and we have been very grateful to you all for that money, 

it has enabled us to hire up additional staff in the audit and investigative sides, so that we can actually do more work. 

We are a level of effort office. If you fund us at a certain level, 

that is the amount of work you are going to get. Clearly, there are 

programs within USDA that we only are able to look at on a cyclical basis because of our resources. If we were to get more money, 

we would be able to do more work. Similarly, if we are held to this 

level, then we will prioritize. 

In response to Mr. Kingston’s concerns as well, what we look at 

is dollar risk. We look at history of performance in a program. We 

look at interest from the Congress and the Administration, as we 

decide which programs to look at each year. 

My answer to you is right now, because of the Recovery Act and 

the disaster money that you all gave us, we are adequately staffed 

to do what we need to do, to deal with critical issues. If we had 

more money, we would be able to expand our range of operations. 

Mr. LATHAM. That is my question. Are there a lot of other things 

that you should be looking at today but you are restricted? The $28 

billion in the stimulus bill, like you said, the disaster, I know there 

was a little bit of money in the stimulus for your office. 

I guess I would ask how much of that have you spent so far? 

What do you need to actually do your job in a competent way? 

Ms. FONG. In terms of stimulus, we received $22.5 million available for five years. We are in the second year of recovery. As I 

might have mentioned to all of you, we are actually looking at 

every program that received dollars through recovery. We are going 

to be looking at all the nutrition programs. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
189 

We have issued 30 reports this past year on it. We are cranking 

it out. 

We have to date spent about half of that, about $11 million, in 

my understanding. We are moving through it pretty rapidly. We 

have about 50 audits underway across RD, Forest Service, FSA, 

FNS, Departmental Administration. 

We have a huge initiative going on in that area. 

Mr. LATHAM. What would you look at if you had the funds to do 

it? 

Ms. FONG. Well, every year we go through our planning process 

and we have tiers of audits that we consider. At this point, we are 

only addressing our top tier of what we consider critical high risk 

issues. 

There are other tiers of issues that have been surfaced by our 

staff that we at some point will get to. 

Mr. LATHAM. Are there any examples? 

Ms. FONG. Actually, I think some of the farm programs, some of 

the nutrition programs, some of the AMS programs. 

Mr. LATHAM. That you are not looking at because of funds? 

Ms. FONG. They will be scheduled in the out years. 

Mr. LATHAM. A small part of the budget; right? 

Ms. FONG. We do what we can. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. 

Ms. DELAURO. What I would like to do if it is agreeable, we have 

talked about resources and funding for what you do, which is Mr. 

Latham’s point, which is a reality, but I would very much like to 

talk to you about what kind of authorities you think you might 

need in order to deal with follow up, with what you do with the 

money that we appropriate you. 

You lay out the reports. You lay out the recommendations. In 

several of these programs, we have seen rather it is 9 out of the 

23 recommendations that are acknowledged or 14 out of 22, et 

cetera. 

How do we provide you and what is it you believe you would 

need in terms of authorities to be able to move to a next step? 

We are not going to do that here today. I would love to be touch 

with you and sit down and talk about how we get to that. Sometimes it is not just the money, but we cannot get the implementation of what you have already done on some of these programs. 

I think we have to address that issue first and foremost and then 

deal with resources. 

Mr. Farr. 

NATIONAL ORGANICS PROGRAM

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. I want to ask a question relating to the Organics Standard Act and the fact that the national 

regulations allow for state management under the state organic 

program, SOP. 

You indicated that only two states have been approved for SOP, 

and California has some problems with theirs. I think there are 

about 14 recommendations that came out of that. They indicated 

AMS has agreed that they are going to get those recommendations 

in place by June of this year. 

Do you plan another audit after that? What is the follow up? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
190 

Mr. HARDEN. Normally, when we do a follow up of this nature, 

we give them time—they give us the time frames in which they are 

going to make the changes or implement the changes, and we will 

come back and schedule work later. 

Maybe an overview of the program in the next year or so, but 

before the end of this year, there is another part of the organic program that we are going to look at in terms of how they take substances on and off the national list of prohibited substances. 

I would say in terms of a comprehensive review, it would probably be in a year or two. 

Mr. FARR. The one you have dealt with now is the inspection 

process; right? Certification process? 

Mr. HARDEN. AMS oversight and the type of oversight they give 

to the certifiers. By doing that, we did go to a number of operations. 

Mr. FARR. The next one is going to be sort of how you manage 

the—— 

Mr. HARDEN. There was a specific question that we received from 

the Committee staff in terms of what did we do in this audit with 

regard to how they decide on which substances are on the list or 

not on the list, which we did not do detailed work on previously, 

and we are going to be doing that in the future. 

Mr. FARR. I have probably the largest number of organic growers 

in the United States who are very interested. Obviously, they want 

to comply with the law because it protects them. 

I am curious as to when can they expect to have your oversight 

to say yes, it is in place, working well. You said that will probably 

take about a year once it is in place? 

Mr. HARDEN. We would probably give an agency that amount of 

time so we can go in and see how effectively their corrective actions 

were. 

Mr. FARR. We can expect perhaps about 2012 that you would 

start; right? End of this year? 

Mr. HARDEN. That would be an expected time frame, but we have 

to take that into consideration with other priorities at the time, in 

terms of when we actually would get that started. 

Mr. FARR. I appreciate that. I appreciate you doing your oversight on it. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Fong, I was hoping to bring Ms. Ellis and Mr. Lebo in, because I think they have had a free ride today. [Laughter.] 

INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID

Mr. KINGSTON. I am not sure what their area is. To move in a 

different direction, do you audit international food aid? Going back 

to Mr. Harden. You just cannot get enough. [Laughter.] 

Ms. FONG. We have done a couple of audits in that area in the 

last few years. Did we not have some investigations? Never mind. 

[Laughter.] 

I am trying. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, you do audit it. P.L. 480 and McGovernDole. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
191 

Mr. HARDEN. I do not know that we have done specific work on 

that program. The GAO has done work in that area, and we try 

to make sure we do not overlap one another. It has been several 

years since we have actually looked at the food aid programs specifically. 

Mr. KINGSTON. We had a great hearing with GAO on international food aid, and one of the things that somewhat came out 

of it is that it appears to be somewhat haphazard in that we do 

not have measurements as to where it has been most successful, 

and often there is a cliff when you do food aid and then a country 

is moving up the ladder but because they are moving up the ladder, they are no longer eligible for development aid. 

I was just wondering if you had any information on that. 

Mr. HARDEN. Not from current work. 

Mr. KINGSTON. How long has it been since you audited this? 

Mr. HARDEN. Five to ten years. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I am not sure why you would not when P.L. 480 

is $4.7 billion and McGovern-Dole is $2 billion. It would appear 

that would be on your radar. 

Mr. YOUNG. It is. That is something we have talked about, looked 

at, when we go through what audits we can schedule and do. It has 

not made it into the ones that we are able to start. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I do not know what we could do to urge you to 

put that on there, maybe actually in instructive language. It would 

appear to me based on our GAO hearing that it is certainly something that we should be looking at. 

We give food aid, as you probably now, to 153 countries. It does 

not seem to be as effective in combating food security in many 

ways because we are not helping with the development aid along 

with it, and as a component of it. 

If you have not audited it, you are not in a position to discuss 

it; correct? 

Mr. YOUNG. Correct. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me just come out with some bad questions for 

Ms. Ellis and Mr. Lebo, we have a few minutes. No, I yield back. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Let me just try to run through some— 

I am going to give you a question on the N60 testing protocol, testing that is used by USDA, as you know, a screening test for E. coli 

in ground beef products. 

What I asked about was statistical validity, the testing method, 

how the samples are allocated and analyzed by USDA employees, 

and the application of the N60 test results, and you agreed to look 

at this. If you can just get back to us and update us on the findings. 

[The information follows:] 

The first phase of this audit request is in process. Our audit objective in this 

phase is to follow up on matters reported in our memorandum, ‘‘Food Safety and 

Inspection Service Sampling and Testing of E. coli,’’ issued January 29, 2008, related to examining the adequacy and effectiveness of FSIS N–60 sampling method. 

The report will be issued by late summer 2010. 

Again, questions here that follow up on Mr. Bishop’s commentary 

on peanuts, and you can get back to me on this. Are peanuts the 

only commodity that does not have a public commodity market? 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
192 

According to FSA program staff, in addition to peanuts, there may be some minor 

oil seeds (rapeseed, crambe, and sesame) that may receive farm program assistance 

and that may not have a public commodity market—that is, without a spot, cash, 

futures, or terminal market. In the case of these minor oil seeds, Farm Service 

Agency officials have stated that not much is produced and most of what is produced is by contract with processors. 

What authority does NASS need to be able to verify the price 

data reported by buyers, and is the reliance on this unreliable market data more likely to cause under payments or over payments to 

peanut producers? 

[The information follows:] 

In our audit report, ‘‘Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Reliance on the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s (NASS) Published Peanut Prices,’’ issued in March 2009, 

we recommended that FSA work with the Department to seek authority to establish 

mandatory price reporting of peanut purchases by buyers as well as the authority 

to verify buyers’ reported data to NASS. We believe that such authority needs to 

be mandated, since the buyers’ reported data may be considered as confidential 

business proprietary information. 

With regard to repeated abusers of USDA programs, you note 

that ‘‘USDA has excluded many of its programs from the suspension and debarment regulations using questionable justification.’’ 

Which programs has USDA excluded from suspension and debarment regulations based on questionable justification? 

[The information follows:] 

Our audit of the effectiveness and enforcement of debarment and suspension regulations in USDA is expected to be issued by mid to late summer. Our report will 

identify if some or all of the programs within several USDA agencies have used 

questionable justifications to exclude programs from suspension and debarment requirements. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions on the AMS. This is purchases of frozen ground beef. This is another area of unbelievable 

exasperation. 

You found in procurement, a staff did not accurately identify supplier non-conformances and tracking used to monitor supplies, suppliers’ continued eligibility, weakness—around 924,000 pounds of 

ground beef product entered the national school lunch program 

from a supplier whose eligibility had not been properly evaluated 

by AMS. 

I have grave concerns, really grave concerns about how an agency can adequately determine a supplier’s eligibility for a program 

if they do not know if all the non-conformances are in the tracking 

system and they are not looking at the full universe of these nonconformances. 

Do you think AMS had adequately addressed the OIG’s audit 

findings for the ground beef purchase program? 

Mr. HARDEN. What we can say right now is the response they 

gave to our report which we issued just earlier this month. What 

they stated they plan to do in response to our recommendations 

looks good. It will be after they have done that that we can then 

go in—— 

Ms. DELAURO. What is the timing to do it? 

Mr. HARDEN. They plan to have the changes in place for this 

coming school year purchases, so that would be this June/July. The 

other thing to their credit, they are contracting with the National 

Academy of Scientists to look at this program as well as all their 

programs. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
193 

When we brought these issues to the table for them, they embraced them, so to speak, and are trying to move out in an expeditious manner. 

Ms. DELAURO. Also, you make a recommendation on bonding, is 

anybody looking into that to see whether or not we ought to move 

on that with regard to liability? 

Mr. HARDEN. They agreed to take a look at that and do a formal 

determination there, where they have done it very informally before. That again relates to the hallmark example where the Department had to spend money to help recall the product, where if they 

had a bond or some kind of insurance—— 

Ms. DELAURO. It would have made them more reliable as well, 

and not to have to pick up the charges when they were picking up 

the tab. 

Many of the suppliers continue to have non-conformance issues. 

They are still allowed to participate in the ground beef purchase 

program. For reviewing a supplier’s eligibility for the program, is 

it enough only to review repeated non-conformance violations in a 

30 day period? 

Mr. HARDEN. That is the way they treat the repeated ones. There 

is also a process they have in place where they would be in the 

plants on a regular basis. I do not know if I can detail that process 

off the top of my head. I know we looked at that. 

Ms. DELAURO. We continue to have these bad actors selling 

ground beef to the national school lunch program. Can anybody tell 

me what has happened with Beef Packers, Inc., the company that 

over and over again has serious violations but was still allowed to 

move forward? 

If you cannot, I am very interested in this. Again, we continue 

to allow contractors who are in gross violation, not once, not twice, 

many times over, to continue to participate and sell a product to 

the school lunch program, and it would appear to me that AMS is 

not doing what it needs to do in order to protect what they are supposed to do by way of their mission, to protect the product going 

into the school lunch program. 

They are supposed to have certain criteria around it that does 

not exist elsewhere. It would at least appear we are not following 

this dictate. I would like to hear back about Beef Packers, Inc., if 

you can. If you have some information now, that would be great. 

Ms. FONG. I do not know if we can comment on the record, but 

we would be happy to talk to your staff about that. 

Ms. DELAURO. That is fine. A bunch of questions on flood control 

on dams and NRCS. Staggering, again, as to what we are not doing 

with dams that are hazardous and which we cannot seem to get 

any compliance in that area. We will send you the questions on 

that. 

We are going to go vote. I know Mr. Kingston cannot come back. 

Those are the last votes of the day. We want to not have you just 

sit here. 

Mr. KINGSTON. One thing I just wanted to mention, in your various reports, it would appear to me there might be categories of 

what is a mistake, what is likely fraud, and what is non-compliance of existing laws that are already in place but for some reason 

people are not complying with procedures. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
194 

I do not know if you put that in your report, but to me that 

would be of interest, too, as we look at these things. 

Ms. DELAURO. It would be very much of interest. I would also 

like to indicate I asked you and we need to talk about this not here 

but in another venue, to talk about what authorities you need. 

I would very, very much like and I think Mr. Kingston would as 

well to know what authorities you believe the agency needs in 

order to be able to change the culture, change the infrastructure, 

and change the outcome in a number of these areas. 

Thank you very, very much, and this hearing is concluded. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
195 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1 here 57780P2.001
196 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 2 here 57780P2.002
197 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 3 here 57780P2.003
198 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 4 here 57780P2.004
199 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 5 here 57780P2.005

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(201) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS 

WITNESSES 

KEVIN CONCANNON, USDA, UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD NUTRITION AND CONSUMER SERVICES 

DR. KELLY BROWNELL, YALE UNIVERSITY, RUDD CENTER FOR FOOD 

POLICY AND OBESITY 

DR. MARIANA CHILTON, DREXEL UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC 

HEALTH, PENNSYLVANIA 

SCOTT FABER, GROCERY MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION 

ZOE NEUBERGER, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

MS. DELAURO OPENING REMARKS

Chairwoman DELAURO. Good morning. The hearing is called to 

order. I will make some opening remarks. Our colleague, Mr. Kingston, who will be here shortly as ranking member will make opening remarks and then we will move to testimony and then to questions. Thank you very, very much for being here. 

I again want to welcome my fellow committee members and our 

distinguished guests. This is the second hearing of the Agriculture 

Appropriations Subcommittee this year. Let me welcome our witnesses. Kevin Concannon, who is the under secretary for Food Nutrition and Consumer Services at USDA; Dr. Kelly Brownell of Yale 

University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity; Dr. Mariana 

Chilton of the Drexel University School of Public Health, Pennsylvania; Scott Faber of the Grocery Manufacturing Association; and 

Zoe Neuberger of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

I am really very, very excited that you are here today to share 

your insights and your expertise with all of us. This is not just ‘‘we 

do hearings on the budget and with the agency representatives’’. 

This is another aspect of the hearings that we will hold, as we have 

in the past; this one focusing on, obviously, the issue of nutrition. 

We will be doing several others, but quite frankly this is not mandated for us to do, but the issue is so critical and so important that 

we really wanted to get you here to address this. 

We kicked off our committee hearings last week with Secretary 

Vilsack and his staff, who outlined goals and priorities for the 2011 

budget. Among them, as many will remember, was the issue that 

is dear to the hearts of many on this panel as well as to the First 

Lady, which is improving child nutrition. With WIC, with the 

CSFP—Commodity Supplemental Food Program—the SNAP program, the School Lunch Program, and other crucial food assistance 

and nutrition programs under the Subcommittee’s purview, our 

thought was that we really needed to take a closer look at the ways 

that we can work to improve the health and the nutrition of our 

children. In addition, we want to help frame the issue by listening 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
202 

to experts. Your input is critical this year as Congress works on the 

reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, so we must act before 

the current extension runs out later this year. 

When it comes to child nutrition we are confronted with what at 

first appears to be a two-headed problem. On one hand we face a 

problem of access. Far too many children in America are simply not 

getting enough to eat. Parts of the testimony that I’ve read, it is 

chilling, and it’s unconscionable what is happening with children in 

this country with regard to hunger, and we have the opportunity 

to do something about it. This institution can do something about 

it, so it’s a moral responsibility, in my view, what we’re talking 

about here. 

And then you have on the other hand as a result of poor nutrition and unhealthy food options in our schools and on our dinner 

plates, we face a growing epidemic of child obesity that is harming 

the health and the quality of life of our kids. So we need to do more 

to ensure that the foods our children eat have the nutritional value 

that they need to thrive. In fact, the problems are two sides of the 

same coin. 

Research has shown, time and again, that families that are 

struggling economically have a harder time affording healthy food 

options. Simply put, unhealthy food is cheaper. It’s easier to get. 

It’s a problem that we in the government and on this committee 

who are overseeing nutrition funding must do more to rectify. In 

fact, the discussion begins with the current economy. Right now, 

we know that families are struggling. In America today, almost 14 

million children—that’s one in five—live below the Federal poverty 

level. 

That number is expected to rise as high as 27 percent as a result 

of the recession. If you factor in that the poverty line is actually 

much lower than what families need to really get by, it is estimated that 41 percent of our kids live in a low-income household 

right now. I mentioned this at the prior hearing, so my colleagues 

have heard it before, but the Speaker Of The House in Connecticut 

is doing a wonderful service, I believe. He is going from district to 

district and, in a bipartisan basis, talking about the recession and 

its impact on children. And the one for the Third Congressional 

District was about two weeks ago and I was there. They asked me 

to speak and then we listened to testimony. 

One woman stood up and said she has five children. She rations 

food. She has to. Her older two are boys and she provides a little 

bit more for them. And the three girls a little bit less, and she said 

that it’s a terrible thing to have to tell your kids that they can’t 

have seconds, and if they ask to have a sleep over, she has to say 

‘‘No,’’ because they do not have enough food. Her husband lost his 

job and she is trying to take on part-time work and also to try to 

take care of five children. 

The dismaying poverty rate very quickly translates into hunger 

and malnutrition for our children. According to the Food Research 

Action Center, 18 percent of Americans across the country have experienced food hardship in the past year, meaning that they have 

not had the money to purchase the food their families desperately 

need. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
203 

My view is that they are not fed and secure. They are hungry. 

People in this country are hungry. In fact, more than two out of 

every three children who participate in the school lunch program 

in our public school system, 69 percent currently qualify for free or 

reduced school lunches. 

Government has a role in helping to alleviate hunger, which we 

try to accomplish in many ways. For example, one in five children 

receives food stamp assistance. But one of the problems we face 

and need to find better ways to redress is to make sure that kids 

across the country are actually getting the help that they qualify 

for. 

According to the Carsey Institute at the University of New 

Hampshire, almost one in three children in rural households, 29 

percent participated in one of our Child Nutrition Programs. That 

being said, too many of these qualifying households do not participate in any of these programs, including 55 percent of those eligible for the National School Lunch Program, and 92 percent of those 

eligible for the Child And Adult Care Food Program. 

Time to take a hard look at our nutrition efforts so that the aid 

is getting to the people that need it. We need to move forward. We 

need to ensure that the resources we apply to child nutrition are 

translating directly to these kids. To take just one example, I believe we ought to increase the reimbursement rates for the school 

food programs. 

At the same time, we also need to reduce waste, overhead in the 

programs, make sure that money is actually being used for what 

it has been intended for, and that’s food for children. In addition, 

we must do more to improve the nutritional quality of the food in 

our schools. We should work to encourage in the small but notable 

ways that the government can encourage families and consumers 

towards healthier food options. 

I read in Mr. Concannon’s testimony that the Administration 

‘‘has two main priorities for Child Nutrition Programs: one, reducing barriers and improving access to combat childhood hunger; and, 

two, enhancing nutritional quality and the health of the school environment.’’ We on this committee share these two priorities. These 

are two sides of the same nutritional problem that I outlined. So 

I look forward to the testimony today how we can better address 

both of these issues and help to ensure that our kids have a 

happier and a healthier future. And, with that, let me yield to my 

colleague, Mr. Kingston. 

Let me then proceed with testimony and remind the witnesses 

that your entire statement will be made part of the record, and you 

are free to summarize your remarks. And, Mr. Concannon, we will 

start with you. 

STATEMENT BY MR. CONCANNON

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman; 

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

discuss the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and 

the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants 

and Children. 

It’s a very special opportunity to be here today to talk about the 

Department of Agriculture’s priorities for reauthorization. The reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
204 

authorization of the Child Nutrition Programs presents us with an 

historic opportunity to combat child hunger and improve the health 

and nutrition of children across our country. The proposed investment of $10 billion in additional funding over 

10 years would significantly reduce the barriers that keep children 

from participating in the Child Nutrition Programs. It would also 

improve the quality of school meals and the health of the school environment and enhance the program performance in the National 

School Lunch Program, School Breakfast, the Summer Food Service Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Special 

Milk Program, and WIC, the special program for women, infants 

and children. 

We are confident that the following recommended changes will 

move us towards achieving our goals and achieving a 

groundbreaking and robust child nutrition and WIC reauthorization. As the Chairwoman mentioned, our two overarching goals are 

to reduce barriers and improve access as well as enhancing the nutritional quality and health of school environments. 

In keeping with the recommendations made by the Institute of 

Medicine, reauthorization must substantially improve the nutritional value of the meals being served to our children. But, we 

know that improved foods will require increased cost for schools. 

That is why we are calling on Congress to increase the reimbursement rate for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Our expectation is that school meals will improve as USDA 

issues new meal requirements to emphasize fruits, vegetables, 

whole grains and low fat dairy products. 

Any increases in the reimbursement rate must be conditioned on 

the fact that the increases will pay for improved quality and improved nutrition, not just the status quo. We also recommend the 

establishment, importantly, of nutrition standards for all schools, 

for all foods, rather, served in schools, including vending machines 

and a la carte lines. 

We support providing competitive grants to states and local, public and private, non-profit organizations to promote increased consumption of healthy foods through innovative food service delivery 

systems based on behavioral economics. 

I read a wonderful book recently called ‘‘Nudge’’; nudging people 

in the right direction. We also support a challenge to the Nation’s 

governors to eliminate hunger by 2015 as part of reauthorization. 

State childhood hunger challenge grants will provide competitive 

grants to allow governors to implement creative and innovative approaches to eliminating hunger. To reduce barriers to access and 

approve program operations, we support offering grants to streamline the application process and expand efforts to enroll eligible 

students through direct certification. 

Recognizing that many schools do not have the equipment necessary to provide more healthy food selections, reauthorization 

should include funding to improve school kitchens so that schools 

can provide the food that meet these Dietary Guidelines. We should 

continue supporting Farm-To-School Programs to increase the 

amount of produce available to cafeterias and to help support local 

farmers by establishing regular institutional buyers. We found a 

great example in the Hawthorne Elementary Schools in Bozeman, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
205 

Montana, which started networking three years ago with Grow, 

Montana, and this has resulted in a wonderful partnership. 

Recently, I’ve been in contact with the New Haven schools program, Chef Cipriano, and they have developed programs along this 

line. A month ago I was in Summerville, Massachusetts, and they 

over the past three years have been expanding their reliance on 

area farms to make wonderful win-win phenomena for schools, for 

healthier eating, and helping local economies. 

One idea I think that warrants attention is to expand the existing authority of the Child And Adult Care Food Program to provide 

after school meals to at-risk kids in all 50 States. The committee 

may be aware that’s currently limited to 14 States. 

Finally, while the focus of reauthorization must remain on access 

and improving quality, we understand the underlying responsibility: We have to make sure that the food our children eat is both 

nutritious and safe. That’s why we’ve begun a complete review of 

our programs and protocols to enhance the safety of all food that 

is served to our children, and why we recently announced a series 

of reforms designed to ensure that foods we procure are safe and 

of the highest quality. 

Our priorities and many more will be debated by Congress in the 

near future as you consider legislation to modernize these programs. Our Administration is committed to combating hunger, providing healthier foods to our Nation’s children, and I hope we will 

have your support on these efforts. 

Again, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the reauthorization of the Child 

Nutrition Programs administered by the USDA, and I look forward 

to answering questions that you may have. 

Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
206 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 512 here 57780B.001
207 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 513 here 57780B.002
208 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 514 here 57780B.003
209 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 515 here 57780B.004
210 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 516 here 57780B.005
211 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 517 here 57780B.006
212 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 518 here 57780B.007
213 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 519 here 57780B.008
214 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 520 here 57780B.009
215 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 521 here 57780B.010
216 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 522 here 57780B.011
217 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Dr. Brownell. 

STATEMENT BY DR. BROWNELL

Mr. BROWNELL. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

the Committee. Before talking about specific policy proposals, I’d 

like to address two broad issues. 

One is the issue about pushing healthy food into the system 

versus extracting unhealthy food from it. It’s far easier to address 

the issue of increasing fruit and vegetable consumption, whole 

grains and the like, than it is to talk about reducing anything. 

The first doesn’t require combat with the food industry. The second may. This model that the healthy and unhealthy foods appear 

on the opposite ends of a see-saw may not be the case, that if you 

increase healthy foods it’s going to push out of the way the less 

healthy option. That does not seem to be supported by recent scientific evidence. So what I would suggest in any government policy 

that will simultaneously address increasing incentives for the consumption of the options, like fresh fruits and vegetables, but also 

addressing the calorie dense, nutrient poor foods, that it’s clear 

that populations consuming too much of things like sugared cereals, sugar sweetened beverages, candy and the like, high on that 

list, fast food would appear on that list as well. 

So that’s point number one. Broad point number 2 has to do with 

the concept of changing defaults, and this is quite consistent with 

what Mr. Concannon said about the concept of nudging people. The 

fact is we have a pretty terrible nutrition environment in this country that’s been engineered in a way that maximizes consumption 

of calorie dense foods. Would the Americans who’ve been systematically taught—and this is unlike it was when I was a boy—that the 

default serving size of a sugared beverage is 20 ounces compared 

to the 8 ounces when I was young. The muffin can be the size of 

a softball now, compared to the baseball of the earlier days, and 

there are example after example of this. 

We’ve been recalibrated to believe that we can eat in all sorts of 

places, like the automobile; not true when I was a boy. We’ve been 

readjusted to believe that food should be available everywhere: 

drugstores, shopping malls, gas stations. That wasn’t the case 

when I was a boy. And we’ve also been trained systematically to 

believe that three meals a day is no longer adequate. One can witness the Taco Bell campaign that talks about a fourth meal, and 

the fast food restaurants enticing people to come in late at night 

to eat there. These are deeply woven now into the American mindset. 

They’re supported by a massive economy involving the food industry marketing people, advertising people and the like, and is 

having a disastrous impact on the health of the American population. These are unhealthy defaults. The question is can action be 

taken to create a better set of defaults so that the healthy choice 

becomes the easier one, and the answer is unquestionably yes. 

We can look, for example, at data on people who agree to be 

organ donors in European countries. There are countries in Europe 

that use the U.S. model where you’re not an organ donor by default, but you can agree to be one when you get your driver’s license. Other countries in Europe, you are an organ donor by deVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
218 

fault, but you can opt out. Consumers have the same set of choices 

under both circumstances, but the rates of organ donation in the 

countries that use the U.S. model are between 15 and 20 percent. 

In the other countries it’s over 90 percent, a startling difference, 

stunning difference. 

You could never produce that with education. You can never implore people to do those sort of things, or you can just change the 

law, change the defaults. So the question is are there food defaults. 

Well, Mr. Concannon talked about a number of them that we fully 

support. 

Getting rid of trans fats in restaurants would be a wonderful example of this. New York City took the first action. It’s now happening around the country. So when you eat in a restaurant in 

New York City you have a better default. You’re not going to get 

trans fats. Now, you could try to educate your way toward that 

goal, but it would be hard. It would cost a fortune, and you 

wouldn’t get nearly the impact of just doing something that costs 

nothing. You change the law. 

So can defaults occur in the context of the issues we’re talking 

about today, and I believe they can. So specifically I’d like to talk 

about three areas: school nutrition, food marketing directed at children, and the special case of sugar-sweetened beverages. First, the 

school nutrition environment; a number of things can be done to 

strengthen the school nutrition environment, which is obviously important because children consume a number of meals there, but 

also, it’s a wonderful opportunity for learning. So among the things 

that we would recommend would be for the USDA to adopt the Institute of Medicine Standards for the School Lunch Program and 

School Breakfast Program, completely consistent with what Mr. 

Concannon said. 

Increase reimbursement for the National School Lunch Program. 

We specifically recommend a dollar per meal to enable schools to 

purchase healthier foods, including more fruits, vegetables, whole 

grains, et cetera. Next is to make the School Breakfast Program 

universal and free to everyone. There are some children who can 

afford to eat meals at home, but they may not be; and, if they’re 

eating healthier foods at schools, it could help the Nation’s health 

overall. 

Next would be to apply the Institute of Medicine’s nutrition 

standards for foods in schools to all competitive foods sold, offered 

and served in schools. This becomes a major problem; because in 

fact one of my colleagues observed recently, although we haven’t 

documented this, that even though school systems will sometimes 

write contracts where the food service providers to the schools have 

agreed not to sell foods that compete with the National School 

Lunch Programs, they do anyway. They sneak them in, because 

they become a profit center. 

Mr. Concannon mentioned the Child And Adult Care Food Program. Certainly, nutrition standards can be applied there so that 

the youngest children and the oldest in our society are getting good 

nutrition. And there are specifics in my testimony about what we 

would recommend for that. And then school wellness policies is another area where considerable progress can be made where schools 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
219 

around the country have been required to show that they have a 

wellness policy, but nothing beyond that. 

The mere fact that they’ve been asked to provide wellness policies is a real advance, because at least it gets school systems thinking about these policies. But if something can be done to mandate 

the fact that the policies get enforced, that would be even more 

helpful. 

I’d now like to turn my attention to the issue of food marketing 

to children. This is an overwhelmingly negative influence. The industry claims it’s making progress on protecting children from the 

negative influences of marketing unhealthy foods, but a recent report found that that’s not the case and they’ve made scant progress 

in protecting children in that regard. So this cries out for government action. 

To give an example of how overwhelming these forces are, the 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the single greatest funder by 

far of work across the nation to address prevention of childhood 

obesity. They’re now spending a hundred million dollars a year on 

this. The food industry spends that much every year by January 

4th, just marketing, just unhealthy food, just to children. So there’s 

no way government can compete with that, no amount of education 

the government can do that can ever override the negative influence that the industry is having on our children. 

So specific things can be done in this regard. One is there could 

be legislative action to create a ban on all food marketing and advertising in schools. When parents release their children in to the 

care of schools, they expect a safe environment. They don’t expect 

air that will hurt their children. They don’t expect water that will 

hurt their children, and they shouldn’t expect food that hurts their 

children either. 

To the full extent of its power, the FCC should regulate food 

marketing to children and adolescence, and Congress could enhance the FCC’s power accordingly. Thankfully, the FTC, FCC, are 

taking new levels of action that we’ve never seen before on this, so 

I believe that the Administration’s appointments for key positions 

in these agencies has been very important. But Congress can get 

involved in this as well, and I think there are very specific and constructive things that can be done to protect our children. 

Last, I’d like to talk about the issue of sugar-sweetened beverages, and these come up as a particular contributor to the obesity 

problem in the following way. First, there are the single greatest 

source of added sugar in the American diet. The beverage industry 

claims that somewhere around only 5 percent of total calories come 

from sugar-sweetened beverages for the American diet. 

That’s a misleading statistic, because a lot of people are drinking 

none of it, which means that the people are drinking a lot more 

than 5 percent of their calories. And, in teenagers, some estimates 

are that between 15 and 20 percent of total calories are coming 

from sugar-sweetened beverages. That’s a startling number. These 

beverages are of special concern, because they’re the single greatest 

source of added sugar. As I mentioned, they are marketed relentlessly by a very aggressive and persuasive industry. And, also, they 

tend to thwart the body’s calorie detection radar. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
220 

The body recognizes when it’s consumed calories and tries to 

make up for it. If you eat too much at one point, your body tries 

to adjust by eating less later. The body does better with solid foods 

than it does with foods that deliver calories in liquid form, and so 

sugared beverages become a special problem there; and, in addition, they deliver almost no nutrition at all except when the nutrition is added gratuitously by the industry in the form of vitamins 

and minerals, and the like. 

So my colleagues and I have proposed a penny per ounce tax, national tax, and State taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, with the 

revenue to be used for prevention programs, especially to help the 

poor. Now, this is a controversial issue. I can tell by the look of the 

faces of people in front of me that it’s a controversial issue. The 

States all around the country now are considering this. We’re getting called almost by a new State every day. Cities are doing the 

same thing. And my guess is that it will just be a matter of time 

until we have such taxes. 

The challenge to the legislators is doing taxes that have a fundamentally sound, scientific base; that is the tax has to be of a certain amount; has to be an excise rather than sales tax, and the revenue needs to be used wisely in order to get the maximum benefit 

from it. The average American now consumes 50 gallons a year of 

sugar-sweetened beverages. A penny per ounce tax would reduce 

that to 38.5 gallons a year, hardly a hardship, hardly the place 

where government could be accused of nanny-state and over intrusion into the institutional lives of its citizens. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam chair. I don’t see this on the testimony, 

the statistics. 

Mr. BROWNELL. On my testimony? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yeah. If you just hold one second I want to get 

back on the page. Where is that on there about the 50 gallon per 

day and the one cent? 

Mr. BROWNELL. Oh, that’s not in my testimony. I’m sorry. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, aren’t you supposed to have a written testimony? I mean what you’re saying is interesting and I want a track 

record of it, but it’s not in this. So aren’t we supposed to have that? 

Chairwoman DELAURO. I don’t know that people have to. 

Mr. KINGSTON. This is not an unfriendly question. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. No. No, I understand. But we ask that 

we put the testimony in the record. We ask people to summarize 

and they’re free to summarize. 

Mr. KINGSTON. But it’s not in the record. That’s what I’m saying. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Okay. Okay. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. And we can get it into the record if that 

comes from another report that the Rudd Center has done, and 

that can be put into the record as well. But what we will do in 

order to have you take a look at it, and then we’d be happy to put 

that into the record. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Fine. I’m happy to do it. Okay. But I apologize. 

Mr. KINGSTON. No, I think you know me well enough to know 

that if I ask an unfriendly question I’ll let you know that in advance. I’m just trying to get it for the record. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thanks. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
221 

Mr. BROWNELL. Okay. So that really ends my testimony. I’m delighted to be here, and I believe that government can play a very 

constructive role in these three areas that I mentioned, especially 

around school nutrition. So I’m very happy with the committee’s interest in these issues and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
222 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 533 here 57780B.012
223 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 534 here 57780B.013
224 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 535 here 57780B.014
225 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 536 here 57780B.015
226 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 537 here 57780B.016
227 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 538 here 57780B.017
228 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 539 here 57780B.018
229 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 540 here 57780B.019
230 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Chilton. 

STATEMENT BY DR. CHILTON

Ms. CHILTON. Good morning. Chairwoman DeLauro and distinguished members of the Committee, I am honored to be invited to 

provide this testimony today. Thank you very much for having me. 

I’m a public health research scientist at Drexel University School 

of Public Health in Philadelphia. And I’m a member of the National Network of Pediatric Researchers, called Children’s 

HealthWatch. 

I bring to you evidence of scientific research from over 36,000 

families across the United States. Our work monitors how the public policies being created right here on the Hill are written into the 

bodies and the brains of infants and toddlers. 

Children’s HealthWatch. We are watching the children. Watching 

children’s health take a major turn for the worse in the past two 

years makes us almost want to turn our heads away in shame. 

Take, for instance, last year’s increase in food insecurity. Food 

insecurity is the lack of access to enough food for an active and 

healthy life. The number of people that were food insecure in 2007 

was 36.2 million. In a single year, that number jumped to 49 million. For children, it increased from 121⁄2 million children to 17 million children. 

Hunger is in almost every community in the United States. I’ll 

give an example. Last week, I was visiting my childhood home of 

Martha’s Vineyard Island. Even there, one of the premier vacation 

spots of the Washington elite, the elementary school in Vineyard 

Haven has one-third of its children participating in the Free Lunch 

Program. Sometimes it’s hard to fathom the numbers. 

But I’ll tell what’s even harder to fathom is the gaze of the 

fourth-grade girl from Martha’s Vineyard, as she was accompanying her father to the local food pantry. 

In Philadelphia, it may be hard to fathom that more than one in 

three people do not have enough money for food. But harder to 

fathom is how Lewis Roman, a 13-year-old boy, explains how he is 

often hungry, how when he is hungry, his stomach hurts so badly 

that he feels like throwing up. 

Food insecurity is the worst for the youngest children in America. Nearly one in four children under the age of six is food insecure. That translates to over 9 million kindergartners, preschoolers, toddlers, and infants, that are not getting adequate nutrition, because their families cannot afford it. 

Our research with Children’s HealthWatch demonstrates that 

young children living in food-insecure households are more likely 

to have a history of hospitalization, more likely to be in fair or poor 

health, and have increased risk for developmental delay. 

This is a major public health crisis, occurring right before our 

eyes. If we do not act on behalf of these children, we are very literally squandering the potential of our next generation. 

But you, all of you here, can improve the condition of millions of 

children through appropriating the full amount of dollars necessary 

to fund the Child Nutrition Programs. Our children’s health reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
231 

search shows that these programs do prevent hunger and they do 

improve health. But they need to work better. 

For instance, our research shows that children who receive WIC 

were more likely to be a household that was food secure. They’re 

more likely to be in excellent or good health, and less likely to be 

at developmental risk. 

The children that did not fare well were those that were eligible 

but did not receive WIC, due to administrative barriers. 

We recommend to decrease the barriers to application and reapplication, there is still a great need for outreach, translation 

services, and schedule accommodations for working mothers. 

Another program that funds the youngest children in America is 

the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the CACFP. The CACFP 

currently subsidizes healthy meals for nearly 3 million low-income 

children in licensed day-care centers. Our Children’s HealthWatch 

research found that toddlers participating in the CACFP were less 

likely to be in fair or poor health; and they’re less likely to be hospitalized. 

But the CACFP needs to work better. We recommend a streamlined and simplified program and paperwork requirement and to 

add a third meal or snack option to meet the nutrition needs of 

children in care for longer hours. 

For school breakfast and lunch, access for low-income families 

must improve. The best way to do this is to instate area eligibility 

for school breakfast and lunch. The model of the Philadelphia Universal Service Program shows how this eliminates barriers to participation, such as unnecessary and time-consuming paperwork. 

Finally, the United States has missed every single one of its 

goals for reducing hunger over the last ten years. This year it will 

shamefully miss the Healthy People 2010 goal of reducing hunger 

to 6 percent. 

But what can the American people do, if there is no mechanism 

for accountability? While you work to appropriate funds for Child 

Nutrition Programs, please appropriate funds to develop a strategy, 

a national strategy, that documents the effectiveness of our efforts 

to end child hunger, and sets achievable goals to end it by 2015. 

So much of what is written into legislation looks good on paper; 

yet it often does not work or function according to plan. The people 

who participate in these programs—in this case, the parents and 

caregivers of children—know best how they work. 

This committee could appropriate funds to establish a mechanism of accountability that ensures the inclusion of low-income 

families in the implementation and evaluation of new and ongoing 

initiatives within the child nutrition reauthorization. 

Children’s bodies and minds are growing right now. We do not 

have time to wait. Let’s not turn our heads away from the harsh 

realities of hunger, and make sure that we have a plan to end hunger once and for all. 

As a scientist, I can be your partner in this. But your true partners are the parents of the most vulnerable children in America. 

They know what hunger is, and they too can show you the way. 

Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
232 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 546 here 57780B.020
233 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 547 here 57780B.021
234 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 548 here 57780B.022
235 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 549 here 57780B.023
236 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 550 here 57780B.024
237 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 551 here 57780B.025
238 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 552 here 57780B.026
239 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 553 here 57780B.027
240 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 554 here 57780B.028
241 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you very much, Dr. Chilton. 

Scott Faber. Thanks, Scott, for being here. 

STATEMENT BY MR. FABER

Mr. FABER. Thank you for inviting me. 

Good morning. My name is Scott Faber. I’m the Vice President 

for Federal Affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association. We 

represent more than 300 food, beverage, and consumer product 

companies. We look forward to working with all of you to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act to improve the health of America’s children. 

To do so, we must provide USDA with the tools and the resources to feed many more children, and we must give USDA clear 

authority to set standards for all foods sold to students during the 

school day in the school environment, including competitive foods. 

We share the priorities announced by Secretary Vilsack, including new science-based standards for competitive foods, increased 

access to meal programs, more education about healthy diets, more 

healthy foods in the cafeteria, and increased training and better 

equipment in the kitchen. 

As Secretary Vilsack said, we will not succeed if any of our children aren’t learning as they should, because they are hungry and 

cannot achieve their potential, because they aren’t healthy. 

In addition, we look forward to working with you to meet the 

goals set by First Lady Michelle Obama to solve the problem of 

childhood obesity within a generation. Over the past three decades, 

child obesity rates have tripled, and as soon as result, nearly one 

in three children in America is overweight or obese. 

To meet this challenge, we must provide parents and children 

with more healthy choices; we must promote healthy diets; and we 

must provide new opportunities for physical activity. 

As the First Lady said, ‘‘This is not like a disease, where we’re 

still waiting for a cure to be discovered.’’ We know the curer for 

this. 

Everyone has a role to play in this fight: The public sector, private industry, and parents. We pledge to do our part by continually 

improving the way we develop and market our products. 

In recent years, we’ve changed the recipes and sizes of more than 

10,000 of our products to reduce calories, fats, sugars, and sodium, 

without sacrificing the taste and convenience that consumers demand. 

We are also working with FDA and USDA to devise new food labels that will make information about calories and other nutrition 

facts clearer for busy parents and consumers. 

And we have significantly increased messages about healthy food 

and active lifestyle during children’s programming. As a result of 

a pledge that many of our companies took, two-thirds of advertisements to children during children’s programming now feature 

healthy foods and active lifestyles. 

Clearly, our industry has a big role to play. Government at all 

levels has a role to play as well. Government can do much more 

to promote physical activity in school and after school. Government 

can do more to promote nutrition education, not just in school but 

in the marketplace and in the work place, as well. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
242 

Government can do more to promote greater access to healthy 

foods by bringing grocery stores and farmer’s markets to underserved areas. And government can do much more to ensure that 

low-income children participate in Federal nutrition programs. 

As Dr. Brownell has said, we need to work together to make the 

healthy choices the easy choices. And we look forward to working 

with you to reduce the number of hungry children, and to increase 

the number of healthy children in America’s schools and neighborhoods. 

Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
243 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 558 here 57780B.029
244 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 559 here 57780B.030
245 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 560 here 57780B.031
246 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you very much. 

Zoe. 

STATEMENT BY MS. NEUBERGER

Ms. NEUBERGER. Thank you. 

I’m Zoe Neuberger with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And we are a non-profit public policy institute, that focuses 

on how public policy affects low and moderate income people. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I’m going to 

focus on the importance of improving access to the Child Nutrition 

Programs. 

You really have a terrific opportunity to make it easier for lowincome children to get healthy meals. And in light of the recession, 

access to these programs is even more critical. 

My testimony will focus on two specific proposals that are included in the Hunger-Free Schools Act. The first proposal would 

help high-poverty schools. It would allow them to provide all of 

their students with free school meals, without using a standard application process. 

The second proposal would help low-income children get free 

school meals, regardless of where they attend school. 

But before I get into the specifics of the proposal, let me just say 

a little bit about why we think investments in access to these programs is so very important. 

Over the long term, a thriving economy that provides economic 

security for all is the most effective mechanism to reduce hunger. 

And even when the economy is in great shape, millions of American children rely upon the Federal nutrition programs on a daily 

basis. 

In light of the recession, children need these programs even 

more. The experience of the last two recessions suggests that unemployment and poverty will remain high long after the recovery 

officially starts. 

In a recent Gallup poll, nearly one in four households with children said there were times in the past year when they didn’t have 

enough money to buy needed food. 

As Dr. Chilton spoke to you very eloquently, children are especially vulnerable to the effects of recession. Failure to meet their 

basic needs could undermine their healthy development and impede learning, with potentially lifelong consequences. 

That’s why it’s critical for Congress to expand access to the Child 

Nutrition Programs. We hope that a significant share of available 

resources will be invested in making it easier for children to get 

the meals for which they’re eligible, offering new meals to eligible 

children, or expanding eligibility to reach additional low-income 

children. 

Now let me explain the first proposal that I mentioned, which 

would help high-poverty schools. There are about ten thousand 

schools around the country, in which at least four-fifths of the children are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced price meals. 

It doesn’t make sense for these schools to process the same paperwork that other schools do, just to identify the very small numbers of children who are not qualifying for free and reduced price 

meals. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
247 

The Hunger-Free Schools Act would create a new option—it’s 

known as community eligibility—that would enable these schools to 

serve all breakfasts and lunches free. Instead of spending time on 

paperwork, staff could focus on more important issues, like giving 

their students a good education. 

Federal reimbursements would be based on the share of the 

school students receiving other public benefits. As I mentioned, 

there are about ten thousand schools nationwide, that could qualify 

for community eligibility. 

These schools serve more than one in ten school children nationwide. To qualify, a school or district would have to automatically 

enroll at least 40 percent of its students in the School Meals Program, based on their receipt of other public benefits, like food 

stamps. 

That’s a very high bar, actually. But it would make sure that the 

option is targeted to schools serving the poorest communities. 

The goal here is really very simple: Hunger should no longer be 

a barrier to learning in schools that serve high-poverty areas. 

I’ve actually got fact sheets here for each of your districts, if 

you’re interested afterwards, that show which schools we think 

might qualify for this option. 

The second proposal that I wanted to mention has to do with expanding automatic enrollment. Under the current school lunch eligibility roles, all children in households receiving food stamp benefits are eligible for free school meals. But they still have to be enrolled to get those meals. 

It doesn’t make sense to require parents who’ve already gone 

through the rigorous food stamp application process to go through 

a similar application process to get school meals. 

And schools shouldn’t be faced with this unnecessary paperwork. 

They have better things to spend their time on. 

So Federal law requires school districts to automatically enroll 

these children. The automatic enrollment process is called direct 

certification. 

The Hunger-Free Schools Act includes an important expansion of 

direct certification. It would expand direct certification by allowing 

the use of Medicaid data. Under the current rules, Medicaid data 

can’t be used for this purpose. 

We estimate that there are two million low-income children 

around the country who could be automatically enrolled for free 

school meals for the first time, using Medicaid data. 

Some of these children are already being enrolled for these meals 

by filling out a standard paper application. Some of them aren’t 

getting the meals now. 

Directly certifying more children would not only simplify the enrollment process, it would also likely reduce program error. And it 

does that by shrinking the number of children approved through 

the paper application process. 

As I can imagine, parents or schools can make mistakes when 

filling out an application or processing one. Relying instead on income data that the Food Stamp program or Medicaid program has 

carefully gathered and assessed and verified will limit the opportunity for error. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
248 

So let me just conclude by reiterating that we urge you to let 

schools focus on feeding hungry children by including the HungerFree Schools Act in reauthorization legislation. No vulnerable child 

should miss out on healthy meals because of red tape. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
249 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 566 here 57780B.032
250 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 567 here 57780B.033
251 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 568 here 57780B.034
252 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 569 here 57780B.035
253 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 570 here 57780B.036
254 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 571 here 57780B.037
255 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 572 here 57780B.038
256 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 573 here 57780B.039
257 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 574 here 57780B.040
258 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 575 here 57780B.041
259 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Just a quick question, Zoe. Is that Medicaid—I know the bill, but does it have SCHIP as well, or is it—— 

Ms. NEUBERGER. It would allow for the use of SCHIP data up to 

a certain income limit. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. The idea is to mimic the income cut-offs—program—— 

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE REPORT—RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairwoman DELAURO. Cut-offs, okay. Thank you. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. Concannon, let me start. The IOM, the Institute of Medicine, 

released last October a report on School Meals, Building Blocks for 

Healthy Children. The report recommended revisions to the nutrition standards requirements, so that the school meals are more 

healthful. The recommendations included increasing the amount 

and variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, setting minimum 

and maximum level of calories, and focusing more on reducing 

saturated fat and sodium. 

What is FNS currently doing to implement the recommendations? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you for that question, Madam Chair. 

We’re very enthusiastic about the recommendations that the IOM 

made to us in October. And we are currently working vigorously. 

We were charged by our Secretary when those recommendations 

came in to move this forward as quickly as possible, and we expect 

that later this calendar year we will have the first round of proposed regulations to implement those IOM recommendations. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Now as I mentioned in my testimony, it’s very 

important that there be additional financial resources made available to schools to help them implement these, as one of my adult 

children often reminds me of that very well-known chain of highquality food stores, sometimes those wholesome foods take a much 

larger portion of a paycheck. And I think we know that in our own 

lives, and I think institutions, schools have that same experience. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. What additional authorities—well, you 

talked about the funding—any additional authorities would USDA 

need to fully implement the recommendations in IOM? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I believe that there may be some, but I think 

they’re significantly parallel to what we currently require of the 

Healthier U.S. Schools Challenges. 

So I don’t think that, per se. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Let me ask the rest of the panel. Do you think FNS could do 

more under current authorities to implement the IOM recommendations? 

[No response.] 

Chairwoman DELAURO. If you do, fine. If you don’t, that’s okay. 

Are there additional authorities that you would recommend to 

FNS to implement the IOM recommendations? 

[No response.] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
260 

NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS IN SCHOOLS

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. 

Let me just ask a question on schools that are failing to meet 

current standards. Okay. 

Only 67 percent of schools are meeting all of the Federal nutrition standards today. If we are now to implement higher nutrition 

standards, will we just have more schools failing to meet these 

standards? How do we work with schools? How do we provide them 

with the necessary tools, so that 100 percent of them are able to 

feed children with what the IOM recommendations are for? 

Mr. CONCANNON. If I may try to answer that. I believe schools, 

like many organizations, will respond to incentives, and we’re proposing that the increased reimbursement for meals be related to 

those schools that, in fact, meet the higher standards. 

I might say as an aside, that First Lady’s recently announced national effort to reduce obesity has urge-directed the USDA to double the number of healthier U.S. schools across the country. 

I’ve been in some wonderful schools. I was in a school in rural 

Georgia, a very poor area of the state, that is doing marvelous 

work, both in the nutrition programs, but also in physical activity. 

So I know it can be done. I’ve seen it in urban areas. I’ve seen 

it in rural areas. I think part of we are proposing again in our— 

I didn’t highlight every single one of the elements we have proposed, but we’ve proposed creating additional incentives for States, 

for schools, for others really to up the ante, so to speak, and improve the nutritional quality of meals. 

REIMBURSEMENT RATES

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. Would love to know, and have 

you get back to us on what incentives you are offering. 

You did speak to increase the reimbursement rate. Dr. Brownell 

talked about a dollar. Mr. Concannon, how much would you increase the reimbursement rate? And what would it cost? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I don’t think we could go as far as a dollar. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. CONCANNON. But there are 31.5 million children who have 

lunch each day in American schools. And our proposed reimbursement would be a fraction of that. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. CONCANNON. And while we haven’t really pencilled it out, it’s 

part of that additional billion dollars that the President proposes 

in his budget. And we’d be happy, we want to work with the Committee on that. 

[The information follows:] 

USDA is eager to expand the number of schools who can achieve HealthierUS 

School Challenge (HUSSC) recognition since that translates to more children having 

access to healthier meals and opportunities for nutrition and physical education/activity, major factors in preventing and reducing childhood obesity. In addition to the 

plaque, banner, and recognition currently provided to HUSSC schools, those approved under the current criteria will receive the following monetary incentives: 

• $2,000 for Gold of Distinction Award; 

• $1,500 for Gold Award; 

• $1,000 for Silver Award; 

• $500 for Bronze Award. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
261 

USDA is also exploring additional recognition options for meeting the HUSSC criteria. We would be happy to work with members of Congress to identify other creative recognition opportunities. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. 

REIMBURSEMENTS FOR PAID MEALS

Also—and this follows up a little bit on what I said before—so 

that you’re talking about where you do have poor performance and 

nutrition standards, is these incentives plus the reimbursement 

rate. And as I said, if you’re putting those incentives together, it 

would be good for us to know what they are, and to work with you 

on that. 

Let me ask—I’ve got a minute here—FNS reimburses schools a 

modest amount for paid lunches. Okay. Paid lunches are for children whose parents have higher incomes and were not eligible for 

free and reduced price meals. 

Why does FNS reimburse the school systems for a portion of the 

paid lunch? Shouldn’t the schools charge the full cost of paid meals 

to students that can afford to pay, and then use the increased funding to improve overall nutritional quality of the school food programs? 

Anybody else can chime in as well. Go ahead. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, we think it’s important to continue to provide support to schools for paid meals, as well, because we view it 

as a broad public utility. We don’t want the School Meals Program 

to be simply for the poor children, and the resultant potential stigma that might occur with that. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. CONCANNON. We think that that very modest amount that 

still goes to subsidize, basically, meals for paid children is part of, 

again, our commitment sort of broadly, like education, is for all 

children. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. So, go ahead, because your testimony—yes. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Yes, thank you. We agree that it is important 

to subsidize paid meals. However, we have concerns about the 

prices that are charged to students for those meals. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Basically, the way the system works now, 

school districts get Federal reimbursements, and they can spend 

those reimbursements on whatever they want that’s part of their 

school food program. 

What USDA’s research has shown very consistently is that the 

prices that are charged for paid meals—and also actually for competitive foods—are not in some places set high enough to cover the 

cost of providing them. 

What that means, in essence, is that some of the reimbursements 

that are designated for free and reduced price meals are being used 

to make up the revenue gap there. They’re cross-subsidizing the 

paid meals and competitive foods. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. We think that’s a problem. We’d like to see 

those reimbursements for free and reduced price meals going to 

benefit the children who qualify for free and reduced price meals. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
262 

We’re also concerned, as Congress is considering significant reimbursement rate increases that, unless something is done to address 

this issue, those reimbursement rate increases might not result in 

healthier meals. Even if that’s the goal. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. And what we would like to see is a change in 

the law that would essentially say that if schools want to offer competitive foods, the prices that they set for those have to cover the 

cost of providing them, so that the Federal program won’t be covering those costs. 

And we’d also like to see, for the schools that are charging rel- atively little—you know, some schools are charging $1.00 or $1.25 

for a paid meal—for them to be put on a path so that eventually 

the revenue they’re bringing in for those meals covers the cost. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Do it gradually. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Right. We are concerned. You know, some of 

the children getting paid meals are at 200 percent of poverty. They 

certainly don’t have it easy. 

And so I think we need to be very careful in how this is approached, that you wouldn’t want increases that would drive too 

many kids from the program, particularly the kids at the lower end 

of the income group that are getting those meals. 

But if you consider, you know, an increase of ten cents a year, 

let’s say, we think that even the families in the paid category could 

absorb that, and that it’s an important source of revenue to consider for the programs, because it would bolster the programs and 

put more money on the table for some of the improvements that 

people are very interested in. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. Okay. My time is expired—to 

know why we have competitive foods in the schools at all. But 

that’s my approach. 

Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you—— 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Sorry. There are three votes? One 15, 

two 5’s. And so if anyone wants to go and then come back—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. And do you know what, Madam Chair? If anybody is unable to come back, I will yield my time to them now. You 

and I will be here for a while. So if anybody has another hearing 

they have to go to? 

Chairwoman DELAURO. You got two? Well, Mr. Bishop? Let me 

do this, Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham. Let me go to this side of the— 

okay, Mr. Bishop. 

CHILDHOOD OBESITY

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Brownell, I smiled. You’re pretty big on the stick as opposed 

to the carrot. I like Dr. Concannon’s suggestion as far as the incentives are concerned. 

I can relate very much to your comparison contrast of the way 

things were when you were a boy as when I was a boy, growing 

up. One of my best experiences in school growing up was the school 

nutrition program. 

Those were among my favorite memories. It was healthy, nutritious food. But we did not have the sedentary lifestyle. And I think 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
263 

with Leave No Child Behind and the incentives on performing better on tests academically, today’s youngsters are much more sedentary. 

As a consequence, they don’t burn those calories. 

But I would just caution you that while I believe that the beverage industry has been a culprit in terms of some of the increase 

in calorie consumption in our schools, and we do need to have some 

regulation there, I have to at least salute them for their cooperation, particularly their involvement with the First Lady’s new initiative. 

And they have set some specific guidelines and some targets as 

to how they will do their part to help us reach the goals that we 

are trying to reach. But I’m not sure that using the stick in terms of a $1.00 tax is 

necessarily going to be politically palatable or very well received. 

I do think that increased reimbursement rates, as the Under Secretary suggested, could go a long way. 

I have some concerns—and I just want to mention that I don’t 

know that we should punish those families who are participating 

in the paid lunch program, because certainly it’s a strain on all 

families, for children particularly if they’ve got multiple children. 

And any increase, a dime increase per year, is going to impact 

them, particularly with the economy. 

I’d like to see us do the general subsidization to the extent that 

we can for the overall program, and of course specifically target the 

people who are lower on the poverty line. 

So I just want to let you know that all of us are very concerned 

with good, sound, healthy child nutrition, that the obesity programs that many of us have been involved in targeting over the 

last three years, through this Subcommittee and other Subcommittees, I think illustrate the fact that we are very, very concerned 

about it. 

But it’s going to require a number of approaches, and of course 

I hope that we can do it more with incentives than with the stick. 

I just don’t know that taxes in this environment are going to be 

good on targeting certain industries. 

But I do think that with incentives, we can encourage very 

strongly and probably get the results we need to reach the goals. 

And I look forward to working with you, with the Subcommittee, 

particularly with the Department in nutrition. And farmer’s market programs, I think, can go a long way to doing it, with the 

SNAP Program, with the vouchers. We’ve had some pilot programs 

in Georgia, for example, that have allowed local producers of fresh 

fruits and vegetables to actually participate with people leaving out 

of the office, where they get their electronic benefits, where they 

can get a voucher so they can actually buy them right there on the 

grounds. And that has been very helpful. 

And I look forward to expansion of that program, perhaps nationwide, because fresh fruits and vegetables would make all the difference in the world for healthy outcomes. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Is there any commentary? 

Mr. BROWNELL. If I could respond quickly? The idea of incentives 

sounds really good to me, and I think that’s a wonderful place to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
264 

start. My only concern is that issue that I mentioned when I began 

my testimony, of the healthy and less healthy foods not being on 

the opposite sides of a seesaw. 

So things like farmer’s markets, which we support totally, and I 

think is a wonderful idea, may help with nutrition and under-nutrition issues. But it may just be pushing more calories into the 

system—good calories, to be sure—but if it’s pushing more calories 

into the system, and the less healthy foods aren’t dropping as a 

consequence, then you’ve got more of a problem potentially with 

childhood obesity. 

We don’t know that to be the case, but the recent data suggests 

it might be. 

And just the other thing regarding the taxes is, I agree, the political feasibility at this moment is questionable. All the signs to me 

point that it’s increasing in likelihood almost by the day. 

And the comment about it now being politically feasible is exactly what would have been said 30 years ago about tobacco taxes. 

And look where we are with that now. And I’m not saying tobacco 

and food are the same. But certainly tobacco taxes were a highly 

successful public health maneuver. Government got involved, first 

the States, and then at the Federal level. And it’s really protected 

public health. 

So maybe at some point, people will look at classes of foods, like 

sugared beverages, in that same light. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. And it is not a dollar tax. I just wanted 

to correct the record on that. It’s a penny. 

Mr. BROWNELL. A penny per ounce. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. It’s a penny. It was increased reimbursement of the programs at a dollar. 

And with that—oh, you have a comment? Yes, a quick. 

Mr. FABER. One comment. And for your benefit, I don’t want this 

to become a debate between Dr. Brownell and myself. But I’m not 

sure everyone’s aware that full-calorie beverages are entirely out of 

elementary and middle schools, and will soon be, this year, out of 

all our high schools. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. The high school issue is the 

big issue, high school is a big issue—— 

Mr. FABER. Will be diet beverages. So a lot of progress has been 

made. More progress could be made. 

On the tax issue, I think it’s a complicated issue for a number 

of reasons. One is that when people go to the grocery store, the tax 

that would have to be placed on a certain item to discourage the 

use of that, would be extraordinarily high. 

Even if we were willing as a society to pass an extraordinarily 

high tax on certain foods, there is a substitution effect. So it’s just 

as likely that people would consume other beverages that may pose 

other problems or other health challenges. 

The other practical problem is that these taxes fall on everyone, 

regardless of income, regardless of whether they have a healthy 

weight, and so in many respects are unfair and regressive. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. FABER. But I think the big point here is that there is literally a library of evidence of what will help address childhood obesity, where we have family-based and school-based multi-compoVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
265 

nent programs that combine physical activity, nutrition education, 

behavioral counseling. 

As the First Lady said, there is no question about what works. 

We’re not waiting for a cure. And I worry that conversations about 

taxes are really a distraction from what we can do today to start 

to change the number of children who are suffering with these 

challenges. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. But I would just sit here, and I think 

we’re going to have an opportunity to go do some back and forth. 

Which I think we need to do. 

Because, quite frankly, I think with the moral imperative of this 

issue, we must have everything on the table. We must. Because it 

is not—we have to figure it out, and we can’t use standard arguments on both sides. We have to take a look at a new debate. 

And I know there’s no time left on the vote, so. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. So my point is that that’s why I wanted 

to have this hearing. We need to engage in the fulsome debate with 

everything on the table. For too long, we all stand in one corner 

or another. We don’t come together to figure it out, as it applies 

to the public health. 

This is where we are now dealing. I deal with this on the food 

safety side of this, and it is in the interest of the public health. And 

we do know that we have a crisis in public health with regard to 

these issues. 

And that’s why I appreciate the candidness of everyone at the 

table. 

We have to vote, so we will recess and come back quickly after 

these votes. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. The hearing will resume. I know Mr. 

Kingston is coming back, and I know several other members are as 

well. This is the appropriations season, and everybody has a Committee or chairing a Committee or a member of a Committee. 

PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSAL SCHOOL PROGRAM

But let me—Dr. Chilton, let me ask you a question. In your testimony, you discussed the success of the Philadelphia Universal 

Service School and program support for expanding this model to 

other school districts. What additional benefits has Philadelphia 

seen from having the ability to operate the Universal School and 

its program for the last—they’re doing this now for 18 years—— 

Ms. CHILTON. That’s correct, yes. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. And it’s universal and free? 

Ms. CHILTON. Yes. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. Is Philadelphia able to focus resources on serving healthier meals? Have you seen a correlation between the kids served by this universal program and improvements 

in health outcomes? 

Ms. CHILTON. We have not been studying the health outcomes of 

children who are participating in the universal meal program, so 

I can’t really speak to the scientific evidence on that. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. 

Ms. CHILTON. And that’s where I like to stay whenever I give a 

testimony is on our research. But we know that the school district 

saves about $800,000 a year by not having to process paper appliVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
266 

cations. And we know that they’ve been able to utilize that money 

for other types of things at the school, and thinking about ways to 

improve their school, the school district feeding programs. About 

four or five years ago, they completely got rid of sodas in school 

and competitive foods in most of the schools. 

One of the problems with the universal feeding program is however that the charter schools are not mandated to provide free reduced price lunch. And so it’s very difficult—so there’s—most of the 

charter schools are not really participating in the program at all. 

And so you have those schools in the low-income areas of Philadelphia, and the children are not receiving any assistance. 

One of the other issues that we have with universal feeding is 

that it’s fantastic for lunch, but it has been lots of times sort of optin for school breakfast. So we’ve been working very hard with the 

school district to mandate if they have the free lunch program that 

they actually—that they need to have school breakfasts and that 

we can actually grade the schools on that. It becomes a part of the 

grading system. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Let me understand. The breakfast program is universal and it’s free and you’ve now said though that 

charter schools are apart from that. 

Ms. CHILTON. Yes. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. So that’s an issue that again on the table 

with what’s happening in charter schools. Because in fact you’re 

right about where they are located. I’m confused. Are you talking 

about universal school lunch program being free as well? Is that 

what you were—— 

Ms. CHILTON. The school lunch program is free. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. It’s free. 

Ms. CHILTON. Breakfast would be free, but there are many principals that don’t participate, don’t work hard to do outreach to have 

school breakfast at the school. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. I’ve got it. I’ve got it. I’ve got it. 

Ms. CHILTON. Which has been a major issue, and we know that 

breakfast is very important for school performance, et cetera. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Well, that’s why I was talking earlier 

about how we try to move this in the direction of schools that are 

not, you know, participating in these efforts. Now you said they 

save $800,000 a year. You also said that—so this was the entire 

school system then outlawed competitive foods? Help me with that 

again. 

Ms. CHILTON. Soda. Sorry, soda. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Soda? 

Ms. CHILTON. Sodas in the school. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Sodas in the schools. 

Ms. CHILTON. We’re working on competitive foods. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. And now they’re working on the competitive foods as well? 

Ms. CHILTON. Mm-hmm. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. 

Ms. CHILTON. One more thing about my testimony, which I 

would like to correct for the record, in my testimony I said that all 

Philadelphia schools have free lunch, and that’s not true. That’s 

true for two-thirds of the schools that have a child poverty rate of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
267 

75 percent or below. So there are one-third of the schools that are 

still serving many poor children that do not have universal access 

to those programs, and that’s something that needs to be improved. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. Thank you. I would love at some 

point to sit and talk about that but also to see if we can bring in 

some of the Philadelphia folks to—and maybe meet informally with 

the members of the Subcommittee to talk about—— 

Ms. CHILTON. I guarantee it, you would have enthusiastic response from Philadelphia to meet with you or anybody on your 

committee. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Yeah. In addition to that, it’s—because 

the Secretary spoke last week about, and I talked to my colleague, 

Allyson Schwartz, where this healthy food initiative is working to 

get nutritious foods into what are the food deserts, and a way in 

which to do that, and apparently that’s been an ongoing in Philadelphia as well. 

Ms. CHILTON. Yes. 

COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY FOR SCHOOL MEAL PROGRAMS

Chairwoman DELAURO. So on both of those issues, and I—and 

what we are going to do is to proceed with that, and as I say, I 

think try to do it informally with my colleagues so we can get the 

benefit of their understanding on this. 

Let me just have a quick follow-up on this issue from Zoe. You 

talk about a similar concept I think in the Hunger Free Schools 

Act, which is a community eligibility. What changes from the 

Philadelphia model would you recommend and why? And what are 

the barriers in implementing community eligibility in other areas 

that have a high percentage of children living around the poverty 

line? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Sure. The important similarity between what 

Philadelphia is doing and this community eligibility model is that 

in both instances, schools would be offering meals free to all kids 

and their reimbursements would be set based on something other 

than applications. It would take them out of the business of processing applications each year and having to track meals in the cafeteria. 

What’s different is that Philadelphia’s reimbursements are set 

based on a household survey that they conducted, and that is actually a very resource-intensive process. They invested about half a 

million dollars up front in designing a very detailed survey. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. I’ve got you. Got you, yeah. 

Ms. NEUBERGER [continuing]. That is meant to be rigorous. We 

are concerned that for many districts around the country—— 

Chairwoman DELAURO. It’s not affordable. 

Ms. NEUBERGER [continuing]. And schools that’s not going to be 

feasible, that kind of up-front investment. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Not that affordable. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. What’s nice about the community eligibility option is that it is based on the direct cert process which every district must be conducting right now. By law, every school district 

must be doing direct certification to reach kids that are already enrolled for food stamps. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
268 

What we’d like the community eligibility model to look like is 

that it would be very simple to operate. Schools and school districts 

that qualify would essentially get a notification each year telling 

them you are eligible for this option, here is what your reimbursement rate would be under it. If you want to take it up, let us know, 

and you won’t have to do the regular application process. If you 

don’t, you can still use the standard system. 

So we think it would actually have very low obstacles to participation in terms of operational issues. The key issue that I think 

that schools and districts will look at is whether they think the reimbursement level will be enough for them to cover their costs. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. Thank you. Let me yield to my 

colleague, Mr. Kingston. 

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Rosa. And I wanted to begin with to 

make sure everybody, you know, start at point one. Does everybody 

know what the deficit is as a percentage of spending? We’ve got 

five people here who want to spend more money. This is the spending committee, not the authorizing Committee. No one knows? Anybody want to guess? No guesses? Do you think it’s high, do you 

think it’s low, do you think it’s where it should be? 

Mr. FABER. I’m willing to take a guess, Mr. Kingston, I imagine the deficit is about two-thirds of our annual spending, about $1.5 

billion, and we are spending about somewhere between two-and-ahalf and three—I’m sorry, trillion, two-and-a-half to three trillion 

annually. Is that about right? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I’d give you some credit on that. The spending—probably a C-minus, but. 

Mr. FABER. Well, I went to law school, sir, not good with the 

numbers. 

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, the spending is $3.7 trillion. The def- icit is $1.5 trillion, 37 percent roughly of our spending is deficit. 

Now add that to the debt and add that to our problems that we’re 

having with Medicare and Medicaid and the war, you know, whatever spending example you want, we’re running down the road possibly off a cliff sooner or later. Not my opinion. A lot of economic 

experts on that that might be your equivalent in the world of the 

economy in terms of expertise in their area. 

You know, we keep talking about free lunches. I think we ought 

to quit calling them free lunches. It’s tax-subsidized. Somebody else 

has worked to pay for those lunches. And some of it, the money is 

borrowed, and some of it, it’s printed. But when we throw around 

the term ‘‘free lunch,’’ we’ve got to remember there’s no free lunch 

here, and, you know, these very children that we’re trying to help 

will be the ones inheriting such a large debt. So, you know, I wanted to bring that up. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS REAUTHORIZATION

Mr. Secretary, a question to you is the proposals of the USDA 

are about a billion dollars. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you have the price tag broken down in terms 

of the reimbursement rates or the bonus payments or the addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
269 

tional enrollment or the kitchen costs or—do you have that broken 

down? 

Mr. CONCANNON. For the billion dollars we have what amounts 

to about 16 individual priorities, and that’s something that we continue to work on. It’s something we would want to work with the 

Committee on. We know a significant portion of that would be required for improving or increasing the meal reimbursements for 

better quality meals. 

But we have another—I mean a number of smaller items, and 

I’m very sensitive to the Congressman’s concerns about deficit, but 

I’m at the same time mindful, this is an area, if we do it properly, 

that can actually result in significant cost avoidance down the 

road. 

And I know just recently we met with some retired military generals, flag officers, who are concerned about the fact that threequarters of young people between the ages of 17 and 24 don’t qualify for military induction because of—27 percent of them—because 

of obesity, others because they’ve dropped out of high school, others 

because they have criminal records. And they view it as a national 

security issue. 

I for a number of years administered health programs at a State 

level, and I know people with chronic conditions are the most expensive patients you have in the system. So to the extent we could 

make a breakthrough in this child nutrition reauthorization, I believe it can save us. It costs us money in the short term, but I sincerely believe it can result in cost avoidance down the road. 

FUNDING OFFSETS FOR CHILD NUTRITION REAUTHORIZATION

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, let me ask you this. What are your offsets? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I know there have been offsets discussed within 

the USDA, but our hope is that there are offsets even beyond the 

USDA. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I don’t know if this Committee can help you with 

offsets beyond the USDA, but we certainly can do it within the 

USDA. What are they? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I’m not familiar with what they have settled on 

at this point. I know there have been discussions of different offsets, but—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, you know, it’s interesting. This town always 

loves to talk about PAYGO after we just spent a lot of money. Both 

parties have this franchise, by the way. I mean, we always talk 

tough about budgets after we’ve spent an enormous amount of 

money. Jim Bunning actually brought hypocrisy to a national limelight last week, you know, that we’re calling things emergencies as 

if suddenly we’re in a recession. No one knew it the week before 

or the month before or the year before, but suddenly Mr. Bunning 

figured it out, and, you know, it’s an emergency. We always push 

things into emergency spending so that we can get around what? 

The PAYGO rules. 

So the question that I would have is that if this program, the expansion of these programs are a top priority of the USDA, then the 

USDA should be saying we want another billion dollars, and here’s 

where the money comes from, and it’s a real offset, not a fictitious 

one where we’re going after, you know, increased veterinary fees 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
270 

and taking it out of some nebulous pot somewhere that will never 

be done. But, you know, I think that that would be something that 

we should, you know, the merits of this program, I think we could 

talk about a lot of different things here. 

I actually was—I always like to hear what Mr. Brownell says because he always is thinking outside the box, very brave guy, and 

coming up with creative ways to irritate somebody in this town, 

which is somewhat of a good thing to do on a regular basis. But 

I still think we’ve got to quit fooling ourselves as a Congress, Democrat or Republican, and we’ve got to start paying for things, because if we want to stop starvation, we want to help children, we 

need to have a sound fiscal policy, and that’s the best way to help 

them. 

So what I would like you to do is give us very specific offsets so 

that we know where this money is coming from, and then we can 

talk, well, maybe you don’t need a billion or maybe you need a billion and a half, maybe something lower than that but. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I’d be glad to work with you on that, definitely. 

Mr. BROWNELL. May I make one comment too in response to 

that? I’m not an expert on economics, but one thing that has been 

proposed, if people can find this idea of a tax on something like 

sugar-sweetened beverages acceptable, is to use that money for 

these very programs. 

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, I was so tempted to get a Coke during 

the break, and then I knew I had to face you, so. But—— 

Mr. BROWNELL. Well, buy it while you can. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield back. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. That’s a way to pay for something and 

we’ve got a whole lot of things in the ag bill that we might take 

a look at in terms of paying for this priority. I want to make one 

comment, Sam, before I turn it to you, because I think this is very 

interesting. It was Harry Truman I guess it was 60 years ago who 

dealt with the School Lunch Program, National School Lunch Program, as a direct result of the military, and the military finding 

that the recruits were malnourished, undernourished, et cetera. 

And there’s a report which is called Mission Readiness. Twentyseven percent of our Nation’s young people are too overweight to 

now serve in our armed forces. 

We literally have come full circle in 60 years. And a quote by Mr. 

Truman is, in the long view, no Nation is healthier than its children. And that was a guy who said the buck stops here. The buck 

stops here. Mr. Farr. 

PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m delighted we’re having this hearing. I’ve spent a lot of time visiting 

the feeding programs at the school level, and I think the offsets are 

there, Mr. Kingston. They’re in the administrative costs of this program. It ranks number three in paperwork after the IRS, and I forget what number two is. But number three is the child nutrition 

program. And the reason is that the forms that one has to fill out 

are just outrageous. And it’s also a reimbursement program. Think 

if you told people go out and buy all the groceries on your own 

money and then we’ll reimburse you. And then you get dinged beVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
271 

cause you bought the wrong things. Well, that’s essentially what 

the School Lunch Program is. 

And we have approached this thing, and the testimony shows 

that we have six different programs that we call school feeding programs. And I want you—and my question goes to this. You said 

you want to reduce the barriers. And I wonder how you’re going to 

reduce the barriers by—more money is going to do one thing, but 

how can you in one school have a National School Lunch Program, 

a School Breakfast Program, a Summer Food Service Program, a 

Child And Adult Care Program, and a Special Milk Program, each 

one requiring a different set of circumstances to qualify for? All 

perhaps the same child in the same school. It’s obvious that what 

you ought to do, and this is where I think the Administration and 

the leadership is wonderful on talk about child nutrition. But I 

think you’re very lax on leadership and reorganizing the management of it. Because George Miller just told me on the floor that he’s 

marking up the Child Nutrition bill perhaps this weekend. And to 

me, we ought to reduce these things into two feeding programs, a 

community feeding program and a school feeding program. 

And I wish the academics would look—because I think with Mr. 

Kingston we have that barrier, I mean, you know, people are looking at all the costs. But we have got to modernize this by eliminating that and duplication of bureaucracy and things like that. So 

I really want to know that if you’re just going to throw more money 

at it, it ain’t going to solve the problem. It will help more kids get 

in the program. 

So here are my overall themes, Madam Chair. That’s ten of 

them, ten things. We expand and improve the direct certification. 

Find model State programs that have proven effective in identifying eligible children and match them with school enrollment lists. 

Utilize Medicaid and SNAP and TANF for categorically eligible 

where the Medicare rosters can adequately identify eligibility and 

direct certification. Reduce the barriers to school meal applications 

by simplifying the application process. 

I have one right here. I don’t think anybody in this room could 

fill it out. This is what you have to fill out when you’re an 

uneducated person. You have to say the names of all the household 

members in your house, the monthly earnings from work before deductions, monthly welfare child support and alimony payments. 

Monthly payments from pensions, retirement and Social Security, 

if you even know what those are, by definition. Monthly earnings 

from job two or any other monthly income. All of those have to be 

filled out. I mean, I’m filling out my taxes right now and I was 

looking at all this stuff, and you need a CPA to fill out your application for free lunch. 

We should allow districts to choose to use Title I funds to buy 

electronic point of sale systems that help eliminate the stigma of 

participation. These systems have increased participation for free 

and reduced and for—this idea that you’ve got to line up in the 

poor line, the poor kids line and the rich kids line. Just—it’s absurd. It’s obscene and it’s embarrassing that America has to do 

that. 

Eliminate tiering of the CACFP. The CACFP is the only program 

that produces—provides standards for child care and meals. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
272 

Tiering has reduced the number of child care providers participating in the program. Diminishing the standards in nutrition for 

every young child. Simplify and streamline. Should not have multiple programs, multiple applications and reports and approved. 

Again, it’s on a reimbursement basis. It’s outrageously complicated. 

Improve the nutritional quality, which you’ve spoken about. Establish some national standards for both meals and other foods 

available in the cafeteria. Additionally give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to set standards for food sold outside of the 

cafeteria during the school day, so that all the junk food shouldn’t 

be able to—we help all these schools with all these categorical Federal programs, and then we allow them to turn around and sell 

things that are not healthy. 

Provide community entitlement for school breakfasts. I think 

there ought to be, school breakfasts ought to be just for every child 

and there ought not be any means test. Wellness. 

Add to local wellness policy provisions of the last Child Nutrition 

Reauthorization Act to add more specific minimum standards and 

fund nutritional education. Those are things that we have to do, 

and I’ve got a bill which I think most the members of this committee are co-sponsors on, which would require all the schools in 

the country to have salad bars, and we hope we can get that into 

the reauthorization bill. 

But, Madam Chair, I think that if we don’t focus on having to 

reduce the bureaucratic barriers which my school administrators 

tell me are up to 60 percent of the cost of a program. There’s your 

savings, Jack. There’s your offset. And we certainly could do that. 

The leadership’s got to go in and bust these special interest—I 

mean, these, you know, what did I call it, the categories that are 

all their own special rice bowls. There are people that won’t want 

to, you know, each one’s got administrative politics to it. And 

they’ve got to be pulled into one, particularly when you think that 

that same child can qualify for six programs in the same school. 

And it’s extremely costly to administer all that. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Let me just comment on that, Congressman. I 

think you make a very good point, and that is one of our goals is 

to simplify access, and that’s why we propose a number of incentives to make broader use of direct certification which will eliminate the requirement for parents to fill in those applications. And 

we’re urging that it be done increasingly in States like Ohio. 

Mr. FARR. Have you urged that to the committee? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Pardon? 

Mr. FARR. Have you urged that to the committee? Have you 

made your recommendations to the Education and Labor Committee? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes it has. It’s gone forward with them. And we 

are, states like Ohio have done a wonderful job of processing these 

data for certification at a state level. So we know there’s great variability across the country. It can be done simply if there’s a commitment to do it. 

I do want to make a comment factually. All kids have to go 

through the same line together. There should be no free lines or 

separate lines for children in America’s schools if they are receiving 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
273 

a free or reduced priced lunch. So we certainly would like to know 

if that’s occurring, because that would be a violation. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I hear—I don’t know exactly whether it’s two 

separate lines, but I do hear that it’s easy to distinguish between 

the children that are getting the free lunch and the children that 

are having to pay for it. 

Mr. CONCANNON. There shouldn’t be. 

Mr. FARR. Have you visited some of the schools lately? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes I have. I’ve been to schools. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. I’d like to jump in and say something on the 

use of direct certification, because I think you raised some very important points there. You held up the school meals application as 

an example of something complicated for parents to fill out. That 

is very, very simple compared to the applications for the food 

stamp program or the Medicaid program, as it should be. It’s a 

form that’s completed by parents at home. They don’t get help. The 

people at schools who are making eligibility determinations, you 

know, are people at schools who don’t get a lot of training in this. 

They process applications a few times each year. 

If you look at what the food stamp programs and Medicaid programs are doing, they’ve got offices of caseworkers whose full time 

job is to look at people’s income and make sure they’re verifying 

it and getting it right. It makes no sense for schools to duplicate 

that effort, and that’s why we’ve been very big supporters of using 

data from other programs through the process of direct certification. That’s in place now for food stamps, and that’s why we 

think expanding the allowable data sources to Medicaid makes so 

much sense. 

Mr. FARR. I’ll come back. I guess my time has expired. I have 

some other questions. 

A LA CARTE FOODS

Chairwoman DELAURO. It may be, and this is not a question, 

maybe we can discuss it later, it’s the a la carte lines, as I understand it, that are there that—they do not have to—I could be 

wrong. The a la carte lines, kids can go through them and they 

don’t have to meet nutrition standards. Is that correct? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Not Federal standards. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. No Federal standards. And, I mean, 

we’re not paying for that, but that’s there, so that’s a competitive 

food which challenges what kids should be doing. Anyway, a big 

issue which we need to really focus on. I’m sorry. Mr. Boyd. 

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAM

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madam Chair. And all of you, I enjoyed 

your testimony. It’s all—all of your thought-provoking testimony 

and especially you, Mr. Brownell, Dr. Brownell. But a couple of 

points first. The farm to—I mean, you talked a little bit about the 

farm to school. The farm to school is a great program. 

I have a very successful farm to school program in the area that 

I represent, and I’ve visited that program and I visited with the 

schools that all are engaged on the back end of that program, and 

everybody is happy. Everybody seems to be happy, and everybody 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
274 

thinks this is a great program, so I just wanted to make that plug. 

I notice you included that as a prominent part of your testimony. 

I did want to also ask you, Mr. Concannon, about the after school 

meals that you—that we have going. I understand we have 14 

states now, is that right? 

AFTER SCHOOL MEALS

Mr. CONCANNON. Correct. That’s part of the Child And Adult 

Care Feeding Program. It’s limited currently to 14 states, and we 

are proposing that program be expanded to all 50 states. 

Mr. BOYD. I have advocated and worked real hard last year to 

get Florida included in that. Does your President—our President’s 

proposed budget include funds to include Florida in that program? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes it does. 

Mr. BOYD. Okay. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes it does. 

Mr. BOYD. And you presume that this budget would take in an additional $140,000? Is that the number I saw? 

Mr. CONCANNON. That’s the estimate that was seen, yes. 

SUGAR BEVERAGES

Mr. BOYD. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Brownell, I was very interested 

in your thoughts on sugar drinks, and they’re good thoughts, part 

of them were anyway. And I was very interested in the exchange 

with Mr. Concannon and the chairwoman about how we on the additional funding that we will provide for the cost of the meals, 

whatever that number is, 35 cents or whatever you’re saying it is, 

and the chairwoman had suggested that we put incentives in the 

program somehow or another so folks could be incentivized to do 

better in terms of health if they would receive this. 

I had one idea, Madam Chair, that I think would make everybody here happy, or at least the panel. The Florida citrus industry 

is a great industry that provides a lot of jobs and a great healthy 

product, but it’s very difficult to find 100 percent juice in the 

schools. They’re taking the juice and putting water and sugar, and, 

I mean, you know, a lot of the drinks that you find in the schools 

are sugary drinks, and that was your point. Just my suggestion, 

Madam Chair, was one of the incentives to be that we provide 100 

percent pure Florida orange juice in the school districts as an incentive. 

Mr. BOYD. You don’t have to respond to that, I mean. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. But the 100 percent is great. I think 

that’s in the IOM standards is 100 percent. 

Mr. FABER. Can I just clarify that? Because one of the things we 

did talk about a little bit earlier is the commitment that the beverage industry has made through the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which is a partnership that involved the Clinton Foundation. As a result of the pledge those companies took—I’ve got a 

copy that I could submit for the record—all soft drinks are out of 

elementary and middle schools, but the only thing that you can get 

in elementary and middle schools are eight-ounce servings of milk 

which are fat free or low fat, as well as 100 percent juice. 

And in middle schools, it is the same except milk may be sold 

in a slightly larger portion. And then in high schools, you can get 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
275 

low calorie beverages, but again, only 100 percent juice. So this has 

been a three-year commitment. This is the third year. So in all of 

our schools, you will only be able to purchase 100 percent juice beginning essentially next—— 

Mr. BOYD. And that’s your—I’m sorry. You were reading from 

that proposed—— 

Mr. FABER. This is just a summary of the commitment that the 

beverage industry has made through the Alliance for a Healthier 

Generation. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BOYD. Certainly. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Is that juice from concentrate or not from concentrate? 

Mr. FABER. It’s 100 percent juice. It can be from concentrate. 

Mr. BOYD. It’s just not as—it’s just not as good tasting, Jack. It 

might be as good for you, but who would want to drink it? I’m on 

your side on this. I just want you to know. One more question if 

I could—am I out of time? 

Chairwoman DELAURO. No, go ahead. 

SENIOR FARMERS’ MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM

Mr. BOYD. Okay. The 2008 Farm Bill, Mr. Concannon, mandated 

an increase from 15 million to 20.6 million in the Senior Farmers 

Market Nutrition Program. Can you tell us the expected impact 

this increase will have on the program and its impact on nutrition, 

or do you have any thoughts on that or any data? 

Mr. CONCANNON. We’ll have to get back to you on that subsequently. But I know I’ve been out—was out in a—up in New 

Hampshire back in December, and they spoke glowingly of the importance of that program in that State, but I don’t know that data. 

We will get that to you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
276 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 615 57780B.042
277 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 616 57780B.043
278 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Ms. Kaptur. 

AGRICULTURAL EFFORTS IN OHIO

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Welcome. It’s 

really great to have you here as we do America’s important work. 

I will share a story. Last weekend I spoke to the Ohio Teachers Association from all the major communities in our State, and at the 

end of my speech I said I’d now like to ask you a question. How 

many of you on a regular basis experience hunger among the children that you teach as a contributing factor to their not being able 

to learn? Thinking that about 10 percent of the audience would 

raise their hands. Over 90 percent of the teachers did. 

I share that with you because that’s why we’re here today. Under 

Secretary Concannon, thank you. You’re the right man in the right 

place and you’ve got a big job to do. And from my own perspective 

in Ohio, I’d like to share a few things that might help. 

First of all, I very much want to encourage you in your efforts 

to engage the local farmer and grower in providing product to the 

schools. I love this local farm, local grower connection. In Ohio, 98 

percent of the food we eat is not from Ohio, which is an oxymoron, 

because we have the capability to feed ourselves and certainly our 

children. 

But the USDA has been the most difficult instrumentality to 

work with in the urban setting, quite frankly. We’ve gotten much 

better cooperation from our Botanical Gardens where we have now 

over 90 community gardens that will go up this year. We have high 

tech, vertical growing systems. We have the largest greenhouse industry in the midwest, and we are working with our county commission using Department of Labor funds and HHS funds through 

TANF, for example, through WIA. USDA is not at the table effectively. You know that. That’s why you’re in the job you’re in today. 

So I just want to make you aware that these connections are 

very, very hard to achieve and the system that existed in the 20th 

century is not effective in the 21st for USDA’s effective participation in this local farm, local grower to local school connection. We 

have to rediscover those connects. 

Number two. Engage the youth. I am very interested in replicating this experience. I was at the Martin Luther King day commemoration in our district about a month ago, and there were 

thousands of people. And afterwards, I was standing talking to 

some of the gathered people, and I felt a tugging at my jacket. And 

I looked around and here was this little girl, and she said, ‘‘Hi. My 

name is Shelby. I’m six years old, and I don’t want you to close the 

Padua Center because I want to be a plant scientist.’’ This is in the 

heart of one of the poorest neighborhoods in America. And USDA 

has not been involved. 

Working with our Botanical Gardens, the Catholic Church, our 

county, we have found a way to raise chickens in the city now. We 

have found a way to raise vegetables. It’s not high tech yet, but 

we’re going to get it there. But you know, it would be really nice 

to have USDA conscious of these kinds of experiences. And then 

Shelby said, and I just share it because it’s such a great story. She 

goes, ‘‘And do you know what? Chickens, when they’re little babies, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
279 

they have yellow feathers. But when they grow up, their feathers 

change color.’’ And she was so excited, and she was so happy. And 

she said, ‘‘And they give me the eggs to take home to my mommy.’’ 

All right. That experience is very important, because the city has 

been robbed of the extension programs, of working with the earth. 

We have a whole generation of youth, one young woman in a program back home said, well, you know, they said this is a potato. 

She said do you have to take the paper off to eat it? Did not know 

what a potato was. To her, a potato was a french fry. We have so 

much work to do to restore agricultural and plant science knowledge in the cities and suburban areas of our country. 

So my—we need education. We need to link growing at the 

school site, not just for the culinary classes, but for the youth. I 

have a group in my region called Veggie U. They have tried— 

they’re so frustrated. Great farmer, he donates a million dollars a 

year out of his profits to help to put these little kids in fourth 

grades to teach children how to grow plants, and they love to do 

it, but USDA doesn’t help. I’m not yelling at you for USDA, I’m describing reality, because I know if you hear reality you can help us 

change it. 

So my question is, you know, yes, let’s connect the grower, let’s 

connect the farmer to the school, but let’s engage the children, because they are our future. And I have no doubt that we will raise 

new growers, new farmers, new greenhouse operators, new food 

processors, new chefs, new small businesspeople with the products 

that they will grow. One group says, hey, let’s take these peppers 

and let’s grind them up and create paprika. I said now you’re talking my language. All right. But the city people have been robbed 

of that really over the years. They’ve been relegated to snack coupons. And I just want to make you aware of the great potential. 

I want to thank Michelle Obama. She is right, she’s right on. I 

never thought I’d live to see somebody who had that kind of position in our country lead us forward. So I wanted to mention those 

issues to you, the importance of USDA being a partner with our 

Botanical Gardens, with TANF, with WIA, and I know my time has 

expired, Madam Chair, so I’ll just summarize again. And also engaging the children. Find a way through our educational programs. 

My advice to you is to take the top ten poorest communities in 

America, take five in the rural area, five in the urban area or ten 

and ten, however you’re going to do it. Focus your tactical teams 

there. We’ve placed an invitation to USDA through the Toledo 

School of the Arts for a tactical team to come out to us, but I just 

don’t want it to be that school. I want it to be the whole system, 

so they can see how we can work with you and help USDA be as 

effective in this environment as you have been in production agriculture across this country. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

NUTRITION EDUCATION

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you very much, Ms. Kaptur. Let 

me just mention this to you, and this is for all the Committee 

members. And I, this is not self-serving in any way. One of the 

things that I’m going to do in my district, and obviously we all operate in our own districts, is—and I had an experience with working years ago on a program called ‘‘Kick Butts Connecticut’’ which 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
280 

was about moving to middle school kids and encouraging them not 

to start to smoke. 

So we’ve gone through that effort, and I’m now going to set up 

in all of the middle schools and put a program together that allows 

us to do a middle school nutrition program, doing several things. 

It may be you get somebody from USDA to come, but it’s about the 

gardens, it’s about cooking, it’s about what a nutritious—we’ll bring 

someone in to cook. Engage starting at the middle school level. 

This is something I think that we can do. I really do. It means the 

cooperation of the schools, and with the latter program, once a 

month we would have a program in some school, the school has cooperated by busing the kids from their schools to this one. So the 

schools were engaged and involved. 

We brought in—they did skits, we brought in people to talk to 

them. They were engaged in learning about smoking and what detrimental effects it could have on their health. So we’re going to try 

it. We’re going to try it this—before the end of this school year as 

a pilot in one of the towns that I have, and hopefully it works, and 

I would let you know that. But I think that there’s something that 

we can do here in terms of educating our kids and engaging the 

Federal agencies, the academic institutions, the medical profession 

and others in terms of assisting us with this issue and getting to 

kids. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Could the gentlelady yield? 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Sure. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I’d just say those kinds of prototypes, because we’re talking about turning a massive agency created in what, 19th Century? When was USDA created? 1860. I 

mean, think about this. 

Mr. FARR. President Lincoln. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Lincoln. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Okay, Lincoln. Think about this mindset of where 

we’ve come from and where we are today. And I do think we need 

those prototypes to use the best practice at USDA and to connect 

it to other resources in our communities. And I know from our situation we are not maximizing that opportunity, so I welcome the 

gentlelady’s proposal. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you. Mr. Kingston. 

OBESITY VS HUNGER

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Concannon, I wanted to visit the statistic on 

obesity. Do you feel obesity is a bigger problem than hunger in 

America? 

Mr. CONCANNON. It’s ironically, and it’s a paradox that they coexist and they’re variations on the very same theme. I saw reference 

in several pediatric journal articles that appeared just within the 

past two weeks pointing out the studies that showed very young 

preschool children putting on extra weight and that listed the risk 

factors—poverty. That’s the 800 pound gorilla, to use a bad maybe 

pun in this respect, but that’s one of the variables. Single parenthood, chaotic households, difficulty in people having meals together. These are all factors in very poor households. 

And some of the citations that have been mentioned by other 

members of the subcommittee here today, Congress people, on the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
281 

existence of whether it’s school teachers running into children who 

are hungry or the USDA’s own studies or studies done by several 

of these national organizations this past year, they coexist, ironically. And so I think they’re both major challenges for us. And 

hunger exists, unfortunately, in this country, and we certainly have 

the capacity to produce the food. It’s a matter of getting it aligned 

to the right people and getting healthy food to people. 

Mr. KINGSTON. We have a definition of obesity though, right? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do we have a definition of hungry, of hunger? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes we do. And the definitions relate on the 

USDA side to food insecurity and severe food insecurity. And we 

published a study back in November of this year, this year past, 

showed that some 17 million people over the course of the year experienced food insecurity, and a small number but a significant 

number, about a million children, actually experienced the severe 

form, meaning hunger. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And what would be the number of obese? It’s 14 

million hungry. How many obese? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Not within that—I can’t relate which of the 

people who are obese were hungry, but we actually have statistics 

that break out by age cohorts the statistics for obesity by age 

groups. And it relates to where they fit in the BMI and which percentage they are. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you know what city has the most healthy people in the country? Has anybody—has anybody ever looked at that? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I’ve seen—not so much on cities, but I have 

seen data in the past on States based on, and I know States like 

Colorado and Oregon, for example, on balance have lower rates of 

obesity than the general populations. But I don’t have that right 

in front of me. 

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, there’s some things about obesity. 

There’s so many different reasons. Technology has made it, you 

know, we don’t have to do the physical labor. Technology has also 

brought down the cost of food production, therefore giving us a 

great abundance of food at a lower price. There’s no incentive on 

insurance to have your optimal body weight because you’re not penalized if you’re overweight on insurance. So there’s so many different things to it, but Portland, I think 14 percent of the people 

actually commute by bicycle. And I think, Mr. Farr, Evans, California I guess, University of California-Evans is a very high—— 

Mr. FARR. Evans? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes. I don’t who—— 

Mr. BROWNELL. Davis. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Davis. Excuse me. I don’t know why—is Davis in 

Evans or why am I flipping that? 

Mr. FARR. Well, Davis is flat and has nothing but bicycles. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Actually, Davis has even higher percentage than 

Portland. And I’m wondering if you have any statistics on those, 

particularly those two communities in terms of healthy lifestyles. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I actually lived in the city of Portland for eight 

years, so I’m familiar with the variety, and it goes back to I think 

the comment Dr. Brownell made. Some of the challenges faced in 

terms of obesity reflect sort of a culture. It’s both the lack of activVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
282 

ity, the more foods, larger portions, more processed foods. There 

are a variety of factors that converge, but I’m very familiar with 

Portland, having lived there in this sense. It both is a community 

that has bicycle trails, that has an excellent public transportation 

system, that has—their public school systems currently don’t allow, 

for example, competitive foods. So there are the convergence of a 

number of policies that actually I think result in the kind of—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. How has that worked in their school policy? Are 

you able to trace that empirically? 

Mr. CONCANNON. You know, I can’t speak to that directly. Now 

I’m aware of it, but I don’t know what studies have been done, and 

I’m not sure. That policy was implemented after I moved from 

Portland in terms of the schools. But I know there is a culture 

there of, you know, walking, biking, making better use of the land 

use, access to the outdoors. The whole Oregon coast is substantially 

accessible to the public because of policies that were enacted way 

back in the 1970s, so it’s a number of things together I think. 

Mr. FARR. It’s engineering by building bike trails. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. And that’s the idea, you’ve got to build them. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yeah. It would appear to me that as we look at 

nutrition—healthiness—obesity that we should look at those type 

communities in terms of what is being done right and what can be 

duplicated, and, you know, where the balance is. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I agree with you, Congressman. The President 

in early January issued an executive order across the Federal Government, not just to USDA but to other agencies, HUD, HHS, to 

devise a plan for attacking and reducing obesity across Federal 

agencies in terms of what are the unintended if not intended consequences at times of Federal policy. And I know that more recently when I visited schools up in Summerville, Massachusetts, 

excluding children with special needs, the city of Summerville has 

a policy of kids walking to school. Now you have to have safe 

venues. You have to have sidewalks that are shoveled. You have 

to have—it has to be safe for children, but that to me was an example of city policy that extends beyond the school. Now they also 

happen to be a school system that promotes farm to school purchases and incorporates into the school curriculum the use of food 

in the math programs, food in the gym program, food in the music 

programs even, and activity. So it really isn’t isolated to one hour 

or to the cafeteria. It’s really—it’s back to this concept of culture. 

And places like that are, you know, they have a number of very 

poor children in that community as well, but are to me doing great 

things for these children. But it extend beyond. All of it isn’t just 

related to how much does this cost. It’s a policy, or sets of policies. 

Ms. CHILTON. Can I add a couple of things, Mr. Kingston? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes. And I did want to just say, one of the things 

that’s interesting is that so many of those activities are free activities, and I know that in Davis and in Portland they were initiated 

locally rather than top down. Yes. 

Ms. CHILTON. Thank you very much. I just wanted to return to 

the definition of hunger. The definition of food insecurity is lack of 

access to enough food for an active and healthy life due to economic 

circumstances. In other words, food hardship. It’s not only about 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
283 

enough food, but it’s also about enough food for an active and 

healthy life. So it has a health component in it. So it’s very difficult 

to distinguish between those families that are obese and those families that are hungry. You cannot see hungry in the body visually, 

and even by weight or height. You can see it in the very undernourished children that we treat at the Grow Clinic in Philadelphia. We have served over 400 families that have children with 

failure to thrive. It still exists here in the United States, and we’re 

dealing with that all across the country. But you see hunger in 

poor attention, poor development, and increased hospitalization 

rates. You do not see hunger necessarily in body size. And most 

families that are food insecure will overcompensate with the cheaper foods that are high in saturated fat and in sodium, which are 

both contributors to obesity. And so you cannot—you can’t separate 

the two things, oh, these are the obese kids. Let’s deal with obesity, 

or these are the hungry kids, let’s deal with the hungry kids. You 

work on both at the same time, you’ll solve problems. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I know I’m way over my time. I really appreciate 

that answer. I think it’s very important for us to look at these 

things as empirically as possible and as objectively as possible so 

that we can figure out, okay, what really does work and what 

doesn’t. And as you know, often behind children there are a lot of 

poverty brokers who stand to gain a lot of money by expansion of 

Federal programs. And so, you know, one of the things that I think 

we should always go back to, well, what is the definition of this 

and who falls into these categories and who doesn’t and are we 

just—you know, are we doing this effectively? That’s what, you 

know, my interest is. But I think it’s a great answer, and I appreciate it. 

COMMODITIES

Chairwoman DELAURO. I have a question. Mr. Hinchey gets back 

here. This is about commodities, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. And I’m going to try to move quickly, 

and I want to ask several of you to look at something. 

What types of commodities? How much are you recommending 

for the school breakfast program? How will the Department procure the additional commodities? Through which program? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

First of all, let me say that the commodity programs of USDA 

have gotten healthier. And I think that’s contrary at times to public perception, that when I have seen the commodities out in warehouses—I was in San Francisco not too long ago, and saw commodities in that warehouse run by the San Francisco Food Bank. 

But the reason I mention that they’re healthier, is we in the 

USDA procurement specs require from these producers that there 

be less sodium. And we’ve heard from producers, for example, they 

say, ‘‘You know, you have to let us know when you’re going to purchase this, because we can’t sell these cans of string beans or peas 

with that reduced salt amount, because that’s a lot less than our 

commercial house brands or brands that they’re selling to people.’’ 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Yes. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
284 

Mr. CONCANNON. Same way with several of the chefs that I met 

with earlier this week are using USDA commodities bone-in chickens, for example. And I saw it when I was down out in rural Georgia as well, a school that is making use of those USDA commodities 

for healthy foods. 

So I say that as a parenthetical and aside, that the commodities 

are getting healthier. 

Now we’re proposing that commodities be available to the school 

breakfast program. They haven’t been up to this point in time. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Right. 

Mr. CONCANNON. And they’re an important part for schools to be 

able, when they use commodities. And by the way, the choices to 

schools are they decide which commodities they want to purchase. 

We don’t say ‘‘You must buy this,’’ or ‘‘You must buy that.’’ 

Chairwoman DELAURO. I understand. 

Mr. CONCANNON. And it’s from a list of, I believe the total number is about 180. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Right. 

Mr. CONCANNON. So getting healthier, the procurement for commodities is typically done by another part of USDA. We work with 

them. But it’s done over in the Ag Marketing Service area. We 

don’t buy it—— 

Chairwoman DELAURO. But, you know, it’s about 20 percent of 

the food served in school lunch program comes through commodities support. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. And I understand your commentary on 

it’s becoming more healthy. 

But when you look at the food being provided, heavily weighted 

to meat and to cheese, this is usually my colleague, Sam Farr’s line 

of questioning. I want to ask, obviously you, Dr. Brownell, Dr. 

Chilton, Scott, Zoe: This is the list. We got the whole list. I want 

people in the area of science and practicality to review the list, and 

let us know what works and what doesn’t work. 

Because they are buying; but if we’re giving them—you know, 

they’re looking for bang for the buck, they’re looking for, you know, 

something—you’ve got to—I can’t even read the print on this one, 

Sam. I like your list better. It’s big, I can read it. 

We need objective folks reviewing these lists, and then making, 

so that we can make appropriate recommendations about what 

happens. It’s just not every commodity that we have a surplus of, 

or that, you know, we have there. So that we are in fact saying 

‘‘We’re going to serve a nutritious meal, and we’re doing it, and 

we’re subsidizing it.’’ And it may potentially not be based in their 

selection on what really can work in a healthy and nutritious way. 

So I’m going to get it out to everyone and I really do want to 

hear back from people, so that we can get that information to 

our—— 

And I’m going to make this point as well—— 

Mr. CONCANNON. Would you yield for a point? 

Chairwoman DELAURO. I’d be happy to yield for a point. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Just for your point. We spent $786,000 on apples last year, and $148 million on mozzarella cheese. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
285 

Chairwoman DELAURO. That’s Sam’s favorite is the mozzarella 

cheese—— 

Mr. CONCANNON. That’s the biggest—— 

Chairwoman DELAURO. I understand. That’s why I think that 

this is where we need to have some very good sound advice as to 

what we can say. Now that may put some folks, you know, it may 

not be to the liking of a lot of folks. But I think we have again, 

I’m going back to moral responsibilities. And if we want to do this 

and we want to, then we have got to provide the sheet from which 

they are selecting nutritious foods. So. 

Let me ask this question, Mr. Secretary. This is about local food 

purchases. 

My colleague, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 

Mr. Obey, had this experience. A reporter in his district tried to 

unravel the food chain for commodity purchases of processed beef 

the School Lunch Program. They wanted to find out if the Federal 

Government was feeding the children in their community processed 

beef, meaning beef trim sanitized with ammonia. He talked to the 

school, who said to talk to the State. State said to talk to the companies. The companies said talk to USDA. USDA said talk to the 

companies. In essence, nobody wanted to answer the question. 

AMS, which purchases the beef products, says that AMS does not 

require any special labeling when this processed beef is used in the 

AMS-purchased ground beef. 

It appears that no one but the supplier knows what is in the 

processed beef. Not AMS, not the state, the local school, the parents, or the children, who are eating the beef. 

AMS pointed out that the schools are not required to order AMSpurchased commodity beef. They can instead use a cash reimbursement they receive from USDA to purchase the beef product. 

A flaw in the logic here. Suppliers use processed beef and provide 

the beef in bulk to the Federal Government. Schools cannot afford 

not to buy the AMS-purchased beef. They’ll pay a much higher 

price for the beef if they buy it on their own. 

I realize that you do have initiatives that will help farmers to 

supply directly to the local school system, and which we applaud. 

But how will any of these initiatives solve the price disparity issue 

on ground beef for these local schools? How do we deal with that 

issue? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I’m certainly not an expert on price disparity 

issues. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I do know this, that AMS has considerably 

strengthened the role in the oversight there. And they’ve made substantive changes to improve the safety of meat. They’re doing more 

frequent microbiological testing of purchased ground beef for the 

USDA programs. They’re increasing and adding rejection criteria 

for beef supplied to manufacturers of USDA-supplied ground beef. 

They’re reviewing the food safety record of vendors of commercial 

sales. We have the HACCP program, as I think the Chair of the 

committee is very familiar with that. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Yes. 

Mr. CONCANNON. And that involves again, USDA commodities. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
286 

We’re also aware of, again, the urgency and the importance of increasing the microbiological sampling frequency. 

So we’re adding rejection criteria for beef supplied to manufacturers of USDA-purchased ground beef. Those are all over in the 

AMS side. That’s where the supply comes in. But I know that is 

being strengthened across the—— 

But I asked recently, by the way, at a supermarket here in Maryland in one of the suburbs, ‘‘Where did this beef come from?’’ I 

asked the butcher. And he said, ‘‘I have no idea. It came from the 

U.S.’’ he said to me. 

So—— 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Well, that’s another issue, that’s another 

issue, Mr. Secretary (laughing)—— 

Mr. CONCANNON. We have these challenges in supermarkets, 

even when you want to know. This was so-called organic beef. I 

said, ‘‘Where does it come from?’’ 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Yeah. Well, the issue is—and I’m not 

putting you on the spot with the price disparity—but unless we 

have real control of what we’re doing in these areas and what is 

going into this program, that our schools are not able, really, given 

the economics, of being able to go out and, you know, to purchase 

something that, you know, in essence, meets a higher standard. 

So, with that, Mr. Hinchey? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank 

you all very much. And I’m awfully sorry that because of other obligations here, I unfortunately missed a lot of the responses that 

you’ve given to the questions. 

I very much appreciated the opening remarks that you made, 

and I paid a lot of attention to those, and I’m very grateful to you 

for what you said, and also for what you’re doing. 

I think that you’ve made a significantly positive difference in the 

operation of this organization, and the benefits of that just flow out 

to a great many people all across the country. 

And so I thank you for that, and express my appreciation for it. 

I just wanted to try to understand myself a little better maybe 

these questions that were responded to earlier. But they have to 

do with the same thing that our Chairwoman was asking. 

FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAM

With regard to the way in which children in schools are able to 

get some good food, breakfast and lunch: Just this past week, I was 

out in a part of State of New York, a place called Binghamton, 

which is a city along with two other cities in New York that got 

a great attraction, and a lot of, well, praise for the way in which 

they were providing good food to a lot of the students there. 

And then I was so delighted to see that Ms. Obama talked about 

it in the context of something that she was dealing with, I think 

it was just yesterday. 

So this is something that’s very important and something that 

really needs to be dealt with across the country. 

So one of the circumstances is where this food comes from, and 

how we’re going to bring about good food in as many of these 

schools as possible, both breakfast and lunch, and maybe even 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
287 

something else. I guess there are other things that sometimes pop 

up in some other places. 

So maybe you could just talk about that again. Probably you did. 

Maybe just talk about that again for a few minutes. And then also 

about the way in which the food can originate. 

One of the most significant things would be the ability to originate it locally. If you’re living in a rural area and you can bring 

in the food from farms that are located locally, that would be something that would be very good. 

I understand that there is some requirement here with regard to 

where you obtain the food, based upon the price. But it would seem 

to me that if you’re getting food for a couple of cents less at some 

place that’s far away, there has to be a cost of transportation. 

There has to be the cost also of the deriding of the quality of the 

food, perhaps, in the context of that trip. 

So I’m just wondering what can be done to promote the generation of food locally in the context of these school operations and 

what can be done to extend them, strengthen them in places across 

the country? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Let me just say, in your reference to Binghamton schools, I know 

we had our Deputy Under Secretary up in Binghamton recently to 

acknowledge schools there, that are a part of Healthier U.S. 

Schools Challenge. 

And that’s been one of the initiatives that we are promoting. 

We’ve had that opportunity now for about four years. Ms. Obama 

has directed us, challenged us to double that number in the next 

year and over the next several years to add thousands more schools 

in that regard. 

But to your question about local sourcing, I listened to a presentation by an Iowa State Ag Economist here, back some months ago, 

where he used the concept of food sheds in the same way we speak 

of water sheds—if you think of all the tributaries—and that we 

need to reinvigorate our systems, so that actually support that. 

Now that’s happening in various places across the country, not 

as broadly as it needs to be occurring. But it is occurring. 

And at USDA we have something called a Tactical Farm Team, 

Congresswoman Kaptur referenced in her remarks earlier. And we 

know there are hundreds of schools as of right now that ask for, 

‘‘Please send that Tactical Farm Team out to help us.’’ 

Now we’re working with the Ag Marketing Service. That’s really 

more their side of the house, so to speak, on procuring locally 

grown or regionally grown foods. And we are encouraging that, because that starts right at the top of the agency with the Secretary 

and the Deputy Secretary. 

We concur and agree with you that it makes a lot more sense to 

have locally grown foods. One, they’re fresher. Some of the members here have spoken to the benefits of school children coming to 

better understand where food comes from. I think that has, you 

know, wonderful effects in and of itself. But it also helps the local 

economy. It doesn’t make much sense, with all due to respect, to 

some of the States that grow a lot of food, to have it shipped across 

the country, that would much rather have those that can be grown 

in different climates closer to home. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
288 

We have in initiative that way. We are promoting that. We’re 

working with the Ag Marketing Service in that regard. 

And we’re also working on food safety issues related to that too, 

because we want to make sure that locally grown produce, for example, is safely handled, it’s part of the issue of making sure that 

above all else we do no harm. 

And we want to make sure that—as I said, our reference, I was 

in Summerville, Massachusetts six or seven weeks ago. And Summerville over a period of years has married up with other regional 

school systems in Massachusetts to jointly purchase from regional 

farms within that State. And they are building up the capacity of 

those regional farms to supply the goods that they need. 

And we need to have this happen right across the country. We 

highly favor it. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I’m very glad to hear that. And I thank you very 

much, and I hope that you’re successful in moving it in that direction, who are predominantly in every place of the country. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you. 

CHILDHOOD OBESITY

Mr. HINCHEY. This operation is very critically important to the 

future of all of these children who are in elementary school, particularly, and in secondary school afterwards. 

One of the major problems that we have with young people in 

this country now is obesity. And that situation is having a major 

impact on them, on their ability to live longer, to be stronger, to 

be more effective. And it also has some effect on their intellectual 

ability, as well. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Right. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So if we can provide breakfast and lunch for kids 

who are not going to get it in their own homes or their own set of 

circumstances, but then make themselves get this fat-producing 

food quickly—later, that would be a big improvement. 

It would be a big improvement on the future of this country, future generations. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. HINCHEY. And I deeply appreciate what you’re doing in this 

regard, and I hope you begin to be successful. And I’m sure that 

we will be very happy to do whatever we can to work with you on 

this to make sure that it is done confidently and very effectively. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. Oh, I know 

that we’re going to have some votes again. And you may not be 

able to, but I in good conscious can keep people here, it could be 

another 45 minutes or an hour in terms of votes. 

So what I’m going to ask us all is, you know, three minutes. Ask 

your question. Let’s get an answer, and let’s just move, so that we 

get in as many questions as we can. 

I think everybody here knows all of us on both sides of the aisle, 

and with the panel how concerned we are about this issue, and how 

we want to get to some conclusions. 

And with that, Mr. Farr, you’re on. Three minutes. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you much. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
289 

Could you report back—your program is about $18 billion, and 

it’s estimated you could save about a third with clean-up of administrative costs of streamlining. I mean, that’s $6 billion. That’s 

more than you’re going to get from Congress in the next six years. 

So I’d really appreciate it if you could get back to the committee 

on what it would take to create one school nutrition program, 

which would contain the School Breakfast Program, the School 

Lunch Program, Special Milk Program, and the new Fresh Fruit 

and Vegetable Snack Program. And put that under one administrative, hmm. 

And then I’m going to ask the Department in another category 

to do the community nutrition program, which would include AfterSchool Snack Program, the Summer School Snack Program, the 

Child and Adult Care Program. And perhaps we’ll get into all the 

Food Stamps and all the other, WIC, and all those other programs. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
290 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 644 here 57780B.044
291 

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

But I do want to know, following up on the Chairwoman’s question about you in your testimony, you want to increase the school 

breakfast reimbursement and provide for community support by 

supporting with USDA-purchased goods. What are the things you 

want to add to that, provided through community support? What 

specifically do you want to buy in the commodity program? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, right now the School Breakfast Program 

does not have access to the commodity program. So we would make 

them, we would give them access to the commodity program and 

allow them—— 

Mr. FARR. And that’s the program that we have listed here? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Correct. 

Mr. FARR. Could you name some things on there that you’d like 

to see put in the School Breakfast Program? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. Because the only thing I see on here is pancakes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Soft drinks. 

Mr. CONCANNON. No, not soft drinks. 

Mr. FARR. No, there isn’t any. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Skim milk and 100 percent juice. 

Mr. CONCANNON. If the Congress gives us authority to expand 

the commodity program to include breakfast that we can add commodities, that would be—— 

Mr. FARR. That’s the question, what commodities are you going 

to add? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, I would assume we’d add eggs, among 

other—— 

Mr. FARR. They’re not on the list. 

Mr. CONCANNON. No, they’re not on there right now, but that’s 

what we’re saying, we would add them. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Do you need Congressional authority to 

expand that list? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I think we’d need approval for it, would we not? 

Chairwoman DELAURO. No, no, but to approve it for breakfast. 

Mr. FARR. Are they in the Commodity—I don’t think they are in 

the Commodity Purchase Program. 

DOD FRESH PROGRAM

Let me ask you another question. Marcy Kaptur and I, well, 

maybe we’ll share this question. The Department of Defense used 

to do the DOD Fresh Program. We were able to leverage DOD’s expertise in buying it. DOD now has outsourced its procurement. On 

top of that there are large fees to schools to access the new ordering system. Schools tell me that to qualify for the program, it’s no 

longer a level playing field with the DOD; but that that big purchase does save something. 

And the question is, what is the Department doing to ameliorate 

the discrepancy on food costs, no longer using the DOD procurement program? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I think we’d have to get back to you with that 

answer. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Was there an answer? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
292 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. I said we’d have to get back to you with 

that. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department has successfully partnered with DoD to operate the DoD Fresh 

Program since 1995. The program does indeed leverage DoD’s procurement abilities 

to greatly increase the amount of fresh produce made available to schools. In the 

last few years, DoD has transitioned from its own Produce Buying Offices to a system of prime vendor contracts. However, there are no additional fees to schools associated with this operational change in the DoD Fresh program. Schools continue to 

receive quality fresh products at a competitive price. The DoD Fresh Program is especially important for schools in remote areas served by few commercial vendors. 

The Department believes the program continues to play a critical function in providing and increasing fresh produce offerings to our Nation’s schools. DoD Fresh is 

offered as an option. Schools should and do compare prices to commercially available 

products for every commodity made available by USDA. In some instances, schools 

can get better pricing through their existing distribution chains. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. 

Mr. Kingston. Three minutes, Jack, because we’re trying to answer any questions before we go. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Mr. Under Secretary, let me get back to 

PayGo, because I do think, you got a billion dollar proposal here. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Mm-hmm. 

REAUTHORIZATION OFFSETS

Mr. KINGSTON. I would like you to follow up for the record on the 

breakdown of that in terms of, you know, which costs reflect increased reimbursement rates for school, increased reimbursement 

rates for breakfast, and added commodities for bonus payments, 

added enrollments to the programs, kitchen equipment and after 

school care. I’d like to know the break down of that, but more importantly, Pay-Go is now law, and I’m going to do everything I can, 

whether it’s a Democrat or Republican proposal to make sure we 

don’t waive it in the name of some phony emergency. 

One of the things that I, as a member of the Defense Committee, 

I’m glad that we have done the last year or two under Mr. Murtha’s leadership is the war is not an emergency. We know we are 

at war. It’s not like suddenly something happened out of the blue, 

but we should not be waiving Pay Go and so we need real offsets, 

very specific offsets, and I would like to know what those are. 

And I think once we establish that then we can kind of nibble 

around the edges; and, I don’t mean nibble to the degree that we 

can have some honest discussion in terms of where the dollar 

should be effectively allocated to get to where we want to be, and 

I regret there has not been time to ask everybody questions here. 

We’ve got a good brain trust here, but there are so many things 

to continue talking about, so I’ll yield. Thanks. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Ms. Kaptur. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

STREAMLINE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

In the 2010 Appropriation Bill the Committee directed USDA to 

provide a report outlining needs to streamline the procurement 

process for good to allow schools to buy food locally. That has not 

been provided as yet, so I please request it, and also state I would 

appreciate for the district I represent, since it has been impossible 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
293 

to obtain this data, consolidated accounts explaining how the funds 

flow from the Federal Government to the State of Ohio to the 

Ohio’s 9th Congressional District. 

That’s four counties for the Federal School Nutrition Programs, 

and what was procured. How much was spent and what was procured? If you can find those, you will be the first person in America 

that has ever been able to do that and you can’t go forward unless 

you know where you are, and so that is essential. 

PURCHASE LOCALLY GROWN COMMODITIES

Number two, I would suggest for the local grown, local farm to 

school effort, one of our problems in the region I represent is processing. Farmer’s don’t like to process the food. I would encourage 

you to look at regions like mine where we have large numbers of 

people who have physical challenges, who in past years when they 

would get auto contracts as a not for profit organization would do 

these contracts for local employers. Food could be the new substitute for the contracts that have been lost in the automotive industry where a disabled community could clean the food. 

We have kitchens where this can be done, but that would mean 

USDA would have to partner with organizations it is unfamiliar 

with in the urban environment. I would seriously place that before 

you. It can’t be the only place in America where this is possible to 

achieve to help our local growers meet the market of the school or 

whatever. 

[The information follows:] 

The report to Congress you have requested is currently in the final stages of clearance and will be provided to the Subcommittee soon. In response to your question 

regarding funding under the FNS Child Nutrition Programs, the programs are operated through State agencies and therefore all funding including cash and commodity 

entitlements, flow through the State agencies to the appropriate entity, i.e., school 

food authority. For example, for the school meals programs, FNS provides a per 

meal cash and commodity rate per meal claimed on a monthly basis by the State. 

The State is responsible for providing funding and commodity support to the school 

district, and we do not require State agencies to report detailed data on how funds 

are distributed and subsequently utilized by school district. Detailed information on 

funding at the school district level should be available from the State. 

WIC PROGRAM

Thirdly, WIC: my question is do you have incentives within the 

WIC program to purchase locally. 

Mr. CONCANNON. On the WIC Program I believe people buy directly through supermarkets and stores. We don’t buy it wholesale, 

for example, or the State agencies don’t buy it wholesale. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Well, there’s a WIC farmers market coupon program that I wish were mandatory, but there’s the regular WIC program. And, again, as we try to connect the growers and producers 

to the consumers, here is this massive program where we’ve added 

fruits and vegetables. I would just like to suggest that you take a 

serious look at that and review that program. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

SCHOOL WELLNESS PROGRAM

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you. Let me ask about, Dr. 

Brownell, wellness programs. Are you still recommending that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
294 

school wellness programs be mandated in the upcoming reauthorization? You talked about that. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Yes, colleagues of mine at the Rudd Center have 

developed a way to score school wellness policies on the quality and 

variety of areas, and they found that the schools that have better 

wellness policies tend to do better regarding wellness. So there 

seems to be some benefit of having these policies in place, but having something where better policies are required and then practices 

coming from the policies would be mandated would be helpful. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. And, again, very quickly, if you have 

measurement tools of that where we can do that, if you can get 

those to us so that we can deal with that effort in terms of making 

recommendations on to the Authorizing Committee, just very, very 

quickly, in terms of the Authorizing Committee, Mr. Secretary, are 

you making recommendations on the utilization of wellness programs? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes, part of our recommendation is to strengthen them, and so yes. 

NUTRITION EDUCATION

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. Is FNS, Mr. Secretary, going to be 

more assertive in telling children what is not good for them and 

what foods we should be limiting the intake of? I, for one, don’t 

have a clue why we are subsidizing non-nutritious food in our 

schools. I’m going to tell flat-out where I’m going: No; end of, you 

know, that’s what I want to accomplish. So are we going to be talking about describing what they shouldn’t do? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes, but we have proposed—— 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Are we going to do that with framing 

messages for kids in schools? We frame messages about what’s 

healthy. Are we going to frame messages about what is not 

healthy? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes, we are. And I might say we are following 

up on a Directive we received from Congress in the Omnibus budget Bill that directed the USDA, the Federal Trade Commission. I 

believe the FDA is included in that as well, to present a report to 

Congress by the 15th of July of this year on marketing foods to 

children between the ages of 2 and 17. And we’re going to be entering something in the Federal Register later this month, and we will 

have that report to Congress by the middle of July. And the purpose of that is again to provide more transparency, better communication to Americans about what’s good for you and what isn’t so 

good for you. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. Mr. Faber, is GMA going to support school districts’ efforts to restrict the sale of foods of minimal 

nutritional value that compete with meals sold in the school meal 

programs? 

Mr. FABER. Yes, ma’am. We, as I testified earlier, support giving 

USDA clear authority to set standards to what can be sold or 

served to students in the school environment, including competitive 

foods, and we would permit a process by which local school districts 

and schools could set higher standards for what can be sold 

through the competitive foods program. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. Great. Mr. Kingston. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
295 

SCHOOL WELLNESS PROGRAM

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to ask Mr. Concannon a question following up what Rosa just asked you about the wellness programs 

in schools. Isn’t that more U.S. Department of Education than 

USDA? 

Mr. CONCANNON. It is, but with something we’ve worked with 

them on, because they have a program that is targeted towards increasing, for example, academic performance in schools. And we 

have a focus on, again, the health in U.S. schools, and we have 

been dialoging with them to say let’s make it easier for schools, and 

let’s recognize there’s a connection between the two as well. 

Mr. KINGSTON. But physical education is—— 

Mr. CONCANNON. Is not ours. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes. And that’s one of the big problems. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Agreed. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And in terms of a partnership you are a minority 

shareholder, I would suspect, maybe even a 10 or 15 percent shareholder. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Possibly, but in our healthcare at U.S. schools, 

and again I think of the visit I made out to Brooke County in your 

state, a school that not only had outstanding nutrition, but had all 

kinds of little reinforcers for all of the children in those elementary 

schools about how many thousand steps they take each day and 

pictures of the high school football coach full blow in the elementary school gym where he is urging, ‘‘Make sure that you get out 

during exercise and run around,’’ and so on. All kinds of 

reinforcers, back to that comment about culture, it’s not limited to 

just the phys-ed program. It’s again part of the culture, and we 

work with the U.S. Department of Education to develop those 

standards. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thanks. 

FOOD INSECURITY

Chairwoman DELAURO. Just very quickly, and if you have this, 

Dr. Chilton, it would be great to have an estimate of the costs that 

are incurred by families with regard to your Health Watch initiative, the increase of folks where there are kids with food insecurity, 

hospitalization, 90 percent more likely to be reported in fair or poor 

health than living in more secure homes. 

Do you have an estimate of the costs that are incurred by the 

families and the country as a result of the increased hospitalization 

and the poor health of food insecure children, and what kinds of 

illnesses result in hospitalizations among the population? 

Ms. CHILTON. We do have an analysis of the cost incurred by increased food insecurity, and that’s by my colleague, Dr. John Cook. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. 

Ms. CHILTON. And I can supply that to you from my colleagues 

at Children’s Health Watch. The increase in risk of illness due to 

food insecurity are mostly associated with more infections, more severe infections, because of the poor nutrient intake of the children 

that we’re seeing. We also see an increase in respiratory problems 

with the children and just more complaints of overall poor health 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
296 

by the parents on behalf of their children. So it’s mostly by more 

infections and more severe infections. 

KITCHEN EQUIPMENT IN SCHOOLS

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. Thank you. This is about school 

kitchen equipment. Why is improving school kitchen equipment 

and providing training for school food services workers important 

parts of improving the nutritional quality of meals served in the 

school meal program? 

Mr. CONCANNON. It’s extremely important. In the stimulus bill 

passed earlier this year. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Right. 

Mr. CONCANNON. USDA was awarded a hundred million dollars 

to put out to schools. There are two principal reasons. I know one 

of the Chairwoman’s concerns about food safety appropriately so. 

There are two principal reasons why we run into food safety issues 

in schools. One is personal hygiene, neural virus, people not washing their hands; but, the other is the temperature of food, either 

too cold or too warm. And many schools, when I was in New York 

this week, reminded that some of the existing schools in the city 

of New York were built 140 years ago and they may not have adequate, modern equipment. 

If you’re going to have healthier foods, more fruits, more vegetables, you’re going to have to have the equipment to make sure that 

you can properly store it, properly refrigerate it, and make sure 

that that food is healthy when it gets to the serving table. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Are you all prioritizing the funding to 

schools that make a commitment to serving and preparing nonprocessed foods? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Not at the moment. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Do you provide any guidance or suggestions to schools on their purchases? Will you be looking at that 

kind of guidance in terms of, I know you met with Chef Cipriano, 

and I met with him as well, doing good stuff in the New Haven 

school system. Are you going to provide any guidance in that area? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, we’re encouraging more fruits and vegetables, so that clearly, that’s one of the central parts of the recommendations for the IOM. And many schools are going to need 

the capacity to be able to properly store and serve those. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Should we prioritize funding to schools 

that certify they will upgrade their kitchen so they can prepare 

fresh fruits and vegetables? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I think we should provide incentives to the 

schools that are meeting the increased expectations of the IOM recommendations, but I’m also mindful of another chef I met with this 

week, who was the principal chef at Yale who’s now in a consulting 

business. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Right. I met with him too, yeah. Yeah. 

Mr. CONCANNON. And he has said to me he’s now working out 

in West Virginia. He said, you know, I think it’s important to recognize this tremendous variability in American schools and you 

start with what schools have. You go out and make an assessment, 

and then you say this is what we can build on here. So I’d be leery 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
297 

of setting a standard that would be unfair to schools that don’t 

have the resource or the capacity. 

FOOD POLICY ASSESSMENT

Chairwoman DELAURO. That don’t have the wherewithal, yeah. 

I understand. I understand. Just quickly, Dr. Brownell, you’ve got 

a study that you all were working on a study with Robert Wood 

Johnson about a tool kit to assess food policies and nutrition environment of childcare in pre-school settings. Is that report out yet? 

Mr. BROWNELL. No. Not yet. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. When will it be out? 

Mr. BROWNELL. I’ll have to check with my colleagues, but we’re 

making good progress on it. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Okay. And that gets to the various, you 

know, child care, other kinds of settings in dealing with that effort. 

You have a very poignant story about the shelter and that young 

boy. I thank you. Okay. 

Let me just see. I have a question, and it opens up a lot of 

things, but we can come back on this because I think it’s a good 

debate. You’re talking about voluntary measures by industry, et 

cetera, and you’ve got the alliance, et cetera, and also I’ve met with 

the folks from the beverage industry, et cetera. 

INDUSTRY SUPPORT

Dr. Brownell, you’re talking about looking at a penny tax on 

sugar-sweetened beverages. Your view on the voluntary side of it, 

and I know this is quick. There’s more to it than this and I’ll do 

a minute on back and forth here. But it sounds to me like in reading your material, your commentary, that you don’t think a voluntary methodology works. Is that right? 

Mr. BROWNELL. Well, the food industry is a lot of players doing 

a lot of things, and some of the voluntary pledges, I think, will be 

better, more effective than others. What’s important is to have 

some standard benchmarks in advance of these voluntary pledges, 

saying ‘‘Here’s what we expect if we’re going to give you the selfregulatory benefit of the doubt.’’ 

And then if industry doesn’t reach those kind of benchmarks and 

if there’s not an objective evaluation of them, then all you have is 

the industry’s word for it that they’re doing good things. Some of 

the self-regulatory things, like the beverage industry’s recent announcement about putting calorie values on the front of packages, 

I fully support. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. That’s right. 

Mr. BROWNELL. I think some of the other pledges have been 

empty and completely ineffective, and so we pretty much need to 

take them one by one. But, as a default, yielding to industry when 

they have so much at stake here is probably a mistake, and that’s 

been proven in self-regulation and previous industries time and 

again. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. That’s, I mean, a mistake, but go ahead. 

Mr. FABER. But I think an important point is that we have voluntarily pulled soft drinks out of elementary schools and middle 

school, and so on, but we are also supportive and have supported 

for a number of years giving USDA clear statutory authority to set 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
298 

the standards for what we can sell in the school environment. So 

I’m not suggesting that we should voluntarily regulate what we can 

sell or not sell in the school environment. 

It’s a special environment. It’s important that USDA has those 

authorities. On programming to children I think Dr. Brownell and 

I probably disagree about the success of the pledge that we’ve undertaken through the counsels of Better Business Bureau. As a result of that pledge, we’ve dramatically changed the programming 

that you see on children’s television, so that the vast majority of 

messages are now for healthy products that meet nutrition standards that are consistent with the DGAs, the Dietary Guidelines and 

that are approved by the BBB. So we made real progress there, not 

only in what people are seeing, but also in driving reformulation 

of many of the products so that those things can continue to be advertised. 

So I think we probably disagree about whether that’s been successful or not. Our sense is that delivering those messages around 

healthy products and healthy lifestyles are ultimately going to help 

address this issue if those efforts are undertaken with a lot of other 

government and private interventions. 

Mr. BROWNELL. Now, the schools, the reducing the shipment of 

sugared beverages to schools is important only to the degree to 

which it reduces sugar beverage consumption in children overall. 

And if industry simply deploys its marketing to other venues, like 

the Internet, point of purchase sales, et cetera, then doing anything 

you want in schools is really not going to help very much. And I’ve 

seen no data to suggest that American children are drinking fewer 

calories and beverages than they were before. And the tobacco industry is a perfect example of this. 

They cut-back marketing on television voluntarily. People 

thought it was a great public health victory, and it wasn’t. They 

used other methods to recruit children to smoke, and so it’s easy 

to get sucker-punched here by an industry that says it’s going to 

help us when it’s really not. Now, regarding the marketing that 

you just talked about, an objective evaluation was just done of marketing the children by a group called ‘‘Children Now,’’ and a wellknown researcher to study this, and found that there’s virtually no 

change in what’s being marketed to children on television. And the 

industry has set itself such lack standards and is so narrowly defined ‘‘children’s media,’’ that they can meet their own pledges, but 

it’s not very meaningful. 

Mr. FABER. Can I just briefly. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. Sure. Give a comment, then I’m going to 

make a comment then wrap it up here. 

Mr. FABER. That research was based upon advertisements at a 

time before industry launched the initiative to children’s food beverage and advertising initiative, and there have been really significant changes. I’m happy to provide the Neilson data that verifies 

that children are seeing very different programming today and advertising on children’s programming today than they were seeing 

five or ten years ago. 

Chairwoman DELAURO. I’m just going to make one comment, and 

this is to be continued. I mean, again, I think we need to have 

these kinds of conversations. But I’ll just give you the whole smart 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
299 

choices fiasco—fiasco—and the television advertising in addition to 

labeling some of these projects as smart choices, ones I found offensive. And then I am bombarded on the TV with three children: one 

dressed as a doctor, one a nurse, and one a patient. And the nurse 

brings in this little child who’s the patient, and we explain why the 

product is so healthy when the sugar content is well over the top. 

But I will also point out to you as when I looked into this it just 

said here, and I’ll get that, and this has to do with the FDA, not 

the USDA. It says they coordinated with FDA’s healthy regulations, the levels set for trans fat is consistent with FDA policies 

where no governmental levels are set regarding adding sugars. 

Important to note that FDA does not restrict added sugar levels 

in any of its applicable nutrition-related regulations. So, we got a 

gaping hole here of which we’re going through big time in terms 

of its result in nutrition. Again, I want to continue this. Obviously, 

I have strong opinions. You do and others here, but we need to sort 

this out. 

Mr. FABER. Absolutely. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Chairwoman DELAURO. Thank you. Oh, my God. I’m out of time 

here. I’m getting to vote. You all, I can’t thank you enough. 

Someone said earlier, I think this is not the Authorizing Committee. We are not the Authorizing Committee, but it is my intent 

to provide the Authorizing Committee with a blueprint of what we 

think ought to happen. You have, you know. We will have done a 

lot to help us inform that today and we will continue to be in touch 

as to how you can help us to inform that process before we reauthorize these programs in the next several months, and it’s supposed to come by the end of September. 

I didn’t know Mr. Miller was already marking up, but I’ll check 

in with Mr. Miller. Thank you all very, very much. I’m going to 

dash. I can’t say a formal thank you to you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
300 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 667 57780B.045
301 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 668 57780B.046
302 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 669 57780B.047
303 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 670 57780B.048
304 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 671 57780B.049
305 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 672 57780B.050
306 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 673 57780B.051
307 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 674 57780B.052
308 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 675 57780B.053
309 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 676 57780B.054
310 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 677 57780B.055
311 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 678 57780B.056
312 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 679 57780B.057
313 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 680 57780B.058
314 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 681 57780B.059
315 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 682 57780B.060
316 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 683 57780B.061
317 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 684 57780B.062
318 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 685 57780B.063
319 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 686 57780B.064

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(321) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010. 

FY2011 BUDGET HEARING FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION 

SERVICE 

WITNESSES 

KEVIN CONCANNON, UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND 

CONSUMER SERVICES 

JULIA PARADIS, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE 

ROBERT POST, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR NUTRITION POLICY 

AND PROMOTION 

SCOTT STEELE, BUDGET OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

MS. DELAURO—OPENING REMARKS

Ms. DELAURO. The hearing is called to order. Let me welcome 

Ranking Member Kingston, our fellow members of the Committee, 

our distinguished guests today, as we take a look at the President’s 

budget request for our vital nutrition assistance programs, which 

are under the Subcommittee’s purview, including the Food and Nutrition Service, FNS, and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, CNPP. 

Our distinguished panelists today include Kevin Concannon, 

Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, and 

I thank you for being with us again. You were here two weeks ago 

as we did talk about child nutrition issues. 

In addition, we are going to be hearing from Julie Paradis, the 

Administrator of FNS, and Robert Post, Deputy Director of CNPP. 

We understand that you are filling in for Mr. Anand, and we understand he is ill, so please do convey to him our very, very best 

wishes. 

At some point, I really do want to talk with him. I was interested 

in reading his biography on the issue of maternal nutrition and its 

effect on the fetus. 

I think it is very interesting research and would love to pursue 

and investigate that further as we take a look at the nutrition 

quality that mothers are getting and what that effect is, especially 

with regard to low birth weight babies, et cetera, and what the 

health problems are as a result of that. 

Dr. Concannon, a quote from your testimony a fortnight ago has 

just stayed with me ever since, and that would be President Harry 

Truman’s admonition that ‘‘Nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare of our children, and proper nourishment 

comes first in attaining this welfare.’’ 

As you explained, the President came to this conclusion after discovering how often soldiers engaged in the World War II effort 

came to the Army undernourished and malnourished. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
322 

What was true then is even more true today. Secretary Vilsack 

noted in our opening hearings last month that ‘‘One report recently 

found that as many as 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are 

currently unfit for the Armed Services due mainly to malnutrition 

and obesity.’’ 

If you want to talk about a security issue and a national security 

issue, I think that strikes home for all of us. 

As I said to you two weeks ago and what the First Lady has also 

been making clear with her ‘‘Let’s Move’’ campaign, the coexistence 

of obesity and hunger seems paradoxical at first, until you come to 

realize that they are in fact a double edged sword aimed right at 

our children. 

With one in five kids living below the poverty line and on food 

stamps, not to mention a staggering 69 percent of school lunch program participants who receive free and reduced price lunches, it 

becomes that much harder for struggling families to afford the 

healthy, nutritious foods that would improve children’s health, 

which is why I am concerned about reports that the Senate might 

move forward with a child nutrition reauthorization bill that cuts 

the administration’s request by more than half. 

It is vitally important that we fund nutrition assistance to the 

fullest of our ability, especially in these times. We must do what 

we can to give this generation of American children the access to 

healthy, nutritious foods that will allow them to thrive. 

Indeed, our funding of these programs becomes even more critical when you consider the woeful budget situation at the State 

level right now. 

This recession has driven State budgets all across the country to 

the brink. Right now, local and State governments are slashing the 

social safety net that families depend on to survive in order to be 

able to compensate. 

New Jersey, Virginia, let’s take those two examples. Child meal 

programs have been drastically cut. Millions in proposed cuts to 

their respective School Breakfast Programs. This despite the fact 

that research shows time and again that kids who eat breakfast before school learn more, they behave better, and are healthier than 

those who do not. 

I have been focusing a lot on children, but particularly in the 

midst of this virulent recession. Hunger knows no age, no sex, or 

region of this country. With one in eight Americans relying on food 

stamps right now, we must continue to give crucial nutrition assistance programs like SNAP and WIC our strongest Federal support. 

Given the finite resources at our disposal, we need to ensure that 

the money put forward with these programs are being well spent. 

As I said two weeks ago, if we increase reimbursement rates for 

school food programs, we should also work to reduce the waste and 

the overhead in these programs, maximize the amount of money 

being used to help kids, but let us also remember that SNAP and 

WIC have extraordinarily high accuracy rates for government programs, 95 percent and over 95 percent respectively. 

I defy other Federal programs to have that kind of accuracy rate. 

This is an arena where it appears that the people’s resources seem 

to be very well spent. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
323 

In addition to maximizing our bang for the buck, we should also 

make sure that we are making it as quick and easy as possible for 

American families to access the best and the most up to date 

science based health and nutrition information available. 

With that in mind, I am pleased to hear about the revamping 

that is going on at the popular MyPyramid.gov Web site, which I 

believe you will tell us more about, Mr. Post. 

At the same time, I look forward to hearing more about the revised Dietary Guidelines coming out this Fall. I hope we can find 

ways to put an end to industry generated nutrition charades like 

the one we saw last year with the Smart Choices Program. 

To qualify for Smart Choices’ label, the product had to meet a 

certain set of criteria based on Dietary Guidelines. However, because the Dietary Guidelines do not set a standard for sugar, we 

saw extraordinarily sugary cereals, such as Fruit Loops and Cookie 

Crisp being promoted as an FDA approved healthy option. 

As my colleague, Mr. Kingston, suggested at our last nutrition 

hearing, just because you eat one doughnut instead of two, that 

does not make it a smart choice. 

In any case, those are the broad parameters of what I hope to 

hear today. I look forward to hearing today’s testimony on how best 

to help fulfill our nutrition responsibilities from the panel. 

With that, Mr. Kingston, I recognize you for comments. 

MR. KINGSTON—OPENING REMARKS

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. DELAURO. How many doughnuts did you have today, Jack? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Actually, I skipped lunch. I might have a problem 

later on, go on a junk food binge. 

Mr. Latham also wants to know who I should attribute that 

quote to. He says it does not come from me. He is probably right 

on that. 

I am also interested in this fetus feeding issue and the correlation. I think that would be interesting. 

I want to go back to something I brought up in the Committee 

a couple of weeks ago about the concept of children who are on 

school lunch programs or getting assistance, having the opportunity, which so many of us in this room did to earn some of this, 

and the reason why I say that is who when you ask as an adult 

does not swell with pride when you ask him or her, what was your 

first job? What did you do around the house? What were your 

chores? 

We all learned something from that. I think in the context of allowing 32 million children to participate in these programs, they 

should have that opportunity. I think it would be a positive thing. 

I do not think it would be Stalinist, send them to work camp. I 

think it would be an opportunity to allow these kids to really get 

some of the great lessons that so many of us learned from. 

The Secretary said we need to take the stigma out of food 

stamps. This is one way to do it. 

I want to bring that up again. I also feel very concerned about 

our deficit, growing as it is. We Republicans spent too much money. 

We had 12 years of deficits. If you add those 12 years together, it 

was less than the deficit in 2009. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
324 

We can blame it on we have a war to fight, TARP, and there 

were some tricky things that we felt compelled to spend money on, 

but so often in Washington, whether it is Democrats or Republicans, we have a disingenuousness. 

For example, PAYGO. We got PAYGO. It’s a great slogan. Everybody understands it, and yet everything is exempt from it, including the increases which you are asking for today, exempt from 

PAYGO. 

People back home do not understand that because they understand PAYGO, but they do not understand the exemptions. 

A freeze, we had a 26 percent USDA budget increase, and now 

we are talking freezing. I guess we should. 

I feel like we need to look at some charts, and if I could, Madam 

Chair, would you mind standing by the easel and sort of turning 

it so Committee members can see it? 

I want to show you some numbers that come from various different sources but the one on the left shows that in 1962, the number of people who got a Federal Government check—I want to be 

quick to point out this is not welfare strictly. Welfare is included 

in it but a farm subsidy check would be included. 

Mr. FARR. Social security. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Social Security. Medicaid, Medicare. I am talking 

strict accounting here. This is not a philosophical evaluation as 

much as it is just context. 

Twenty-two million people, now it is up to 61 million people. Percentage of population, we have gone from 11.7 percent to 20 percent. Something to be aware of. I am not saying let’s base decisions 

on that at all. 

Let’s look at the next one. This one shows it a little more dramatically in terms of the increase of people depending on government checks, again, of some nature, a government subsidy. Again, 

this is not child nutrition. This is not welfare, although it is included in this. This would also include farm payments and other 

things. 

As Mr. Farr points out, this is not just USDA but other things. 

You have about a 240 percent increase since 1962, but maybe this 

last chart is the one that is the most important, and this chart 

shows that the percentage of people who are paying taxes is getting 

smaller in comparison to the people who are not paying taxes. 

Forty-eight million people right now are not paying taxes, 34 percent of the population. In the 1960s, that number was 28 percent. 

You have a narrowing gap between people who are paying taxes 

and people who are not paying taxes. 

Ms. DELAURO. State tax as well as earned income? 

Mr. KINGSTON. It is all Federal taxes. It is all filers. Yes, it would 

include State tax, capital gains tax, income tax, payroll tax, everything. 

Again, my point here is not to say therefore, we should bring the 

hammer down on this group or that group or this program or that 

program. 

My point is whether we are in the Defense Committee or the 

Health Committee or the Agriculture Committee, whether we are 

measuring spending on our friends or foes, politically, we should 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
325 

keep in mind the context of spending in Washington, D.C., which 

I would attribute to both parties, politicians. 

I can tell you as a member of the Appropriations Committee particularly, nine out of ten of the visitors in my office come to ask 

for more spending on every single aspect. 

I think these numbers are just going to show there comes a time 

when we actually do have to have meaningful spending freezes and 

do have to have real PAYGO. 

I wrote the President a letter. I talked to the President personally about serving on the Commission, I was not selected by our 

leadership, but at the same time, I told the President, if you need 

somebody, call me. I have hope in it. I have hope that good people 

could come together and look at these things. 

I think you and I if we just say okay, we have a starving child, 

throw money. If we have a defense program, we have Taliban coming over the hill, throw money. I think we are not doing our full 

job. We have to look at the big picture. 

I say that, Madam Chair. I appreciate your indulgence. I know 

you have heard my discussions on this before, but you have not 

seen my charts before, so I wanted to make sure I shared them 

with you. 

Ms. DELAURO. I am glad this is a public invitation to see your 

charts here, Jack. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. With that, let me ask our guests today to provide 

their testimony to us. Mr. Concannon, you will speak as well as 

Ms. Paradis and Mr. Post. We look forward to your testimony. The 

entire testimony will be part of the record. You are free to summarize. Thank you. 

MR. CONCANNON—OPENING REMARKS

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee for allowing me 

this opportunity to present the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

request for the Food and Nutrition Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

With your permission, I would like to begin by introducing the 

members of the Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services’ team sharing the witness table with me today, Julie Paradis, as she has been 

introduced, Administrator of FNS, and Dr. Robert Post, the Deputy 

Director at CNPP. 

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2011 for FNCS requests 

$96 billion in budget authority, reflecting the President’s and Secretary Vilsack’s commitment to combating food insecurity and poor 

nutrition among the Nation’s children and low-income households. 

The first challenge in meeting the nutrition assistance needs of 

the Nation is to make certain that funding is available in the major 

programs that serve all eligible persons seeking these program 

services. 

Our major nutrition assistance programs are designed to respond 

rapidly to the changing needs of our populations. The strength of 

these programs has been put to the test in the current economic 

crisis and they have risen to that challenge. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
326 

SNAP provided benefits to 39 million individuals in December 

2009, the most recently reported month. That represents a 41 percent increase over the previous 24 months. Each day, 32 million 

American children participate in the National School Lunch Program. Over 60 percent receiving free meals or at reduced prices. 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants 

and Children or WIC, which serves half of the infants in this country, is now serving over nine million persons a month, another historic level. 

USDA continues to provide unprecedented levels of commodities 

and administrative support to our partners in the food bank community as they respond to widespread need for emergency food assistance. 

The President’s budget requests $68.7 billion for SNAP, enough 

to serve an average of 43.3 million people each month in fiscal year 

2011. That budget requests $19.2 billion for Child Nutrition Programs, which provides millions of nutritious meals to children in 

schools and in child care settings every day. 

This level of funding supports our reauthorization proposals as 

well as an expected increase in daily participation in our school 

meal programs. 

The President’s budget includes $7.6 billion for WIC. This year’s 

request will allow local communities to provide food, nutrition education, and a link to health care to a monthly average of over ten 

million low-income women, infants and children during fiscal year 

2011. 

Our budget request for 2011 will ensure that the nutrition assistance programs continue to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable by fully funding participation levels in all the major nutrition 

assistance programs, but if we are to meet the challenge before us 

to end childhood hunger by 2015, we cannot be satisfied to simply 

maintain these programs as they currently exist. 

We must work to improve access to services for those already eligible and in need. We must expand eligibility to individuals currently not covered by a program but facing undeniable hardship, 

especially in these tough economic times. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request reflects this 

pledge in its commitment to a $10 billion increase over ten years 

for child nutrition reauthorization and in the government-wide proposals addressing asset limits and the treatment of refundable tax 

credits in all means tested programs. 

The reauthorization of Child Nutrition Programs presents us 

with an historic opportunity to combat child hunger and improve 

the health and nutrition of children across our Nation, beginning 

at birth, with the increased emphasis in funding proposed for 

breast feeding promotion in the WIC Program all the way up 

through adulthood. 

As Secretary Vilsack noted recently, in addition to ending childhood hunger, a robust reauthorization is essential to meet the ambitious target set by First Lady Michelle Obama in the Let’s Move 

campaign to solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation. 

Of course, yesterday Senator Lincoln and Senator Chambliss unveiled the bipartisan Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act. We commend 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
327 

their leadership on the child nutrition reauthorization and view the 

announcement as a very positive step forward in the process. 

Still, we believe that additional access and nutrition goals can 

and should be accomplished by passing a more robust bill that fully 

supports the President’s request of $10 billion in additional funding. 

As I discussed with this Subcommittee earlier this month, this 

proposed investment would significantly reduce the barriers that 

keep children from participating in school nutrition programs. It 

would improve the quality of school meals and the health of the 

school environment and enhance program performance. 

Its impacts will extend well beyond nutrition and will be felt in 

health promotion, educational opportunities, and even in economic 

development. 

USDA through CNPP currently serves as the lead Federal agency for the development of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for all Americans that will be released later this year. The President’s request features an increase of $9 million to promote the Guidelines as well as to maintain and enhance the extremely popular food guidance system, MyPyramid.gov. 

Finally, we are keenly aware that good stewardship of the public 

resources with which we are entrusted is essential to maintaining 

the strong broadly based support the nutrition programs have so 

long enjoyed. Support for new technology and increasing use of direct certification will help schools avoid inaccuracies in ineligibility 

determinations and maintain the confidence that the taxpayer’s investment in these programs is used widely. 

In fiscal year 2008, the most recent period for which we have 

data, SNAP once again reduced its combined error rate and 

achieved a record payment accuracy rate of 94.99. 

We are committed to continuing our partnership with the States 

to maintain that great progress we have made over the last decade 

and to make further improvements in payment accuracy. 

In sum, I believe the President’s request sets the right priorities 

to expand access to Federal nutrition assistance programs for the 

children and low-income people who need them while maintaining 

and improving program integrity in supporting our efforts to address the growing public health threat of obesity. 

The work of this Agency is especially critical as the Nation 

emerges from extended difficult economic times. The public investment we are asking you to make today in the FNCS contributions 

to addressing the critical nutrition and health related issues will 

pay dividends for generations to come. 

We appreciate the support provided by this Subcommittee in the 

past and look forward to working with you on this budget. 

We thank you for this opportunity to be with you today and to 

discuss our mission. I and my colleagues would be happy to answer 

your questions. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
328 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 704 here 57780B.065
329 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 705 here 57780B.066
330 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 706 here 57780B.067
331 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 707 here 57780B.068
332 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 708 here 57780B.069
333 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 709 here 57780B.070
334 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 710 here 57780B.071
335 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 711 here 57780B.072
336 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 712 here 57780B.073
337 

Ms. DELAURO. Ms. Paradis. 

MS. PARADIS—OPENING STATEMENT

Ms. PARADIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of 

the Subcommittee, for allowing me this opportunity to present testimony today in support of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

request for the Food and Nutrition Service. 

FNS, as you know, is the Agency charged with administering the 

15 nutrition assistance programs that serve as the Nation’s nutrition safety net, and with providing Federal leadership in America’s 

ongoing effort to reduce food insecurity and poor nutrition. 

Our mission at FNS is to increase the Nation’s food security and 

reduce hunger in partnership with cooperating organizations by 

providing children and low-income people access to food and nutrition education in a manner that supports American agriculture and 

inspires public confidence. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request contains almost $96 billion in budget authority to fund the nutrition assistance programs. 

This represents more than a threefold increase in funding since 

the beginning of the decade, and it reflects both the robust ability 

of the nutrition assistance programs to respond to changing economic and social conditions as well as the depth and breadth of 

need that currently exists within the Nation. 

The nutrition assistance programs now touch the lives of more 

than one in four Americans over the course of a year. 

The Under Secretary has spoken eloquently in his remarks about 

our major program initiatives. I will focus on a modest investment 

which I believe serves as an essential complement to the ambitious 

policy agenda reflected in our program requests. We are requesting $172.1 million in the Nutrition Programs Administration, or NPA, account, to sustain the program management 

and support activities of our dedicated employees across the Nation. 

This account supports both FNS’ administration of the nutrition 

assistance programs and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion’s nutrition policy development and promotion activities targeted at the general population. 

I believe this NPA request is essential for our continuing efforts 

to expand program access, address food safety concerns, and improve overall program integrity and management. 

While FNS has recently received some targeted staffing increases, for which we are very grateful, long term budgetary trends 

have forced the Agency to significantly reduce its Federal staffing 

over time. 

At the same time, program funding, scope and complexity have 

grown dramatically. Agency staffing levels are now at a critical 

point. We must have the ability to acquire new staff if we are to 

successfully undertake important new initiatives and maintain the 

high levels of program integrity and fiscal stewardship essential to 

preserving public confidence in and support for the nutrition assistance programs. 

I firmly believe this investment, less than one quarter of one percent of program funding, is critical in order to maintain accountVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
338 

ability for our $96 billion portfolio as we effectively manage the 

programs and provide access to all eligible people. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and I, 

too, would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
339 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 716 here 57780B.074
340 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 717 here 57780B.075
341 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 718 here 57780B.076
342 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 719 here 57780B.077
343 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 720 here 57780B.078
344 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 721 here 57780B.079
345 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 722 here 57780B.080
346 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 723 here 57780B.081
347 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 724 here 57780B.082
348 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 725 here 57780B.083
349 

Ms. DELAURO. Dr. Post. 

MR. POST—OPENING REMARKS

Mr. POST. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the 

Subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Executive Director in support of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Center for Nutrition 

Policy and Promotion. 

The Center’s mission is to improve the health of Americans by 

developing and promoting dietary guidance that meets the most of 

recent and evidence based scientific research to the nutrition needs 

of consumers. 

The Center administers the process for setting the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, which it does in collaboration with the 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

The Guidelines are the basis for Federal policy development in 

government nutrition programs. They provide advice for Americans 

ages two and older about eating healthy, building healthy eating 

patterns that promote health and prevent diet related diseases. 

They also set standards for the nutrition assistance programs, 

and they guide nutrition research. They also serve as the foundation for Federal nutrition education programs, and they are the 

basis for USDA’s nutrition promotion activities. 

Therefore, it is critical that the Guidelines be both scientifically 

up to date and in touch with the realities of contemporary living. 

In its leadership role for administering the 2010 Dietary Guidelines process, USDA is using its new nutrition evidence library, 

which is a state-of-the-art web based system to support evidence 

based reviews for the most relevant research on key nutrition and 

health related topics. 

The nutrition evidence library is being used by the Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee as its members review the most 

scientific literature to make their recommendations. 

Because of support of the library, the 2010 Committee is able to 

review the science to answer over 170 questions, about five times 

as many as before, increasing the thoroughness of the Committee’s 

work. 

By weighing the preponderance of evidence on a wider array of 

relationships between nutrition and health, USDA will be in a better position to recommend dietary guidance that positively affects 

behavior changes among Americans. 

To implement the Dietary Guidelines, the Center created USDA’s 

food guidance system known as ‘‘MyPyramid.’’ 

MyPyramid.gov has been extremely successful in reaching the 

public with scientifically based nutrition information. It has had 

over 12.5 billion hits, mostly from general consumers, students, 

educators and health professionals. Such a response makes it one 

of the most popular government Web sites. 

The President’s budget requests $16 million for the Center, an 

increase of $9 million from the previous year. 

This budget would allow USDA to prepare for and complete the 

tasks associated with the implementation and promotion in 2011 of 

the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the research work of 

the nutrition evidence library, and the enhancements to the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
350 

MyPyramid food guidance systems, specifically updating the 

MyPyramid.gov Web site and educational tool kits. 

The funding requested will help the Center to make a significant 

contribution to USDA’s goal to help Americans in general and children in particular develop eating patterns that are more consistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

With the support of the Subcommittee, we will set the foundation 

for future development of nutrition policy that is vital to addressing the problems associated with overweight and obesity and the 

related health challenges in America. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony, and I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
351 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 729 57780B.084
352 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 730 57780B.085
353 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 731 57780B.086
354 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 732 57780B.087
355 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 733 57780B.088
356 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 734 57780B.089
357 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 735 57780B.090
358 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 736 57780B.091
359 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 737 57780B.092
360 

CNP—REAUTHORIZATION

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Dr. Post. Let me just also 

welcome Dr. Steele. Thank you very much. It is great to see you. 

Also, a personal privilege for me to recognize, Mr. Secretary, Audrey Rowe, who I had the great pleasure of working with in the 

State of Connecticut when she was the Health Commissioner and 

did an outstanding job there, and will do an outstanding job, I 

know, with the Department in terms of the special nutrition programs. I am really delighted to be working with all of you. Thank 

you. 

We have three votes. There will be one 15 minute vote and two 

five minute votes. We will start with the questioning and members 

will go and vote and come back and we will try to make it as seamless as possible in terms of the testimony. 

Let me just start because you referenced, Secretary Concannon, 

the work that the Senate did this week. I have a question about 

that. The bill does appear to have some good proposals. I am 

pleased about that. 

I am concerned about the funding level. I am also concerned— 

I am not talking about not paying for it. I am talking about where 

the offsets are, which I think is critical. 

I do not know that it will be adequate to meet the critical goals 

of the bill, that is increasing access and improving nutrition quality. 

What would not get achieved in your view if we are looking at 

what half of the request is? Is there any sense of approximately 

how many eligible children in need would not get access to a free 

or reduced price lunch under this level of funding? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Madam Chair, as I mentioned in my testimony, 

we think it is a terrific start. Many aspects of the bill by which we 

are very encouraged, but we believe the $10 billion that the President asked for, an additional $1 billion for each year over a ten 

year period, is truly and fully necessary. 

We are very committed to work with Congress to try to find 

those offsets that you referenced. We believe it is fully necessary 

because we know to improve, as I mentioned when I was here several weeks ago, to improve the quality of school meals is going to 

require additional resources. 

We know this in our own private experience that when we go to 

the store to buy better foods, they are often more expensive. That 

is true as well in the institutional settings when schools are approving the foods available in their cafeterias. 

Also, we have proposed a number of initiatives within the child 

nutrition reauthorization that are designed, for example, to help 

simplify the programs. I know I was questioned when I was here 

earlier about administrative challenges, about simplification for 

parents as well as administrations. 

We want to make the investments that will produce those kinds 

of changes that we want, and I have a very keen sense that Congress wants as well. We want to help schools. We know a number 

of schools have challenges around their equipment. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
361 

We know in this economy, we fully expect that more children are 

going to rely upon or need a free or reduced price lunch as well as 

in some of our other programs. 

To settle for less, I think, would deny this one opportunity in 

every five years that we have to make the most significant impact 

on reducing hunger and dealing with child nutrition challenges. 

CNP—INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO SCHOOL FOOD AUTHORITIES

Ms. DELAURO. We are going to work with you in trying to find 

the additional funding for that and where it can come from. 

Let me just ask a follow up. I am going to try to keep myself to 

the five minutes and everybody else. 

More and more school food authorities are charged with indirect 

costs that are not related to the operation of their programs. We 

have heard about school food authorities in North Carolina who 

after it was successful in getting an equipment assistance grant, 

qualified for an energy rebate. 

The rebate, which should have gone back to the school food program, was taken by the school to cover other expenses. 

We appropriate money for very specific purposes here, and we expect it will be used for the purposes for which it was appropriated. 

Are there any actions that we can take to stop this, what I view 

is unfair, I think it is improper, and I do not know, but it is arguably illegal, taking school food service funds and applying them 

elsewhere in the school system. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Indirect costs is one of the areas, Madam 

Chairwoman, as you correctly note, are an area of concern. We 

would be happy to work with the Committee and your staff on that 

issue. 

We know there are some school systems in the country that 

charge no indirect costs and other examples like you cite where it 

would seem from a reasonable point of view, these are costs that 

get charged to the feeding program. 

We know schools are struggling, as has been noted earlier today, 

States and schools generally in terms of their revenues. We do not 

want the school nutrition programs to become the source of offsetting some of the other fiscal challenges schools have. 

We would be happy to work with the Committee. 

SNAP—TIMELINESS OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. I have a question about SNAP and 

the State timeliness rates. Lots of articles about the application 

process for States enrolling applicants in the program. In several 

States there are lawsuits. 

This Committee has provided $700 million in 100 percent administrative funds to help states cope with the increased workloads 

they are experiencing. 

What is the situation in the States in regard to timeliness rates? 

How many States are missing the Federally mandated application 

processing time lines? Is it improving? Is it getting worse? How 

many States have corrective actions in place? 

I might just note that States are mandated to process food stamp 

applications within 30 days and for emergency benefits, within 

seven days. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
362 

If I can ask you to answer those questions. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Madam Chair, timeliness is one of the areas 

that in a very particular way we are watching, especially again in 

this economic environment, but I think it is fair to say that right 

across the country, 39 million people in the month of December receiving SNAP benefits across the country. There is not a State in 

the country that has not had a significant increase in enrollment 

of SNAP, again reflecting what is going on in the economy. 

Some of the issues of timeliness is a function of the increased 

surge of applicants. I might say there are some other examples, 

there are several examples of fairly large States that come to mind 

that are severely behind in terms of meeting their timeliness that 

reflect failed privatization efforts or just inattention, I would say, 

at the State level. 

Ms. DELAURO. What are you doing about this? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Texas is one State that comes to mind. We are 

regularly visiting with Texas. I have been down there several 

times. We speak to them regularly. We speak to the media regularly in Texas. 

We have made recommendations to Texas on ways to address 

that. Timeliness really is a reflection of an erosion in their program 

over a five or six year period. It did not happen in the last year. 

Among other things, we have made some direct recommendations 

of ways of simplifying their process. We have urged States, to the 

larger question the Chair asked, we have urged States to avail 

themselves of waivers, for example. We are prepared to give waivers to allow States to extend the period of certification. 

In Texas’ case, I can tell you we have urged them to get rid of 

finger imaging. 

Ms. DELAURO. I will ask a question on that later. 

Mr. CONCANNON. It is complicated and adds to the complexity of 

the process. We have urged them to fix their telephone systems. As 

an example, we gave Texas waivers to waive a face to face interview so they could do telephone interviews, only to find that in the 

large cities, Dallas, Ft. Worth, some other places, the phone systems were grossly inadequate, so people could not call out or call 

in. 

Mr. DELAURO. They were supposed to get a report back to you. 

It was 60 days from a September 2009 dictate. Have they provided 

that report yet? 

Mr. CONCANNON. They have been giving us reports on a regular 

basis, and they are coming to the Secretary, and Texas is coming 

to see me in D.C. within the next month. 

I also know they are keeping our Dallas Office, our Federal regional office, regularly updated. 

We have also urged them, as we have other States, urged them 

to take advantage of a business process re-engineering. By that I 

mean most State agencies, and as you may know, I spent my career as a State director, most States manage programs like this 

through what they refer to as a ‘‘caseload orientation.’’ How large 

are the caseloads, how are we managing caseloads. 

Yet we are finding in this environment States are doing much 

better by managing the process by introducing, for example, imaging documents that come in rather than paper imaging. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
363 

We are urging them to simplify the eligibility. We are urging 

them to take advantage of something called ‘‘categorical eligibility,’’ 

an authority that has been granted to us by Congress. Some 29 

States have now availed themselves of categorical eligibility. 

In Texas’ case, they have taken some of those options but they 

have not taken them all. We continue to work with them in that 

regard. 

There is new leadership in the State as well on the executive 

side. I am convinced that the current Commissioner is honestly and 

fully committed to improving their performance. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. I think what we will do, Mr. Kingston, 

so that you get a full opportunity for your questions, is just to 

break, go vote and come back, and then you will be up next. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I did not fully answer your question. I should 

mention that we have some 21 States on conditional acceptance 

plans where they are required to work out a plan with them saying 

you have to address the following items. States that fall below 90 

percent in their timeliness are required by us to move to a plan of 

action to make improvements. 

Ms. DELAURO. Which according to a list that I have is a substantial number of States. Just to think about this because I have to 

get to vote as my colleagues do, if we can work together on this. 

You let us know how we can assist in this process of making sure 

that we are adhering to what the mandate is. 

We are providing funding in order to be able to do this. We have 

not been just dealing with unfunded mandates in this regard. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I appreciate that. I have heard that in all the 

States I visited. They have appreciated especially, I think, the Department of Defense administrative funds that Congress made 

available to them because the States, as you know, either through 

layoffs, freezes in hiring or furlough days, have a very compromised 

ability to meet some of their obligations in that regard, and the 

funds that Congress provided have made a difference at the State 

level. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

[Recess.] 

SNAP—FINGER IMAGING IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS

Ms. DELAURO. As soon as Mr. Kingston arrives, he will question, 

but let’s start up again so the hearing is underway. 

There are four States that require applicants for the supplemental nutrition assistance program to be fingerprinted prior to 

their receiving food stamp benefits, Arizona, California, New York 

and Texas. 

You spoke about Texas. My understanding as well with the 

Texas example is it costs the State a significant amount of money 

but yielded no savings. 

Fingerprinting is one reason that has been given for low participation rates in some of the other States. 

What is the impact on participation in the States that require 

fingerprinting and what is FNS’ view on that requirement? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Madam Chair, let me start with the last question, the easiest one for me. I have made it clear in public statements that we would not support additional States were they to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
364 

come forward and ask to incorporate fingerprinting or ‘‘finger imaging’’ as it is technically called. 

Only three States plus the City of New York require finger imaging. We remain concerned about the practice. It takes time. It is 

an imposition on families. The States that require it require all 

adults in the household, even if they are not applying for benefits 

in the program, to come in and be finger imaged. 

The example I often use is if you had a young adult living in 

your house and you had a child who was 12 who was on the program, the young adult not, you tell that young adult you have to 

give up your afternoon working at the Safeway or working someplace else to come into a city office. 

As an example, the State of Florida declined to go forward with 

implementing the program because they felt it was ineffective. 

The auditor in the State of California examined it two years ago 

and found it to be lacking in effectiveness, and I know the California Assembly wanted to eliminate the program but the Governor 

in what is the equivalent of a line item veto struck that from a bill. 

Just as recently as today, a news release came out from the State 

of Connecticut where apparently Connecticut is requiring people, 

not in the food stamp program, but in the TANF and general assistance programs, to be finger imaged. 

I think that is an unfortunate direction for States to go because 

the alleged reasons for relying upon it are to prevent fraudulent 

double entries or dual applications. 

I think there are less intrusive ways and equally more effective 

ways to eliminate dual enrollment or fraud than to put people 

through finger imaging. 

I was a collections commissioner earlier in my life. I am very familiar with the practice of requiring finger imaging. I tend to associate it with suspicion of criminal behaviors. 

I would hate to see a reversion to that in any program, subjecting poor people to it. 

Ms. DELAURO. How about we try it on Wall Street? Sorry. Excuse 

me. That was an aside. [Laughter.] 

Ms. DELAURO. I will be happy to now yield to my colleague, Mr. 

Kingston. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

CNP—REAUTHORIZATION OFFSETS

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was looking for you 

but I figured you were behind me. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Steele on these offsets, I am interested in 

them. Where are they coming from? 

Mr. STEELE. Mr. Kingston, thank you for the question. That is 

a very complicated issue, obviously. This $10 billion increase in the 

President’s budget was also in last year’s budget as well, it is a 

carry over item. 

The Administration has the luxury of setting its own baseline 

and its own proposal and within that proposal, its offset. 

As you well know, the budget of the United States is a fairly big 

budget. It is over $4 trillion of which about 70 percent of it is mandatory funding. 

Mr. KINGSTON. About 37 percent of it is deficit spending, too. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
365 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. All of the child nutrition money is mandatory 

money. You would have to have a mandatory offset for the Child 

Nutrition Programs. 

Within USDA, obviously, we have a large component of mandatory programs, roughly 80 percent of our budget is mandatory, 

which includes the food programs, child nutrition, SNAP. It also includes all the Commodity Credit Corporation, which are the farm 

programs, as well as crop insurance. 

That is the universe of programs in which you would have to look 

to if you were looking for a specific offset within the USDA. 

It gets more complicated than that because the jurisdiction for 

child nutrition is not within the Ag Committee of the House of Representatives. It is in the House Ed and Labor Committee, which 

has no jurisdiction over the farm programs. 

You are going to have to work this out, whatever offsets would 

have to come from whatever House Ed and Labor would have within its purview. I would assume those were HHS programs. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Would that not be the job of Congress but the job 

of the Executive Branch, particularly since this is President 

Obama’s legislation? He has embraced PAYGO, and I am glad he 

has. 

Mr. STEELE. The Administration, the Under Secretary and others 

have already said they would be willing to work with the Committee and we are working with the Senate. 

Mr. KINGSTON. As you know, we have a friendship and a lot of 

respect for you, but the Executive Branch, it is not willing to work 

with us, they need to comply with the job. 

The Executive Branch is not—we are willing to work with you 

and this is going to be a stretch, hey, we passed a law and it is 

not keeping with the spirit of the law, it is keeping with the law 

and the intent of the law. I am not lecturing you. I am just maybe 

speaking out loud with my own frustrations. 

Mr. STEELE. If we proposed offsets within USDA, House Ed and 

Labor would have to somehow work with the Ag Committee to 

work that out because they do not have jurisdiction over the offsets. 

Mr. KINGSTON. What if in the back room of the Administration 

somebody says gee whiz, Mr. President, we are glad you want to 

increase this spending, it is a great idea, however, we have a problem. We have to comply with the law, the law which you just 

signed and made a big deal about, therefore, while we ask for this 

increase, hand and glove, we are going to also say here is the proposal and Ed and Labor to pay for it because we do not want somebody to accuse us of phoney-baloney here. 

Mr. STEELE. Again, there was not a specific offset associated with 

the proposal. They have not submitted legislation at this point with 

an offset. 

There is a bill in the Senate which has been drafted in the Senate and they have offsets for that. 

I do not know if we are submitting a bill. I do not think we are 

at this point. 

Mr. KINGSTON. An appropriations bill is a bill. 

Mr. STEELE. Yes, but you are not submitting a mandatory proposal in an appropriations bill. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
366 

Mr. KINGSTON. I think the American taxpayers really would not 

care where the money came from, so to speak. Actually, they would 

care where it comes from but they do also want to know that it is 

coming. 

If 80 percent of the USDA budget is mandatory spending, it 

would appear that money should come out of that and maybe somehow down the road make it right with the Ed and Labor accountants. 

Mr. STEELE. We would have to get Chairman Peterson to agree 

with that reduction. 

Mr. KINGSTON. If this committee passes the appropriation request as is, at what point does this meet PAYGO? 

Mr. STEELE. We are not requesting the $10 billion in an appropriation context. It is in our total budget but we are not asking this 

committee to pass a child nutrition reauthorization bill with a $10 

billion price tag. We have not requested this committee to take that 

action. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The additional money that we are talking about 

today would not be this year’s budget? 

Mr. STEELE. Not necessarily. It would not necessarily be in this 

appropriations bill. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I guess this is what people back home just cannot 

understand. 

Mr. STEELE. It is like the Farm Bill. The money is in there, it 

is authorized, it is mandatory funding, and you spend the money 

authorized through the authorizing bill rather than the appropriations bill. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes, but it is that two step that somehow the 

PAYGO always gets postponed for another day. 

Mr. STEELE. I assume Congress has rules on the PAYGO. To 

bring the bill to the Floor, they would have to have an offset for 

it in the House. 

Mr. KINGSTON. What has happened routinely, you know, is we 

have waived PAYGO. I give the President credit for PAYGO. I am 

glad he brought it up. We Republicans ignored it. It was the wrong 

thing to do. 

As I showed with my charts earlier today, this is everybody’s 

problem. If we want to help children, we have to make sure we 

have a sound fiscal policy. 

This is not finger pointing at all. I have a lot to learn from you 

on budget matters. Again, I am not lecturing you or picking on you 

at all. 

It just does seem to me PAYGO but not on this bill, freeze, but 

not in this group of spending, expenditures and everything else. 

I know I am out of time. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr. 

SECOND HARVEST

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am always interested in this hearing. It is a very interesting one to try to figure 

out how we can get a better bang for the buck. 

I have some questions for Ms. Paradis. First of all, thank you for 

your public service and your service when you worked here in Congress. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
367 

As I understand from your resume, you also worked with Second 

Harvest. 

Ms. PARADIS. I did. 

Mr. FARR. As I recall, Second Harvest receives funding from 

USDA through the TANF program—I mean TEFAP, The Emergency Food Assistance Program? 

Ms. PARADIS. The food banks that are part of America’s Second 

Harvest, now called Feeding America, many of them, if not most 

of them, do receive some funding through TEFAP, just as they receive the TEFAP commodities. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. FARR. The purpose of that program is to feed hungry adults; 

right? 

Ms. PARADIS. It is to feed hungry people. 

Mr. FARR. Who are low-income? 

Ms. PARADIS. That is correct. 

Mr. FARR. Often times, they do not really do any checking as to 

whether you are low-income or high-income when you come 

through the food line, they give you the food packages. I have packaged a lot of foods and they use a lot of volunteers. 

Ms. PARADIS. They do use a lot of volunteers, as I understand it, 

over a million volunteers a year participate with America’s Second 

Harvest food banks. It is a legal requirement that if TEFAP commodities are being distributed, they must be going to low-income 

households. 

My understanding is that what typically happens is families are 

asked for their income level, they fill out a particular form, and 

then the food bank or the food pantry or the shelter certifies them 

as low-income, and then they are eligible to get TEFAP commodities. 

If they do not get TEFAP commodities, if they get privately donated commodities, then it is up to the distributing agency to determine whether those households would get that food or not. 

If it is Federally provided commodities, those are to go only to 

low-income households. 

Mr. FARR. I would be interested in the percentage of Second Harvest food they put out that is commodity related. I have never seen 

that kind of check off system. 

I am trying to make a point. In this, it is essentially based on 

census data of where these low-income communities are and where 

the unemployment levels are high. There are figures that one uses. 

It does not necessarily have to go to the individual. 

Ms. PARADIS. That may be true in terms of generally where these 

food banks are located or where the pantries are located for the 

percentage of TEFAP commodities that are going to any particular 

State or locale, but when it comes to the actual point of providing 

that food benefit to a family, if it is a Federally provided commodity, that family is supposed to be low-income. 

We are happy to sort of see if we can get some additional information to clarify how that works at the local level. 

[The information follows:] 

Food banks and other emergency feeding organizations may be distributing food 

from a variety of sources, including food donated through USDA’s Emergency Food 

Assistance Program. State agencies administering TEFAP are required to set statewide criteria for determining the eligibility of households to receive TEFAP food for 

home consumption. TEFAP regulations require that these criteria: (1) ensure that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
368 

only households which are in need of food assistance because of inadequate household income receive TEFAP food and (2) include income-based standards and the 

methods by which households may demonstrate eligibility under such standards. 

TEFAP regulations require that each TEFAP distribution site maintain records to 

demonstrate the basis for determining that a household is eligible to receive food 

for home consumption. Any organization such as a food bank or food pantry distributing TEFAP food for home consumption must follow these requirements as well as 

any additional requirements imposed by the State with regard to income guidelines 

and documentation of eligibility. 

However, TEFAP income standards apply only to distribution of TEFAP food for 

home consumption. Many food banks also distribute food that is donated to them 

from nongovernment entities or is purchased by the food bank. The Federal Government does not regulate these distributions or require any sort of means test. 

CNP—PROGRAM APPLICATIONS

Mr. FARR. Were you here last week when I was talking about the 

Child Nutrition Programs? 

Ms. PARADIS. I am sorry. I was not. 

Mr. FARR. I had copies and I do not have them today of the applications for those programs. Are you aware of the application for the 

National School Lunch Program? 

Ms. PARADIS. I am. 

Mr. FARR. Are you aware of the application for the School Breakfast Program? 

Ms. PARADIS. I am. 

Mr. FARR. Are you aware of the application for the Special Milk 

Program? 

Ms. PARADIS. I am not sure I am aware of that. 

Mr. FARR. How about the child and adult care feeding program? 

Ms. PARADIS. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. The Summer Food Service Program? 

Ms. PARADIS. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. Why cannot all those be one application? 

Ms. PARADIS. In many instances, they are one application. 

Mr. FARR. Why can they not be electronic? 

Ms. PARADIS. In some places, I think we are moving in that direction, and that will be wonderful, when we can make them electronic. 

I think the interesting thing is we see these as different programs at this level, but for example, when a family enrolls their 

children in school and sign up for school meals, that also means 

they are eligible for school lunch and school breakfast and an after 

school at risk program, so it is seamless to the household. They see 

it as seamless. 

Of course, with SNAP direct certification, if the household is participating in SNAP, then they do not even need to apply separately 

for programs in the school meals. 

To the household itself, it appears seamless. 

Mr. FARR. The mission of the Agency is to—it says ‘‘Federal 

agency responsible for managing domestic nutrition assistance programs. Its mission is to increase food security and reduce hunger 

in partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children 

and low-income people access to food, a healthy diet and nutrition 

education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence.’’ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
369 

There are eight programs within the Agency and within the programs, as I just indicated, under the Child Nutrition Programs, 

there are five of those. 

It is very bureaucratic dominated. It seems to me where we need 

to go now is to—the problem is it is sort of a conflict with Kingston, 

and I do think we want money wisely spent, but you opened your 

remarks about wanting to hire a lot more people. I am wanting to 

feed a lot more people. 

I am not sure hiring people in Washington is going to feed a lot 

more kids or adults, and I think we can find savings within the Department and the Administration by essentially collaborating. It 

takes leadership to do this. You have to break some rice bowls in 

this case. 

I think programs ought to be consolidated into a community feeding program and a school feeding program, and they all be under 

one, and we look at ways—I hate the concept of block granting, but 

we do a lot of funding of Federal programs that way, that is transportation funding, and it has to stay in the transportation field and 

cannot be spent on anything else. We restrict it but we give that 

money in big clumps for those services. 

This is where I think the Department needs to go because we are 

not going to keep having more and more money to hire more people 

and not get kids fed. 

Ms. PARADIS. I could not agree with you more. 

Mr. FARR. We will look for great recommendations coming out of 

you for how we are going to change this bureaucracy. 

Ms. PARADIS. We will certainly give it some more thought and we 

would love to talk to you some more about that, Congressman, because we could not agree with you more. I honestly do mean that. 

We have a one page application, for example, front and back, 

that is the application for all of the programs that are provided 

through schools. 

For our programs that are provided in community settings, we 

have a similar sort of thing. 

It does appear here in Washington as though it is very bureaucratic, but as it actually works at the local level, it is really quite 

seamless, but we are constantly looking for ways to make this work 

better for all of the people who need it. 

Mr. FARR. I am out of time. My local providers at the school level 

tell me 60 percent of the costs of the programs is administration. 

That is unacceptable. 

Ms. DELAURO. Ms. Emerson. 

Ms. EMERSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me say to you all 

that I really am so very impressed with the caliber and commitment and dedication of the workers of the Food and Nutrition Service, Secretary Concannon, and just so you know, Julie does a great 

job and the whole team does. We are very, very proud of them. Let 

me say that first. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you. 

SNAP—MISSOURI PAYMENT ERROR

Ms. EMERSON. My question goes to you, Secretary Concannon. 

Unfortunately, Missouri happens to be one of those States that was 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
370 

the beneficiary of grants for high performance, high participation 

rates in food stamps. This was due to a computer error. 

When somebody else got put on or somebody was due to go off 

food stamps or made enough income to be able to go off, they were 

not removed from the rolls. I think there is about $14 million of 

extra bonus award money that was given to the State. 

I just wanted to know if you could possibly give me an update 

regarding what is being done about these already awarded funds, 

particularly given our very, very, very fragile and tight budget situation in the State. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes, I will attempt to do that. 

Julie, if you want to, jump right in, but I am familiar with it. 

And, first, I should point out that Missouri is one of the highest 

performing States still, but there was certainly a mathematical 

problem. It looked as though they were absolutely the single highest of the 50 States. And when that was discovered, our Mountain 

Plains office out of Denver, which is the regional office that serves 

that part of the country, has been working directly with the State. 

We want to make sure that those bonuses, we need to make sure 

that in fact they were earned. And we need to weigh how we deal 

with that, the issues of the $14—or the numbers of dollars that are 

involved. 

What we may end up doing, it is not a decision at this point, is 

if we find they were improperly awarded, again given the situation 

States are in, I can tell you what we have done in instances like 

that as a State Director is if we spread out the repayment period 

and simply did not require the State to pay us, we subtracted it 

from future grants that were given to that State. We have not 

reached that point at this point. We continue to work with Missouri 

to make sure that that is corrected, the practices that resulted in 

that overstatement of their performance. But it is one of the higher 

performing States, happily from my point of view. 

Ms. EMERSON. Right, and mine too. And my district happens to 

be the highest, has the highest percentage of recipients. And, of 

course, I bragged and bragged and bragged about how well we have 

done at outreach, and then I read about this, and I think oh my 

goodness even though I know we are still doing quite well. There 

are others that we need to reach. Hopefully—can you provide some 

assurance to me that any effort by you all to recapture any of those 

funds are not going to impact those who rely on the FNS programs? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I can tell you that is an operating principle 

that we use. I mean I am very distressed, as has been clear, I think 

the committee is as well, with what is going on for example in the 

State of Texas, but have been loathe to pull the trigger and penalize the State financially because of my concern that it would result 

in hurting poor people in the result. So that is a last resort before 

we would be ever forced to take action. 

CNP—REAUTHORIZATION

Ms. EMERSON. And I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Let me 

also, to sort of follow on to what Chairwoman DeLauro was talking 

about, we have $1 billion a year over 10 years for purposes of investment in Child Nutrition Programs. And on the one hand, one 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
371 

of our priorities is to be certain that we improve access to combating hunger and on the other, we need to enhance nutritional 

quality. This is sort of Washington talk. We talk about it like that, 

but I guess I need to know from you if you can tell me this, what 

portion of that $1 billion extra dollars a year is going to go to combating hunger and what portion will go to enhancing nutrition? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I don’t think we can solve hunger without making sure that it is adequately nutritious foods. And we have the report that is guiding us from the Institute of Medicine, given to us 

in the fall, that said we look at the experience of American children 

who are not getting enough fruits and vegetables, are not getting 

enough whole grains or getting too much fat in their diet. This is 

one of the factors causing obesity. So we—our recommendation, the 

best scientific recommendation in the country, or the best minds 

represented there, have made serious recommendations to us that 

we are committed to to improve the quality of those meals. And I 

think it is going to require a significant portion of the $1 billion 

to really improve those meals in ways that are recommended by 

the IOM. 

Now, what exact percentage, I think that is where we are going 

to have to work with Congress on where that split comes, but I 

know a significant portion of it, it is not a small portion of it, a significant portion of it is going to be required to really go into the 

meals portion of it for schools, both recognizing, unfortunately what 

is going on in the economy. We expect that by 2010, 69 percent of 

the children in school meals will be receiving a free or reduced 

price meal. We are now at I believe 62 percent this year, but when 

you are talking about 33 million children it adds up—— 

Ms. EMERSON. Right. 

Mr. CONCANNON [continuing]. Even a few cents, so, I think a sig- nificant portion of the $1 billion. 

There is no question in my mind, it came up I think implicitly in the Chairwoman’s comments earlier or questions, I think the $1 

billion is needed. And it is needed both a significant portion on the 

meals side, but also if we are indeed going to end up reducing obesity in a generation but also end up eliminating hunger in this 

country for children, it is going to take the full investment on our 

part. 

Ms. EMERSON. Well, I have no issue with the nutritional piece 

simply because I think it is important that we teach our children 

good eating habits. However, I worry that because of the increased 

cost that that will, part of that $1 billion the nutritional piece will 

take that we will somehow might not meet that goal of ending 

childhood hunger by 2015. And that was my point. It is not that 

I am disagreeing, it is just that I am worried about the ending hunger part because that is such an important goal of what we are all 

trying to do. 

Mr. CONCANNON. We are there with you, but we believe it has 

to be—they have to be nutritious foods, and we believe it has to 

be performance based, that we do not just—we are not going to recommend, we are not recommending in the bill that we just spread 

the money whatever the distribution Congress settles on to all 

schools. We believe it has to pay for performance in the sense of 

paying for schools to meet the criteria in the IOM recommendation. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
372 

Ms. EMERSON. Thank you. 

CNP—SCHOOL MEALS COST STUDY BUDGET REQUEST

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Let me ask about—the budget in- cludes an increase of $8 million for a school lunch and breakfast 

cost study. As I understand it, it was estimated that the cost to 

produce reimbursable school meals in the school year 2012–2014– 

13, I’m sorry, with the results available in 2014. And the study is 

going to incorporate additional information on nutritional quality 

from previous studies. I am delighted that you are looking at what 

it takes to make available a healthy lunch for our kids. In the 

meantime, as you know and I know, we are working on the reauthorization bill and asking what reimbursement rate is necessary 

to feed our children healthy foods. So let me ask you today what 

recommendations would you make on the reimbursement rate necessary for improving their diets? To be very honest, we do not have 

time to wait until 2014 to start improving the health of our kids. 

We are meeting. This thing is going to happen. So what is your recommendation? 

Mr. CONCANNON. We agree with you, Madam Chair. And I believe the Institute of Medicine report recommended that by their 

assessment, and they had, as I remember, their physicians, they 

had a single economist as I remember on that panel as well, recommended that they believed it would take about a 5 percent increase to meet, 5 to 9 percent was the range that they showed to 

meet the IOM recommendations. So we think it is important to do 

that study though. I do not want to overlook that because one 

hears from time to time, and I am confident that members of this 

committee probably hear from some people at least, that they believe the current reimbursement is not sufficient. There was a 

USDA study but it is now dated, it was several years ago, that 

showed at that time the reimbursement for free and reduced price 

meals from USDA did meet the cost of the meals. But in the meantime you have—if we want better foods, better foods—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Cost more money. 

Mr. CONCANNON [continuing]. Generally cost more money. So I think it is important, that $8 million study is intended to look at 

all the cost elements of producing a meal, not just the ingredients. 

And the IOM, by the way, recommendations recommend that more 

fruits, more vegetables that in and of themselves require more handling, so there will probably be more—there will certainly be a significant corresponding manpower cost. 

But also to the questions that have been raised about the admin 

costs, respectfully, I think that that percentage that has been used, 

most of that cost is associated with people on the feeding line. It 

is not somebody handling that one or two page application. But we 

certainly would like to settle it. 

Ms. DELAURO. Sure, okay. 

Mr. CONCANNON. So I think it is important to do it. But I agree 

with you we cannot wait—— 

CNP—HEALTHIER U.S. SCHOOLS CHALLENGE

Ms. DELAURO. Well, we are going to need your input on that as 

we move to do this because we have to do it this year, and we canVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00372 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
373 

not afford to make the delay. You talked about the Healthier U.S. 

Schools Challenge program and wanting to reach 3,000 schools participating within the next three years. How many schools are currently participating? How many do you propose to have participating in 2011? And how do you plan to get 3,000 schools participating in three years? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you very much for the question. There 

are just over 600, I believe it is 620-plus, schools currently participating in the Healthier U.S. Schools Callenge. Michelle Obama, the 

First Lady of the land, has challenged us to double that within that 

year. We are definitely working on that right now. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

Mr. CONCANNON. One of the elements in that is currently those 

600 schools are all elementary schools. We have expanded the class 

eligibility for the program to include middle schools and high 

schools, but we are also—we are going to provide some, as I call 

it, a somewhat American aspect to this, an American cultural aspect, of having a very modest financial reward for those schools 

that meet the gold, silver and bronze level. I have been out to a 

number of those schools, and it just is very exhilarating, I believe, 

when you see kids eating healthy in school cultures, and school climates committed not just to feeding the child but to exercise, some 

of the other factors as well. 

So we are very committed to that. And we are very committed 

to working with schools to simplify the process too because we hear 

from some schools. We know there are a number of schools that are 

providing the quality meals that would meet the current U.S. 

Healthier Schools Challenge, but they may be dissuaded by either 

the paper process. We are very committed to simplify that without 

compromising the substantive requirements of the program. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Mr. Kingston. 

CNP—IMPROPER PAYMENTS

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Concannon, I wanted to ask you about the $1 million a year, according to your own 

estimates, on payment errors—excuse me, $1 billion. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Would it not make sense to go after that before 

we go after more funding? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Mr. Kingston, you have identified a very—an 

area that we are very concerned about. We have a concern, but I 

also have to share that the White House has a concern about that. 

We are as an agency, the FNS are part of a group of Federal agencies working on improper payments. And to the point the actual 

numbers, as they pertain to the School Lunch/School Breakfast programs, are $1.8 billion a year in improper payments, now net about 

$800 million of that are under payments on the part of the Federal 

Government. So the costs to the taxpayers are $1 billion a year, a 

significant amount of money still. 

Now, as I recall, there are three factors that sort of drive that. 

One is misinformation communicated by families enrolling their 

children. That is not quite half of that, but it is a significant portion of it. Another portion relates to the State, or I am sorry, the 

school agencies themselves making mistakes in processing the inVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
374 

formation, even if it is properly conveyed or proper information is 

conveyed to them. And a third part is the—is caused by the cashiers when you come through the line, a reimbursable meal has to 

meet the food group requirements of the Act. 

And I was in a school I think since I was at your hearing here 

a couple of weeks ago, I was up in Jessup, Maryland during National School Breakfast Week, the week before last, and when I 

went through the line in the morning, I had had a healthier breakfast at home, it goes down hill personally the rest of the day, but 

breakfast I do right, and when I went through the line I took just 

a bottle of juice, a container of juice, and an apple. And when I got 

to the cashier, she looked at me and said, ‘‘That is not a reimbursable meal.’’ So part of it is training. What we are doing is we are 

working with State agencies on the training side. We are working 

with and urging them to work with schools as well. We are urging 

schools to make better use of direct education, the process of where 

you are transferring information that has been provided to a State 

or county on families’ income. And in the budget proposal we have 

as well a budget request, it is $22 million to provide incentives to 

States that are doing the least or least currently reliant on direct 

certification. Congress directed us to do that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask you this, wouldn’t it make sense to 

address this before we expand the program or possibly take it out 

of the reserve because you are going to have a $5 billion reserve, 

right? 

Mr. CONCANNON. No, the recent—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Aren’t you asking to increase the reserve $2 billion in SNAP? 

Mr. CONCANNON. The reserve portion is in the SNAP program. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay, but can you not use any of that money to 

get this thing straight before we expand it? Because I think so 

often we have intention of expanding it but it just never seems to 

come. 

Mr. CONCANNON. No, we have more than an intention of doing 

it. We are actually in the middle of attempting to mitigate and 

modify that right now. We are part of, as I say, a group that not 

only internally in USDA but in other parts of the Federal Government. The President signed an Executive Order in improper payments in November of 2009, and we are identified as one of the object groups, if you will, that he has an expectation, and actually I 

am the identified official responsible for both improper payments in 

SNAP and in the School Lunch Program. So I am highly motivated 

to make sure that we do as much as we can with schools. 

And part of it is simplification. Complication invariably produces 

some of these problems. So also, we are also trying to create incentives for schools to rely upon direct certification, and also helping 

schools. We had an earlier question here, many schools do not have 

electronic capabilities in terms of going through those lines and so 

on. To the extent we can work with them on modernizing the way 

in which they do their claiming, and the way they count meals, we 

can help them do that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, thank you. 

Mr. CONCANNON. This is a huge program. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
375 

HUNGER IN AMERICA

Mr. FARR. Yes, malnutrition does not respect boundary lines. It 

is not a means test. And I think that is one of the problems. We 

have written this program, all these programs over the years is 

this accountability, that, my God, we might feed somebody whose 

parents are not poor, but the kid is hungry. And you just go to 

these feeding spots, and you will see that teachers have been putting money, I will just feed it. I will take the money out of my pocket. It is like the school pencils and books and everything like that. 

I mean I do think that we need to have this stuff accountable, 

but I think we also need the goal of the United States of America 

ought to be, the first goal is that nobody goes hungry in this country. And that we make that the goal, and then we try to figure out 

how do you do it. And I think that, frankly, you take the amount 

of money like we do in transportation, you just kind of get it to the 

places. 

We have two kinds of feeding programs in our country, what am 

I trying to think of, the second harvest type food service. There is 

one we have, and I go to these things, in the parking lot when they 

are giving away free food. I represent the biggest growing region 

of the United States, and most of that food is given to us by—all 

the lettuce and the cucumbers and everything all free because it 

is excess from the packers. That parking lot and the line goes as 

far as the eye can see. Nobody asks a question as to who you are, 

your ID or anything, no citizenship requirements, green card requirements, no poverty requirements, and it goes on and on. The 

next week we will have the USDA market, and it is limited. The 

commodities they are giving, nice stuff they were giving away. But 

I think we are so hung up on accountability right now that we are 

not cost effective anymore. 

We are worried about—we had actually—teachers told me that 

came into the school and took a cup of trail mix and dumped it out 

and said, ‘‘Too many M&M’s in here, they do not meet the nutritional test.’’ How much did it cost to send somebody to do that 

versus the benefit derived from it? 

Those are the things that I think, this is why I am kind of getting involved in this of figuring, I mean we do not means test the 

soldiers when they get fed as to whether you are an officer, an enlisted person or what your payment is. We do not means test the 

prisoners in our prisons. I think we have—if we are going to get 

into trying to feed hungry people, we ought to get away from these 

barriers, and we ought to feed them. And we ought to figure out 

how to do it smartly and how to do it cost effectively. 

And I do not like the segregation that we are doing. Do you know 

what it means to a kid to be told that you have got to go stand 

in one line because your parents are poor and you kids can go 

through another line? I mean that is so humiliating. And trying to 

build self-esteem in children. That is why I have been sort of on 

this for a long time because I share your concerns about this, we 

do not have a lot of money to go around. But what I think you 

would agree to is that we certainly do not want to just employ a 

bunch of bureaucracy when we really are trying to get the service, 

the food in people. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
376 

We built this program, you look at this whole agency, and it is 

just stacked of trying to solve particular solutions, milk supplements, after school programs, breakfast programs, lunch programs. 

Frankly, the WIC Program that the mom is going to, the Food 

Stamp program perhaps for that dad or other people in the family. 

The whole family is getting food one way, but boy it sure is complicated to get into the system. And I think we ought to make it 

less complicated. 

WIC—INFANT FORMULA

If I have any time left I want to ask a question. It is about the 

WIC Program, and it is about whether—I noticed the cost of buying 

WIC formula has just gone up and up and up. And I understand, 

or at least I heard, that the reason it has gone up so much is there 

are new formulas coming out all the time and they are more and 

more expensive. And it gets compounded as to what we are adding 

and what we are not adding, and I do not know whether you have 

to buy the sort of improved formula, but is this cost—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Is it improved or enhanced? 

Mr. FARR. Is it any more cost effective to do that than just to buy 

the formula, the cheaper formula? Is there value added here or are 

we just making the formula producers a lot of money? 

Mr. CONCANNON. It is my understanding there are only three 

manufacturers in the country that actually make those infant formulas and actually bid on them. And we award them to the manufacturer with the lowest net cost for the infant formula, and they 

must bid a higher rebate on its new higher priced enhanced formula to be awarded a contract. It reminds me of my, I spent many 

years administering Medicaid, where the prescription drug companies come in, but they have to give us the deepest discount. So it 

is a net cost. 

Now, to your larger question about efficacy of what is alleged—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Just can I, will the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. FARR. Sure. 

Ms. DELAURO. At this point because you are going to go on and 

talk about this, but my understanding is that, just to add to what 

Congressman Farr is saying, that there are findings in a USDA report that found that WIC is paying $127 million more annually for 

infant formula under the rebate contracts that are currently in 

place than under previous contracts after adjusting for inflation. So 

that is data that is coming out of USDA. So I just wanted to—— 

Mr. FARR. That is what it went to. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yes. 

Mr. CONCANNON. The contracts are, the State agencies have the 

discretion to deny the inclusion of some of these allowable foods. 

And the course of these contracts typically go three to five years. 

But I can tell you one of our concerns that has been raised with 

us at times, well, why wouldn’t you just limit or not allow the formulas to include some of the new additives, so to speak, that have 

been incorporated into them. And I worry—— 

Mr. FARR. Do you have the authority in law to do that, administrative authority? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I do not believe we do at this point, but we also 

would have—worry about that, would we end up with formula for 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
377 

poor people versus the formula that, the infant formulas that the 

rest of the population have available to them. We would be very 

concerned about the unintended consequences of that. 

Mr. FARR. Can you force the companies to come in with a lower 

bid on these? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Right now they have to, they have to give a 

higher rebate on the new higher cost. 

Mr. FARR. Or do something on the not be enhanced? 

Mr. CONCANNON. It has to be a new higher priced enhanced formula, does it not? 

Ms. DELAURO. Is that all that they are selling to us? And so that 

is the only opportunity we have, are these enhanced? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes, that is my understanding right now, that 

there are three companies that bid and that is all that they offer. 

And we have had discussions. Again, they have been offline discussions. 

Mr. FARR. But I mean do you have to buy the enhanced formula? 

They are going to offer it, if they are all three, they can just—that 

is what you have to buy or can you put out a bid for a lower—for 

less enhanced? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, I think, Congressman, that is what the 

worry is that would we in effect be denying to poor people in the 

WIC Program who depend on the formula, would it be denying 

them access to the latest formulas that are being provided that 

have benefits that those formula manufacturers claim at least have 

additional benefits. Would we in effect be saying, well, for poor people we are going to have a generic brand that does not have that? 

And my fear in that, I think our fear, is that what we would be 

doing in infant formula, are some of the concerns you have expressed about what does it mean if you are put off in a separate 

line. 

Mr. FARR. Well, generic is good. Maybe we ought to go with our 

own brand. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, I do not think—well, I do not think we 

have the capacity to do it. We also are—we have to honor States 

that do the, that do the bidding. 

Mr. FARR. It is a concern though that you can see that if the program costs are rising because supply, the cost of the supply is going 

up, then there has got to be, somebody has got to look at that. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I think we are happy to work with you on that 

because I know, I believe we purchase half of the infant formula 

in the U.S. 

Ms. DELAURO. Science ought to come into play somewhere. Ms. 

Emerson? 

Ms. EMERSON. Well, Madam Chair, without taking away my 

time, just for a second. It seems to me when we talk about here 

in the United States we are the largest consumer of prescription 

medicines anywhere in the world, the largest by far, and we pay 

the highest prices. So you know what, you are getting ripped off. 

And I think we got to get to the bottom of it. 

Ms. DELAURO. Bingo. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
378 

CNP—REIMBURSEMENT RATES

Ms. EMERSON. Alright, so let me start my question, please. 

Thank you. And I am not blaming you, I just hope that we can get 

to the bottom of this. 

I think it has been two or three weeks ago now. I think it has 

been two or three weeks ago now, my school nutrition folks came 

to visit me. And one of my school nutritionists was telling me that 

they on every free lunch they serve, they are losing 35 cents. In 

other words, they are not being reimbursed. And we are talking 

about a poor school district here, so trying to make up the difference is not exactly easy. And everything—back to what Rosa 

was saying about that North Carolina or some Carolina school district where on al a carte or any other type of extra payments they 

may get, the school board snaps it up and uses it for improvements 

in the school. And so consequently we have got a real issue. And 

so what I am worried about is that when we are going to ask the 

schools to provide healthier, more nutritional foods, they are never 

going to be able to make ends meet. They are going to keep losing 

money and keep losing money. And I guess is there any way that 

we can create a system whereby the schools are actually being reimbursed for the real cost for the meals as opposed to just some 

formula? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Let me say that several years ago, it is now 

outdated, the USDA did a—because some of these same claims 

were being made then, that the USDA does not reimburse the full 

cost of the meal, and the USDA or FNS did a study, a very extensive one, and found that indeed we were reimbursing the cost of 

the meal. So that study now is several years old, so I want a truth 

in lending, to express that. 

Ms. EMERSON. Right. 

Mr. CONCANNON. But we have a budget proposal here of $8 million to actually take a very extensive, rigorous look at what does 

it cost to produce a meal, not only in terms of the food elements 

that are there but the manpower, the labor cost associated with it. 

Ms. EMERSON. Right. 

Mr. CONCANNON. But I also have to say, as an example, I was 

in rural Georgia now about three months ago in a county with a 

very large number of very poor children, and a very talented school 

service director involving three elementary schools pointed out to 

me, she said, ‘‘We can pay the rate that USDA is reimbursing us, 

it covers all of our cost, labor everything else.’’ And she was a talented, part of it is leadership I guess, I want to say that, but also 

she was making very good use of the commodities program, and 

she pointed out to me in that visit, she said, ‘‘See these little ketchup,’’ those little plastic ketchup individual items, ‘‘if I buy those 

from one of the major suppliers, I pay 12 cents. I produce them for 

two cents because I take the tomatoes made available to us by commodities and have them processed.’’ And then she pointed out some 

chicken inside a freezer as well. So I think—I do not want to understate the fact that there is a tension, a pressure there, but I do 

not just take it as the gospel either that when people tell me that 

you are not meeting the cost. That is why we want to do this study. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
379 

In the meantime, we keep pushing back and saying, well, what else 

are you doing in terms of how you are managing this? 

Ms. EMERSON. Well, I am just worried that in situations in some 

parts of the country we are not even getting reimbursed for what 

we are doing now, and then we are going to have something layered on top of it. And I am not complaining about the layered on 

top. I am complaining about the fact that we are in a poorer school 

district that is in a national forest that keeps getting less and less 

money, and this is happening not only in my district but other districts too. 

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

Let me ask you about food deserts if I might. And then, Madam 

Chair, I am going to have to leave because I have got a meeting 

that started 20 minutes ago. The Administration has proposed an 

array of priorities for improving access to foods, including its 

Healthy Food Initiative, targeting the problem of food deserts. And 

one part of this actually concerns the Subcommittee on which I am 

ranking, and that is the Financial Services Subcommittee. There is 

a Treasury Department program, you know through the CDFI. And 

an example of one of the huge past successes of the program is the 

Super Giant store over in Anacostia, which is now one of the companies, I might say a foreign-owned company’s most successful 

store. 

So I come from a rural area, and I am talking to families and 

it is a huge ordeal sometimes to go to the grocery store, seriously 

an hour long trip. And you have to to take the whole family. You 

do not have a big enough car to bring the stuff home, et cetera. But 

I wonder if it is the best way, if this is one of the better ways to 

combat hunger and improved nutrition, that is to use our tax dollars to subsidize the construction of grocery stores, and apparently 

very profitable ones. So there is no one who wants to tackle the 

problem of hunger more, I just want to make, I want somebody to 

convince me that subsidizing Super Giant that is very profitable is 

in the best interest of the taxpayers. If we could not be somehow 

putting that money into other—using it for other ways to help 

make up the deficit that we see in combating hunger among children now? 

Mr. CONCANNON. No, I appreciate the question, and I am very familiar with your leadership in a whole bunch of these areas. Let 

me say that I have lived in States where, again rural States, but 

where there were huge challenges for poor people that have to travel many, many miles to get access to a supermarket. And in general the supermarkets, the prices are better and often the quality 

of choices are better for people. But I understand you are going to 

be hearing from several other under secretaries because this initiative that is one of the priorities at USDA is really under the aegis 

of several of the other mission areas within USDA, the Rural Development and one of the others. So I think you are going to be 

hearing from them in subsequent weeks when they are here before 

the Committee. But I know there is always that balance between 

or the tension between our wanting to extend and support with tax 

dollars initiatives that ultimately help people but you do not want 

to—you do not want to unfairly, or at least be perceived to be unVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
380 

fair in terms of taxpayers with private entities or private companies. 

Ms. EMERSON. Yes, I mean it is a really tough, tough balancing 

act. Do you know yet what the key factors that the USDA will use 

in considering how you target that money? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I do not. 

Ms. EMERSON. Okay. 

Mr. CONCANNON. It is Rural Development and one of the other 

mission areas, yes. 

Ms. EMERSON. Well, okay. Thank you. 

SNAP—INDEFINITE FUNDING AUTHORITY

Ms. DELAURO. Let me ask you a question about the budget language that says, ‘‘Make such sums as may be necessary available 

for the SNAP benefit payments.’’ Congress did this kind of indefinite authority in the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations 

Act in light of the uncertainty of program growth due to the recession. There have been previous concerns that this indefinite authority could lead to less oversight by the agency when projecting 

a SNAP cost in the budget. What budgetary controls would be in 

place to ensure that estimates provided in the President’s budget 

continue to receive the same level of scrutiny they currently do? 

When would you use the indefinite authority and for what expenses? And I have another question, which is why have you not 

proposed a contingency fund for the Child Nutrition Program? And 

should a contingency fund be provided for that account as well? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I think the last question is the easiest one for 

me. I believe that that has been recommended in the past and was 

not, it just was not found to be a policy that was supported or enacted. But I think were the Congress to be so disposed, I think we 

would be more than happy to work with you on that, on the latter 

question. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Now, I do not know, it obviously preceded me 

long—by many months or interactions, that question of how we 

deal with a contingency. I know in the SNAP program, historically 

the agency I think has been, has had amazingly reliable estimates 

on—based on both experience and what is going on in the economy 

on enrollment numbers. But I would have to admit that in this current economy, I do not think anybody anticipated we would be in 

as an extended downturn as we are currently in. And I think it requires ongoing oversight on our part. I pay attention, I can tell you 

that, each month to where those figures are and what they are 

leading us toward. This budget as proposed, as I mentioned earlier, 

the figure estimates about 43 million in people enrolled in the program in 2011. And that is based on again current trends as well 

as econometric models that have been used to forecast that. 

I do not know if you want to add anything to that, Julie? Do you 

want to say something? 

Ms. PARADIS. Well, just to clarify that it would clearly only be 

used when participation exceeded expectations. 

Ms. DELAURO. Expectations. 

Ms. PARADIS. And we monitor that as you know very, very regularly. And it would only be used for benefits and State admin costs, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
381 

not for anything else. So I think it is something that we would 

have a pretty good handle on, we would be coordinating with the 

Congress on a regular basis—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. 

Ms. PARADIS [continuing]. Were we to have that authority. 

CNP—FARM TO SCHOOL TEAMS

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. The Farm to School Teams, it is $2 

million for these tactical teams. What are the obstacles that keep 

schools from buying locally? What is FNS currently doing to help 

schools buy from local food producers? Are these tactical teams 

being deployed already? Do we have some idea of how many districts will be visited, selected? How many staff are dedicated to this 

effort? What do we propose to do with these tactical teams, somebody just describe that to me? 

Mr. CONCANNON. We do not have—we currently have an initiative within the Department called Farm to School. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yes. 

Mr. CONCANNON. And that was promoted, conceptually and otherwise, by the Deputy Secretary. It involves individuals from the 

FNS mission area as well as from AMS, the Ag Marketing Service, 

another mission area. And we are working with both. At the current time, I am told, the last update I had on this, there were more 

than 100 schools across the country that had applied to receive 

some technical assistance from this tactical farm team. There is a 

$2 million budget request—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Right. 

Mr. CONCANNON [continuing]. That was in this budget as well, 

both to provide support to that team and also to provide assistance 

to schools. 

Ms. DELAURO. What kind of assistance? Give me an example of 

what they are doing here? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, I will give you an example. I was up in 

Somerville, Massachusetts back a couple of months ago. Somerville 

has a school system, has now a history. The City of Somerville but 

also the school system is very committed to Healthier US Schools, 

walking to school, healthier meals in school, but now for about 

three years, the Somerville school system has been purchasing locally grown, meaning within 50 miles, foods for use in the schools. 

Ms. DELAURO. Sure. 

Mr. CONCANNON. But the school service director said to me that 

she has gradually built up doing this because you need to be assured that if you put this on the menu for three weeks from now, 

that those carrots are going to be there or whatever particular commodities are required. 

And she gave the example of local farmers wanting to grow 

squash. And the school department wanting to purchase squash. 

But she said we cannot possibly have farmers coming into 12 different schools delivering squash and then expecting those 12 different elementary schools to somehow spend all the time to peel 

the squash and get it ready. So she said, ‘‘When we met with the 

farmers, the farmer came to the agreement that one farmer would 

buy the equipment to peel all the squash.’’ All the other suppliers 

would bring their squash to him or her, I do not know the details 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
382 

of that farmer, and that farmer would then deliver it to the 12 

schools. And she said, ‘‘Since then we now have relationships with 

like five or six other school systems where we are jointly purchasing.’’ 

So it is a learning experience on the part of the schools that are 

procuring these goods and on the farmers that are supplying it. 

And that is the kind of information and technical assistance we 

would provide. We do not know enough about this yet. 

Up in your area, the chief chef or the chief school service person 

in the New Haven schools has told me the same thing. They are 

buying from within a 100 mile radius of New Haven from Rhode 

Island and parts of Massachusetts for certain goods. And the 

poundage each year is going up. So it is a new experience. It is sort 

of going back to the old days in many respects, in the positive 

sense of old days. And we know there are benefits for fresher foods. 

That kids for whatever reason, if they have a sense and a knowledge of where the foods come from, this enhances their interest in 

eating some of those foods, and it also helps the local economy. And 

why truck this stuff across the country from just one or two States. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Mr. Kingston. 

NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS CONTINGENCY RESERVES

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Voncannon, the— 

or Concannon, I am sorry, the interesting thing, we had a full Committee hearing the other day in which Mr. Orszag, Mr. Geithner 

and Ms. Romer spoke. Rosy pictures of how well the stimulus is 

working. I was even told my concern, because I kept looking at unemployment going from 8 percent to nearly 10 percent, I was told 

by Ms. Romer I needed to go talk to the regular people, and I 

would see how well it is working. So I have a hard time doing that 

in one of my counties with 16 percent unemployment and many of 

them with 14 percent. But here you are I think being a lot more 

realistic, a lot more accurate, but it is so frustrating, ‘‘Oh, yes, the 

economy is turning around,’’ and yet you have the contingency reserve. You are asking for $2 billion for it. Maybe you guys ought 

to get the economic forecast and get Mr. Geithner and some of 

these other people in other positions because it is totally inconsistent with they are saying. And we had a two hour hearing on 

it, about how great things were. 

Ms. DELAURO. He did not say that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. He said that, Madam Chair. 

Ms. DELAURO. He did not say how great things are. They talked 

about—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. It was trending, you are right. It is trending. But 

if it is trending, why are you asking for a $2 billion contingency 

reserve? What are the uncertainties that remain? What is out 

there? And we all know what they are. We do know the economy 

is bad. I am just saying rhetorically. I wish the rest of the team 

might get on the same message. But what are the uncertainties in 

terms of that $2 million—$2 billion, is it just the economic concerns 

or are there other issues? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I think it is principally the economy. This is 

the longest, as I say in every talk I give outside of buildings like 

this, in our lifetime, short of— and none of us here are old enough 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
383 

to have been around in the Great Depression, this is the deepest 

recession and the most extended in the history of the country. And 

the need for these programs has never been as urgent as it is right 

now. 

Ms. DELAURO. And does not SNAP lag, I mean in terms of the 

economy? 

Mr. CONCANNON. SNAP lags, but also I might say Mr. Zandi, 

who I think has testified before Congress for Moody’s, said that the 

SNAP program is the best example of a stimulus program because 

it goes right out there, 85 percent of these benefits are spent within 

30 days. 

Ms. DELAURO. I think it is important to note that Mr. Zandi was 

the economist for Senator McCain in the presidential election, who 

said it was one of the most stimulative programs there is, is to get 

food out. 

Mr. CONCANNON. And so I mean I think to your question it is 

just uncertainty about—I think things are turning. I spoke to a 

businessperson up in Maine today, I am from Maine, and I asked 

him about business and he said, ‘‘You know, we are seeing some 

signs.’’ So I hope he is right. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, listen, I hope so too. And I hope this Administration is successful on many of the things that they want to accomplish for a better America. It is far more important that politics, but I am not impressed with their economic recovery and apparently you guys are not either because you are hedging the bet 

that it is not turning the way that they are saying. 

But now on the WIC Program, that is discretionary money, not mandatory, 3 percent increase. The contingency is $175 million, is 

that right? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Ms. PARADIS. It is $250. 

Mr. KINGSTON. $250 million? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Since that is discretionary, why do we need a contingency because it would appear to me that unlike a mandatory 

program, that would be a little bit more—there would be more 

flexibility in it? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, I think one of the things in WIC, we want 

to make sure that we can—that is why I mention it in my opening 

remarks, the President’s budget proposes to fully fund the major 

nutrition programs so that we can avoid telling a pregnant woman 

who comes into a WIC clinic, you have to go on a waiting list. 

And we anticipate—we are currently just over 9 million people 

in WIC per month; for 2011, we are anticipating in excess of 10 

million per month, partly, again, reflecting the economy, but also 

wanting to be sure that we can serve those pregnant women and 

their infants. 

Because it is one of the best investments—I mention that in my 

testimony—we can make in terms of preventive health care, cost 

avoidance in the future. In the Medicaid program alone, it saves 

money by getting healthy foods to pregnant women, their infants, 

and very young children. 

So we don’t want to be in a situation, which the program has 

been in past years—I can speak from a State level—of putting 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
384 

waiting lists on WIC. Because you are telling somebody who is already pregnant, or an infant that has been born, I am sorry. We 

have to put you on a waiting list. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask Dr. Steele. Have we ever put WIC 

supplements on a supplemental bill? You know, where we did these 

maybe disaster bills or things like that? 

Mr. STEELE. Well, in the Jobs Bill, there was additional money 

for WIC. In fact, there is a standby—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. So we could actually do that without endangering 

the population that Mr. Concannon has spoken of. 

Mr. STEELE. Well, the only problem we have here is that we are 

forecasting a year in advance. And there is a lot of uncertainty 

about participation that far in advance, and our estimates are not 

perfect. So it is a little bit of a cushion. It is not a big cushion. $250 million is not a real big cushion, you know. So I think it is just, you 

know, to be safe, like he says. 

Mr. KINGSTON. But you do have a lot more flexibility on discretionary than you would a mandatory program? 

Mr. Steele. Oh, definitely. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. 

NUTRITION EDUCATION

Ms. DELAURO. I will get back to that one, if we can. 

Let me ask a question with regard to nutrition education. In the testimony, the budget request, approximately $1.1 billion in resources for improving the diets, nutrition knowledge, and behavior, 

as well as to help promote the importance of physical activity. 

I asked in—I discussed this last year with Mr. O’Connor. And he 

said that FNS was implementing a new reporting requirement to 

monitor the effectiveness of the funds we currently spend on nutrition education. 

The $1.1 billion in the budget is a lot of money on education, nutrition education. And I believe in nutrition education, but we don’t 

know whether it is effective or not effective. 

Where is FNS in implementing the new reporting requirement 

on education? And can you point to concrete examples of current 

nutrition education that is effective through FNS programs? 

Let me just tell you that this is a stumbling block for me in 

terms of understanding how this really works. Sometimes the staff 

looks at me with eyes glazed over. I deal with communication and 

getting messages out from a perspective of both having run campaigns and in my own campaign effort. 

When you translate to a communications specialist what you 

want to about your campaign, they take that. They translate that 

into a script or materials. That gets—that message gets tested to 

see whether or not it provides any attraction with the audience you 

are trying to persuade, you know, to vote for you, to buy your product or, you know, your brand, or whatever it is. 

Explain to me—I don’t understand how this works. And we do 

this, by the way, in very short periods of time because we don’t 

have two years to test and to see what is effective. You have a very 

short window in which to get something out there and, you know, 

to get some benchmark here. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
385 

How does this work? What is happening? What are the messages? What works? What doesn’t work? What do we know that is 

effective? I want to provide education materials, but quite frankly, 

don’t want to provide good money—and I am not saying after bad; 

I don’t even know what is good or not good that is out there. 

I am asking for help in terms of understanding the education 

materials and communication process. 

Mr. CONCANNON. If I may, I can start. I can start to try to answer that. 

First of all, I think the genesis of your question speaks to an 

issue I am mindful of with Dr. Post next to me. Studies done or 

a polling done last year show that 60 percent of Americans were 

familiar with the Dietary Guidelines and with My Food Pyramid. 

Ms. DELAURO. My Food Pyramid. Okay. 

Mr. CONCANNON. But only about 2 percent of Americans actually 

practiced fully, lived up to, adhered to the requirements of it. So 

there is a difference between having an intellectual awareness and 

then converting it into behavior. 

And I think that is where we are currently part of a working 

group because we are very concerned about that in the Administration, just as an aside. Now let me get back to your original question. 

Ms. DELAURO. The reporting requirement. Yes. 

Mr. CONCANNON. More work, definitely much work, underway. 

Some additional requirements were initiated last year. And EARS 

is an acronym that stands for Early—what does it stand for? Early 

Assessment—Education Assessment. That just started in 2009, and 

we’ll have a report done the middle of this summer, I believe, on 

the outcomes of that. But we are—— 

Ms. DELAURO. The outcomes of? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Of the reporting we are getting from EARS in 

terms of what effect is it having. What can we ascertain by the 

messages that go out to people? And we share the general concern 

about—we are committed to education, committed to nutrition education. We know it has to be part of what we do. But we also want 

to know what seems to make a difference. 

Ms. DELAURO. What happens? Do States ask you for the materials, and then they are distributed in the State? Is there any—I 

mean, how is this used? Is it getting out to the schools? Or is this 

part of what your assessment is? 

Mr. CONCANNON. It is used in a variety of ways. All 50 States 

have it. But some States—like California has a very significant 

program compared to other States, even larger than the population 

of California would singly account for. And it is used in a variety 

of—it is used with SNAP, you know, food stamp recipients. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yes, I know. 

Mr. CONCANNON. It is used with community organizations. There 

is a lot of material that gets printed. 

Ms. DELAURO. It is about 339—is that million? 

Mr. CONCANNON. $350 million or so in round figures, I think. 

Ms. DELAURO. For the SNAP program? Yes. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. For SNAP ed, for the SNAP education program associated with that. And again, it makes sense to say, let’s 

try to educate the people so that when they are using their beneVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00385 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
386 

fits, they purchase the most nutritious foods that they can for the 

funds available to them. 

Ms. DELAURO. That number, let me use that number. And I have 

got to yield to my colleague. But the $338 million, is what you are 

assessing now its effectiveness? Is the use of that, is that doing the 

job? Is it—— 

Mr. CONCANNON. I think the reporting of what was started last 

year was as a result of the hearing, was it not? Part of an assessment, I am told, by OMB as well as interaction—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. So by some time later this year, we will 

know—— 

Mr. CONCANNON. We will have—— 

Ms. DELAURO [continuing]. About whether or not—what these 

materials are. They are printed materials. Are they TV ads? Are 

they radio announcements? If we could just get some idea of what 

it is that is going out there and that we are paying for. Okay? I 

think that would be very, very—it would be helpful to me. I think 

it would be helpful to the committee. 

And I would love to see some of the ads. I mean, you know, when 

they had the frog with the beer, they figured out that the frog 

could sell the beer, you know. Ribbit, ribbit, whatever it was. You 

know, we need to figure out what is helping people get to where 

we want them to go. 

Dr. Post, I am sorry. I am sorry, Jack. 

Mr. POST. I have an additional comment, Madam Chair. We do 

know that there is a benefit in looking at the weight of the evidence out there. And because we now have a tool within the Food, 

Nutrition, and Consumer Services to do that through this evidence 

analysis library that we have built, we will be looking at and working with FNS, working at the evidence base to compile research on 

the best practices, to make sure that we can figure out what makes 

good instructional systems in classrooms as well as communities. 

And that work is beginning now. So we will be able to evaluate 

these systems. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. I will look forward to the material. Thank 

you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
387 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 801 here 57780B.093
388 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 802 here 57780B.094
389 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as I was telling 

you guys earlier today, the kind of part of the hearings that the 

Chair and Mr. Farr and I like is when everybody is gone and we 

can start really getting into discussion. So this is good. [Laughter.] 

FEDERAL AND STATE PARTNERSHIPS

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, one of the things as I listen to the discussion, I feel that so much of our problem is that we have this 

centralized Washington mandate on so many of these things. And 

yet, as I hear you describe the school in Georgia, for example, and 

the squash up in Connecticut, that a lot of it is local leadership. 

And I feel so often we tie the hands through—well-intended, 

some of it to protect the physical responsibility, physical integrity, 

the eligibility, things where Mr. Farr and I could probably find a 

lot of common ground. 

But, you know, I am wondering if, going back to block grants or 

going back to certain areas that are targeted, which doesn’t empower Washington, and I understand block grants are—you know, 

we just have this counter-intuitive—we don’t want to let go of 

power. 

But I do think that if you took some States, some regions, and 

said, look, you know. Why don’t we try some things, have some real 

serious on-the-job pilot programs, figure out who does what, give 

them a lot of flexibility, I am wondering if that would work. 

Because I am interested in this EARS program, too, because I 

don’t know how—and I had written a note to the Chair, serious 

and jokingly, that this is like sex education. The kids considered 

it interesting, but nothing that applies to them. 

And, you know, as you know, we spent lots of money on sex education and, you know, we are still wondering what works and what 

doesn’t. And we are still committed to it, but it kind of gets back 

to that local leadership, that nutritionalist in Georgia and the principal in Connecticut on the squash to say, look. If you give me the 

tools and maybe get out of my way a little bit, give me two or three 

years, let me come back and show you some things. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Well, let me say my career, long career, was in 

State government. And I dealt with all the major Federal agencies 

in Health and Human Services. And the Food and Nutrition Service historically—I don’t just say it because I am here now; I had 

no plan to be here now—was the most flexible in terms of working 

with States. 

And we still are in terms of—I mean, that is an ethic; I am not 

saying it because I am here—of regional offices saying to States, 

we encourage waivers. We don’t just say, you may waive. We say 

to States that are struggling, why don’t you think about reducing 

your intervals, your time intervals, for reporting. Why don’t you go 

to telephone interviews. Get rid of finger imaging. And in the case 

of schools, so much of it does depend on local leadership. It really 

does. And I think the value—we try to promote that, of wanting to 

be supportive. 

And to your question on get out of the way and try some things, 

one of the proposals in the budget here is to give governors—it is 

to say to governors, you want policy relief? You want waivers? We 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
390 

will give you that if you want to really take on the issue of solving 

hunger in your State. 

Because we don’t have all the answers right now. We think these 

programs are part of it, but they may have to do some other things. 

And we want to say, let’s try that, in some States competitively, 

say what would you be willing to try, and let us get out of the way. 

I know over in health care—I hate to go back there too much— 

but in the Medicaid program, 1,115 waivers are major waivers that 

are given under Federal authority. And States have done—the 

most creative States have done wonderful things with it. And I believe in it, and I believe in States as laboratories. I absolutely do. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, you know, I think we would all be interested in your ideas on that because—and since my governor, Sonny 

Perdue, who is Republican, has embraced many of the education 

reforms that President Obama is proposing right now and—you 

know, I think there is a great willingness on the State government 

side to, you know, let’s figure out what works and let’s try to get 

together on it. And we have so much—I don’t know. I think there 

is a lot of great power decentralized. 

WIC—ADJUNCT ELIGIBILITY

I wanted to, though, say I want to talk a little bit about that eligibility question because I think you have asked a good question. 

But aren’t something like 53 percent of the kids on WIC today infants? It is a pretty high number. 

Mr. CONCANNON. It is 49 percent of infants. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay, 49 percent. But in that group, not everybody is at the same income level. And some of them are qualified 

because they are on Medicaid, and some States have a very high 

Medicaid eligibility, like maybe as high as 300 percent of Federal 

poverty level, I think. Is that—— 

Mr. CONCANNON. No. The WIC kids cannot be above 185 percent 

of the Federal—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. I know they can’t. But in some States, I understand that if you are on Medicaid, you can still get WIC even if you 

are above the 185. 

Mr. CONCANNON. That I am unfamiliar with, actually. And there 

would be a few States—again, I would back up. That is the SCHIP 

that—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. I am told from the smart people sitting behind 

me that that is correct. So if you are thinking it is not correct— 

yes, adjunct eligibility. And in some States, you can be very high— 

I say 300 percent—to get on Medicaid. I am not sure where that 

number is. 

But the reason why I say that is because if we are running out 

of money and the lowest of the income folks aren’t getting fed, then 

in that 49 percent there may be some people in there who maybe 

shouldn’t be on WIC because they are on WIC at the expense of 

the lower folks, I would suggest. 

You know, not saying that is absolute. But I would say that is 

why some of that eligibility stuff is of interest to me. 

Ms. DELAURO. Let’s go to three minutes, Sam, because we are 

going to have to vote and we can’t come back. We have got several 

votes. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
391 

Mr. FARR. Three? I can’t do three minutes. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yes, you have to. 

Mr. FARR. Well, this is very interesting—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. We are okay. We are okay. I am sorry. I 

thought it was a vote. Go ahead, Sam. 

POVERTY IN AMERICA

Mr. FARR. This is a very interesting discussion. And it is a discussion because if you look at the membership of this committee, 

the best-kept secret in Washington is that most of these people are 

not coming from agriculture, per se, not agriculture in their States. 

But you look at Jesse Jackson from Chicago and Maurice Hinchey—we are rural, but we are—Rosa, myself. I mean, we are here 

because USDA is really the first responder to poverty in America. 

Perhaps we made a big mistake when we created the whole new 

Homeland Security Administration. We should have put you over 

there because then you would be labeled as first responders, and 

all we would have to declare is that we have a disaster in poverty 

in America with this recession and money would be just flowing to 

try to solve the problem. 

But I think, Jack, what is really missing here—and I liked your 

idea of maybe giving—you know, put the challenge out there to the 

States for a waiver because Arne Duncan in education is telling us 

that these schools where we are feeding these kids—and in my district I just got ten of them that are ranked at the bottom of the 

bottom—I mean, there is probably not a kid in those schools that 

speak English. So it has a lot to do with cultural issues. But they 

are all in—probably come from poverty backgrounds. 

In asking him how you solve this problem, he says, the only way 

you can solve it in those communities is to have what you call total 

wrap-around. You take all of the social programs and all of these 

things, and it is all integrated. But it is very hard to get all of 

these silos that we create at the Federal, State, and local levels to 

really get together. 

It seems to me that the challenge that we have—and Jack, this 

is where you get at because what you are concerned about is waste. 

I am concerned about waste because waste doesn’t get to solving 

the problem. 

And maybe what we ought to do is challenge that we will give 

these—if you can create these wrap-arounds in our communities, in 

our schools—this is related to school, and this is part of the services of the school—or in the community with WIC and so on—I 

mean, it is all about infants and children. Right? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

CNP—EQUIPMENT GRANTS

Mr. FARR. And it is also about nutrition because that is the other 

thing. You are Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services. 

Let me ask you a question. You talked—and Rosa was talking 

about messaging, and you talked about going to the school. You 

know, we have your service right up there on the wall. Look at that 

picture up there. What is missing in that picture? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Fruits. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
392 

Mr. FARR. Yes. Fruits. Fruits and vegetables. In fact, we ought 

to get new pictures and get a fruit and vegetable in there because 

we have got a message. Right? It is not just about waffles and 

fruit—whatever that—maybe that is apple. I don’t know what is in 

that cup. 

So I want to ask a question about salad bars. I’m carrying legislation to try to get them in every school in America. I am told that 

many schools would like to have salad bars, but lack the financial 

resources to purchase the equipment. 

USDA’s regulations at 7 CFR 3016.3 and OMB Circular A–87 define equipment for the purposes of the National School Lunch Program equipment assistance grants as articles, tangible personal 

property with a useful life of no more than one year, and a perunit acquisition cost of $5,000. 

The typical school salad bar—which is made of plastic; it is non- electric—costs $3,000. Schools are not eligible to request salad bars 

with the ARRA applications, nor will they be able to use funding 

through the fiscal year 2010 AG appropriations or the CNR. 

And so what funding sources are available for schools wanting to 

purchase salad bars? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I am not sure about the citation you cite, Con- gressman. I know in this budget we are proposing a $25 million 

capital line to allow schools to buy cooling equipment or to replace 

stoves or what. We know that America’s schools are deeply inadequately resourced as far as infrastructure. In the ARRA funds, you awarded $100 million, and we had $640 

million in requests right away for it. And that was in a very short 

turnaround. I have seen some of that, in that school. I was out in 

Georgia. They put more additional cooling equipment in. 

So schools have—before you even get to salad bars, I think 

schools have even more basic needs around basic cooling equipment. Because if you are going to have some of those goods in the 

salad bar, they are going to have to be properly—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, as you look at these regulations and—I mean, the idea of putting a minimum threshold of $5,000 per unit, it 

seems to me if we are trying to get a salad bar, get that—what it 

is going to take to get into that lunch line right there, it might not 

cost that much. 

Are you familiar with that—— 

Ms. PARADIS. Well, I am not familiar with the citations. But I do 

know that with the ARRA funding, salad bars do qualify unless 

they are extraordinarily high end, and that some of it was used to 

purchase salad bars. And we certainly encourage that, and would 

use any additional funding we get to do that. 

But I would like, when I go back to my office, to take a look at 

those citations so that I better understand that because that just 

seems a little perplexing. I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. We certainly would not want to do anything to discourage 

schools from purchasing salad bars with this funding. 

[The information follows:] 

School districts can use meal reimbursements to buy food service equipment at 

any time from the non-profit food service account. However, Congress recognized 

that these funds are often fully utilized to provide meals on a day-to-day basis and 

therefore are not available for large equipment purchases. Taking this into consideration, Congress provided $100 million for food service equipment through the AmerVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 057780 PO 00000 Frm 00392 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A780P2.XXX A780P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
393 

ican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and another $25 million 

through FY 2010 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Equipment Grants. 

Food service equipment, one example being salad bars, may be purchased with 

either an ARRA or FY 2010 NSLP Equipment Grant provided that the equipment 

is used to serve reimbursable meals. The equipment purchased with these funds 

benefits school meal programs by enabling them to offer more nutritious meals and 

fresh fruits and vegetables. The grant request to purchase equipment must fit into 

one of four focus areas, one of which is to improve the quality of school food service 

meals that meet the dietary guidelines. While we do not have data breaking out 

salad bar purchases per se, the purchase of salad bar equipment lends itself to improving the quality of school food service meals that meet dietary guidelines, and 

we are aware anecdotally that some schools have obtained salad bar equipment 

using these funds. 

The food service equipment procured must meet the definition of equipment as 

defined in 7 CFR 3016.3 ‘‘as articles of nonexpendable, tangible personal property 

with a useful life of more than one year and a per unit acquisition cost of $5,000.’’ 

On occasion the definition of equipment has presented a challenge; however, in 

many cases State and local level thresholds are lower than the Federal threshold, 

which helps schools meet the requirement. 

Mr. FARR. Nor would I. Thank you. 

SNAP—BENEFITS ISSUED BIWEEKLY

Ms. DELAURO. The SNAP benefits are provided to participants at 

the beginning of the month, and most participants spend the benefits in the first part of the month and then have to struggle 

through the rest of the month with little or no food, as I understand it. 

One recommendation that has been made is to begin to provide 

SNAP benefits on a biweekly basis. It seems to me this is a common-sense approach, and most people get paid biweekly. Can we— 

or why can’t we provide SNAP benefits on a biweekly basis? We 

now have the electronic system to be able to deal with this, and 

that means that—well, I think it just—I think in two pieces it 

would deal both with nutrition and, you know, with regard to the 

hunger issue here, that you would combine these two pieces. 

So I would just like to get your view. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I am advised that that was prohibited to break 

up the benefit in the last Farm Bill. But I am also mindful—I just 

read something, in getting ready for this hearing—in which a person, you know, we have instances where, if we could provide that 

benefit, let’s say, twice a month, that it might have a beneficial effect on purchasing and people going from having a house full of 

food resources at the beginning of the month and being, you know, 

starved at the end of the month. 

And I don’t know what the origin of the prohibition against 

that—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Can we maintain the accuracy rate that you have 

by doing this twice a month? And I will go back to find out why 

the Farm Bill, you know, did that specifically. But my presumption 

is it may have to do with waste, fraud, and abuse. But do you think 

we could deal with this accurately? 

Mr. CONCANNON. I don’t think it would, either. I don’t think it 

would have an effect on waste or abuse. It may have something to 

do with the ability of States to issue benefits, or it may have been 

concern on the part of people that it would result in fewer benefits 

going to people. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
394 

But it is certainly worth looking at. It is the kind of thing that 

I think a pilot—to try a pilot to see what benefits it provides for 

people. We certainly would be open to working with you on that. 

SNAP—COMMUNITY NETWORKS

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Terrific. That’s great. 

The President’s budget requests $121⁄2 million for community 

networks to promote healthy eating. Can you give us some examples of how this program will work? What strategies do you see 

communities using with this funding to encourage healthy eating, 

and how will you judge the effectiveness of these pilots? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Madam Chair, I just finished reading—and actually, Dr. Post provided it to me at my request—but Health Affairs is one of the major, you know, health journals in the country, 

I think one of the best. 

And it devoted its most recent issue just to the whole issue of nutrition, obesity. Dr. Brownell, who was here from Yale testifying—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Oh, yes. Sure. 

Mr. CONCANNON [continuing]. Is the author of one of the articles 

in there. But it was for the first time I saw the term ‘‘obesogenic,’’ 

obesogenic meaning obesity-promoting, facilitating. And one of the 

authors said, you know, we live in an American society that is 

obesogenic insofar as we promote, you know, processed foods that 

add too much weight to people. We push for bigger portion sizes. 

We don’t provide access to healthy foods for people. 

And they basically came to the conclusion that part of it is a cultural thing, that it isn’t any one thing. It isn’t just that single 

donut that was referred to earlier. It is a variety of practices that 

result in this. 

So that the purpose of the approach, I think, is one that I happen 

to concur with, that I think back analogously to the 1960s and to 

the challenges we had in smoking. And it took a whole series of 

policy and other changes to really reduce the smoking rates in the 

country. 

I think to really solve the problem of obesity is going to take a 

whole series of things, not any one single thing. And so what we 

are interested in in these—in this grant is turning to a community 

and saying, you know, what are the—what steps are you as a 

mayor or city council or county supervisors willing to take in an 

area, for everything from schools to billboards to messaging? 

We know that you see ads on TV that say, you know, you should 

have a hamburger. Guess what? People go out and start snacking. 

There is lots of evidence now that is built up around what promotes and triggers these behaviors on our part. 

So if we have governors, or communities in this case, who say, 

we will take this on in terms of the policies in our schools—I don’t 

want to go back to Somerville, Massachusetts, but they have made 

decisions over the years to have kids walk to school. 

You know, reduce the buses. Have kids walk to school. It is one 

of the elements. You got to have safe streets. You got to have safe 

neighborhoods. 

Ms. DELAURO. Yes. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
395 

Mr. CONCANNON. But they have done some things over time that 

have all reinforced their commitment to healthier living, healthier 

eating. And I think that is what we want to do. 

Ms. DELAURO. So we are going to try these pilot programs, see 

what works. Best practices. 

Mr. CONCANNON. We want to say, what can we do? And creative, 

you know, county supervisors or mayors or what have you in a 

community that say, we will do a variety of things. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. I need to bring Dr. 

Post into this conversation. It has been a bad day for him as a University of Maryland graduate. On national television today, President Obama picked Michigan State over you guys in the bracket. 

And having gone to Michigan State, I find myself once more agreeing with the President. [Laughter.] 

NUTRITION EDUCATION

Mr. KINGSTON. But you had, actually, in your testimony said that obesity costs are $147 billion a year to our country. And so what 

I want to do is ask you what some of those costs are and to talk 

about that little bit. 

But then also to Ms.—is it Paradis? 

Ms. PARADIS. Paradis, yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. It is a French word. That is what I thought. 

Ms. PARADIS. Yes, it is. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And, you know, we go to a lot of food banks or 

Second Harvests and, you know, interested in what you guys do. 

But you also get a lot of free food from manufacturers, and some 

of that might be obesogenic. And yet it—so I am just sort of wondering. And maybe the two of you, if I could hear from the two of 

you on the challenges of that. The costs. 

Mr. POST. Well, in terms of the costs—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes. 

Mr. POST [continuing]. I think it is essentially the costs of health 

care related to coronary heart disease, hypertension, all the other 

dietary-related illnesses that are associated with overweight and 

obesity. And I guess I will look to Julie to perhaps add to—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Because, you know, one of the things that we 

kind of all three of us have talked about a little bit about sort of 

healthy communities, if you could sort of, you know, block grants 

and pilot programs, one of the elements of, you know, in Somerville, Massachusetts the kids walking, Davis, California and I think 

Portland have a 14 percent ridership in bicycles, which is a huge 

deal. 

But it is a major community commitment to get folks there. And 

it is a challenge. But that is part of that cultural shift that we need 

to—I like this word obesogenic. We need to declare war on it. 

Mr. POST. If I could then add to that, at least from the Center’s 

activities, we know that in this future work, especially with this 

edition of the Dietary Guidelines, we are going to have to focus on 

getting to people where they work, where they play, where they 

learn, where they shop, where they buy foods, where they purchase 

foods in a restaurant. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
396 

This time around, we know we need to get to people with those 

actionable, understood, tested messages. And so that is our plan, 

to make sure that we have partnerships not only with Federal 

agencies but also with—and State organizations and the private 

sector. 

So that the constituents that they serve will be those fitness centers or the YWCA or the YMCA or the future leaders of America, 

where we can get those messages out there into the community, 

and people have become aware of them in a way that is more robust than you find right now. 

And perhaps looking at the picture back there, you would have 

those messages even on containers of food. And when those kids go 

to restaurants, they would find them on menus. That is our goal 

this time around, and that is a community-based approach. 

Mr. CONCANNON. You remind me, if I can just add to that, Dr. 

Post is part of a group that again was directed by Congress—he is 

representing the FNS—but with the Federal Trade Commission, 

the FDA, us, and the CDC, working on a recommendation that is 

coming to Congress by the middle of July on food advertising or 

food marketing to children between the ages of 2 and 17. 

And again, that to me is another example of that because if there 

is evidence that if I see an ad that tells me I should have, you 

know, a super-sized burger and something else, chances are I am 

going to—I may not do that, but I am going to be reaching for 

something else. It is just one of those things we have to get out. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Ms. Paradis, are you guys watching those food donations in terms of—I know it is very difficult for you. 

Ms. PARADIS. Well, I hesitate to speak. Let me speak first to the 

USDA foods that are provided to the food bank community. And as 

you probably know, we have worked for, as I recall, at least 20 

years to improve the nutritional quality of those meals, so we 

now—or of those foods. 

So we now are distributing vegetables with far less sodium, 

fruits with far less sugar that are packed in either juice or light 

syrup. We are doing much more with whole grains, whole grain 

pastas. Less fat in the meat products. 

So I think the quality, the nutritional quality, of the USDA foods 

has come a long way, and we feel very good about that. And in fact, 

what we hear from food banks is that the U.S.—that take—those 

food banks that do take TEFAP commodities are very pleased to 

have them and use them, really, as sort of the centerpiece when 

they put together their food baskets or their food bags. 

I haven’t been associated with Feeding America for about three 

and a half years. So I sort of, as I say, hesitate to characterize 

where they might be now. But I do know that when I was there, 

they were in the process of sort of transitioning in terms of their 

mindset with respect to the kinds of foods that they were getting 

from the private sector. 

And in the early days of food banking, they were more than 

happy to take any kind of food that they could get just to feed these 

hungry families. And it was sort of a cultural shift that took some 

time for them to come to understand that the ideal thing was to 

be getting nutritious foods. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
397 

They didn’t have the freezers. They didn’t have the coolers. So 

they have come a long way. They have used our administrative 

funding, to a significant degree, to get the coolers and the freezers 

that they need to be able—and they have reached out into to their 

community, into their agricultural community districts, like Mr. 

Farr’s, that have over-abundance of fresh fruits and vegetables. 

And that is now a very significant part of what the Feeding 

America network does, or at least it was when I left three and a 

half years ago. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, thank you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Farr, do you have any further questions? 

FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple questions, one on 

WIC Fresh. You expanded in the WIC Program in October to include fresh produce. Not necessarily all the answers now, but could 

you provide for the Committee what you have done to make the 

public aware of this change in the WIC Program, and what that 

messaging, as the Chairwoman talked about, is all about? 

And at the same time, we have included in the fruit and vegetable snack program, referring to all the reasons I think you just 

stated, that it is not quite as successful as you hoped it would be 

because kids—some, and some don’t. I mean, they follow the patterns of their parents in what their eating habits are. But could 

you respond on how we could make that work better? 

And then what I want to get into is the TEFAP program and the 

commodity support. But let me—do you want to respond to those 

questions quickly? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes, if I may. Just on the point made on WIC 

also, in this budget we are proposing to fully fund that. We are 

able to do most of what the Institute of Medicine recommended, but 

we did for children; we didn’t do it for adults. We add another $2, 

so that actually, I think, the food package for WIC will be further 

improved as a result of this budget. 

But to your question on how do we—we believe that it is important to try to incent. Every once in a while we get questions: Why 

don’t you prohibit, proscribe, in SNAP certain foods so you can’t 

buy this? And we believe that, one, that would be an unfortunate 

direction to go. 

We think a better way to do is to see—we have a healthy incentive pilot right now that was funded by Congress, and that we will 

be—we will be awarding that later this year. And the goal underlying that is to say: What is the effect of—for example, if I go in 

and buy $50 worth of—in my monthly order, $50 worth of fruits 

and vegetables, to subsidize that so it actually only costs me $25? 

I am making that up. But to create financial incentives. 

And in this budget, we are proposing an additional $6 million to 

further strengthen the educational component with that so that I 

come to know the messaging and can practice it. And I was using 

the example, in talking with Dr. Rob Post here earlier today, of 

some communication just works better than owners. 

And one example that I saw recently said the benefit of having 

a glass of either nonfat milk or 1 percent milk compared to having 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
398 

a glass of whole milk is the difference between four strips of bacon 

on the fat side. 

Well, that is a pretty basic message. I passed that on to one of 

my children, who has young children. That is an understandable 

message. You don’t have to be a chemist or a nutritionist professionally to understand that. 

And so I think we want to get—I believe in the benefit of the 

school programs for—I am committed to—— 

[The information follows:] 

As part of our effort to provide technical assistance to State and local WIC agencies as they implemented the changes to the WIC food packages, FNS developed a 

variety of materials, including a Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Resource Guide that includes lesson plans and educational materials for WIC mothers and children about 

the new WIC food packages. Information about the WIC food package changes has 

also been communicated to the general public on the FNS Web site. In October 

2008, FNS released a set of core nutrition education messages to be used in interventions to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables in FNS nutrition assistance programs. 

Our Office of Research and Analysis will be conducting an evaluation of the Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Program, FFVP, and a report to Congress is due by September 

30, 2011. The evaluation results may provide information that can be utilized in 

making improvements in FFVP operations at the State and local levels. The study 

will estimate program impacts on participating students, including whether children 

experience increased consumption of fruits and vegetables and decreased consumption of less nutritious foods as well as examine how the FFVP is currently being 

implemented. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I will invite you out to our area. We have probably the best elementary science, art, math program all based 

around foods, fresh fruits and vegetables. Kids taking these vegetables, looking at the color, banana, the shape, round, square, oblong, 

whatever it is. 

Mr. CONCANNON. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. Whether you peel it, whether you cook it. They make 

fruit salads out of it, so they get color. They get quantities. Count 

them all. It is first grade, kindergarten stuff. And then the kids eat 

it. 

And you know what the local superintendent of the Safety 

there—he’s the manager—said? What is going in the school? I have 

never seen so many kiwis come through my—and he said the kids 

tell their parents, you have got to buy this, Mom. This is really 

good for us. 

So it is—yes, it works, if we get it out there. 

Mr. CONCANNON. I believe in that. 

TEFAP COMMODITIES

Mr. FARR. But let me ask you because I know time is running 

here on this. I think we have a lot too, and I hope we can all work 

to do a better job, get more fresh produce in all of our programs. 

The TEFAP program and other feeding programs received a 

record number of commodities in 2009. These programs provide, 

you know, emergency feeding assistance to record numbers of people. There are some concerns that the expected levels of commodities that will be available this fiscal year and next is going to hurt 

the ability of these programs to assist with the need. 

What are the commodity levels that you are expecting to provide 

these programs in the rest of this year and next year? And what 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
399 

impact will these commodity levels have on the programs that they 

are benefitting? 

Mr. CONCANNON. First of all, let me acknowledge we believe, 

along with that question—and we hear it from those food banks 

and shelters and so on—they, like us, I think I mentioned in my 

testimony, they are facing unprecedented numbers of people coming their way, just as you mentioned, endless long lines. 

The TEFAP budget proposal that you have before you is $247 

million. That is a slight—that is a 1-plus percent reduction from 

the previous year. And I am told that that reduction is basically 

a function of that benefit is tied to the cost of food in the Thrifty 

Food Plan. So there is a modest reduction in it. 

We also—in addition, we have already purchased this year some 

$60 million in dairy. That occurred back right at the first of the 

year. So I don’t know what the amounts will be on those bonus 

purchases, so to speak. I do know the budget proposal here for 

what I would call the core commodity program is just under $250 

million. 

If you go back just a couple of years, the amounts in that program area, it was only a hundred—about half of that, 130 or 150. 

So it does represent an increase. But last year, there was a significant amount of additional purchase in the bonus foods that came 

to those food banks. 

So I know they are concerned about it. Our budget is—again, the 

core budget is down by about a million and a half, or 11⁄2 percentage points. We have bought some bonus commodities. I don’t know 

what the rest of the year at this point will be in that regard. 

Mr. FARR. Do the commodity folks share with you what they 

think is going to be the—— 

Mr. CONCANNON. I don’t know if even they know at this point. 

But we could certainly ask them. 

Ms. PARADIS. Yes. Mr. Under Secretary, we do have some expectation. I mean, the food banks, I think, are justifiably concerned. 

We do have some indication that bonus commodities may come 

down somewhat. 

And this is very difficult because the food banks really do rely 

on these. But as you know, in agriculture, those bonus levels just 

do fluctuate from year to year. And it is a source of continuing concern. 

Mr. FARR. You know what? I want to end this, but do an exercise 

with my staff here in the building. I take them down to Costco out 

here at Pentagon Center and I have them go to the produce. And 

I say, just read the labels on that store and tell me where that stuff 

comes from. 

And they are just amazed. They say, it is all grown in your district. I said, yes. You know what? If it is on the shelf today, it left 

that district Monday morning. They do team driving and they get 

it here in three days. That product was probably harvested last 

Saturday. 

I mean, we have the ability to bring fresh fruits and vegetables 

anywhere in the world with the incredible transportation and distribution system we have. And, you know, the program here as it 

was stated, it is to support American agriculture. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
400 

The problem is that we have been supporting commodity products which came out of the old, you know, recession eras, and when 

all the commodities can be stored. So what we did is we created 

this financial system, guarantees, so that we could keep farmers, 

the growers, in business because the buyers were saying, I got 

enough wheat, I got enough corn, I got enough beans from last 

year. We are going to control the market flow and I don’t need your 

product this year. 

Well, you can’t have a grower just sort of, you know, selling a 

product one year and then having nothing to sell. So the government stepped in to essentially stabilize the market. And we did a 

damn good job of it. 

And we have now got all these products, and we are worrying— 

you were talking about messaging, and those products have done 

a very good job of getting processed into every kind of food form. 

But because we have never helped the fresh fruits and vegetables, 

they get no subsidies whatsoever. No help. It is all just free market 

enterprise. 

But they are now able to package their goods and get them 

across this country and around the world in days. And there is no 

reason we can’t get them into the feeding chains of our poverty programs that you are running. And that is my—that is what I am 

concerned about. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

NUTRITION EDUCATION

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you. Let me just make one point, which I 

think—we will pass the health care bill on Sunday, and one of the 

pieces that I think is particularly important that hasn’t had that 

much focus or retention is that—that is in menu labeling, which I 

think is going to be real behavioral change. 

I think we are seeing the results of that in New York. I am particularly proud of the legislation in that context, having drafted 

that legislation. But that is not to be self-serving in terms of that 

issue. 

But there was a real consensus between the legislation and the 

industry on looking at how we could provide information to the 

public, especially in the fast food restaurants, where they are about 

to order, looking at the menu board, and can make a decision, an 

informed decision, on what to order and where there will be calories listed next to the items. 

Those are the kinds of—you talk about education. Now, you don’t 

know what people are going to select, but they certainly have the 

information. And we are not all scientists by profession, and they 

can calculate, you know, what is, you know, tuna fish with mayonnaise, roast beef with mustard, et cetera. And so you make inaccurate decisions based on no information. 

I think this information will provide people with a guidepost. 

And I think it is unfortunate that that didn’t see the light of day 

in many respects in the messaging of a health care bill. But I think 

it is particularly important, and I am excited about what can happen as a result of that. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
401 

DIRECT CERTIFICATION

I have a final question, which has to do with—which goes back 

to the issue of eligible families and making sure that they are enrolled for free or reduced price school meals, and what your plans 

are to engage schools in the outreach campaign for the upcoming 

school year. That is a question. 

I also know that Congress has provided $22 million in this year 

in order to improve direct certification rates. And in the meantime, 

we are going to look at the reauthorization as a way to deal with 

this. 

But in the meantime, so a second question is: What are impediments that currently keep children away from being directly certified? And how do we take the steps that are necessary with the 

grant funds to improve this circumstance? And what support are 

you providing to share best practices and support improvement efforts in this regard from now? 

Mr. CONCANNON. Madam Chair, thank you. As you mentioned, 

the $22 million is very important to us. We are targeting that to 

the States that have the lowest rates of direct certification. We believe in certification. We are promoting it missionary style with different States and places. 

The best States, the States who are doing the best job in terms 

of certification, I think I mentioned the last time I was here, Ohio 

being one of them. Kansas being one. Iowa being one. These are 

States that we are finding are doing the data matches at a State 

level. Rather than leaving that to local schools or having schools 

have to go through the drill, do the data matches at a State level 

of all the children on TANF or SNAP, and then feed that down to 

the schools. 

When you were talking about getting product across the country, 

it is very easy to communicate that in terms of data matches and 

so on. So we are urging and telling States, that is one of the things 

to do. We have sent letters out to States, to Commissioners of Education as well as to Health and Human Service Commissioners and 

Directors, as well, saying, this is an opportunity. 

And whenever we go out to States, we also say, one of the triggers on that—and I said this when I was out in California recently—if States would do a better job enrolling people in SNAP, 

that is not the end of the story. That is a wonderful help and it 

is needed for them, but that extends and that benefits the schools 

because those kids automatically then come into the certification 

process. 

So we try to convey to people the benefit and the efficacy of, one, 

enrolling the people that are eligible; some States are doing a much 

better job on that over in SNAP. But then use direct certification. 

Use that State level as an example of data match, but also the frequency of doing the data matches. 

New York City is a place where they are doing the data matches 

a half dozen times a year. We are aware of other States in the 

country where they do the data match after October 1, when typically the States require them for census purpose to say, this is how 

many kids we have. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
402 

And we say, we all know people whose financial circumstances—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Have changed. 

Mr. CONCANNON [continuing]. Changed, especially in this economy. So we say, do the data match frequently. And it benefits kids, 

but it also benefits your schools when schools are struggling with 

revenues. 

And the school that I was in a couple weeks ago for breakfast, 

even though it was one of that county’s wealthier areas, even they 

pointed out to me that just over the past couple years, they are 

now up to about 35 percent of the kids in free and reduced, when 

it was running single digits two years ago. 

So, I mean, we are seeing, you know, the effect of that. We are 

messaging it through our regional offices and in any messaging we 

have to do with State agencies. 

Ms. DELAURO. Okay. Thank you. You have been very patient, 

you know, with the time here, with your time, and we are appreciative of that. 

It is an important critical area that you all are engaged in, and 

I can’t tell you how gratifying it is. We have an unbelievable team. 

And we thank you for your candor. We thank you for your commitment to this area. 

We are committed on this committee, across the aisle, to both the 

issue of hunger and nutrition, and also making sure that we utilize 

the resources in the most efficient and the most effective way. 

We also understand that the resources are not—you know, that 

they do have boundaries around them. But I would just say to that, 

I will go back to Harry Truman, President Truman and what he 

talked about. And making sure that the children of this Nation are 

well-fed is part of our national security. But it is a moral responsibility. 

And we know you take your moral responsibility very seriously. 

We do as well. And I am of the view that—where I come from in 

terms of my own philosophical views is that government does have 

a moral responsibility in these areas. 

And we want to work with you to make sure that you can exercise what you need to do, and with the accountability that you 

need, but that we are carrying out that responsibility to provide 

food and good nutrition to the people of this country. So thank you 

very, very much for your good work. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
403 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 837 here 57780B.095
404 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 838 here 57780B.096
405 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 839 here 57780B.097
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Brownell, Dr. Kelly .............................................................................................. 217, 222 

Chilton, Dr. Mariana ........................................................................................... 230, 232 

Concannon, Kevin ........................................................................................ 203, 206, 325 

Faber, Scott........................................................................................................... 241, 243

Fong, P. K ................................................................................................................. 147

Glauber, Joseph ....................................................................................................... 1 

Merrigan, Kathleen ................................................................................................. 55 

Neuberger, Zoe ..................................................................................................... 246, 249 

Paradis, Julia ........................................................................................................... 337 

Post, Robert .............................................................................................................. 349 

Steele, W. S .............................................................................................................. 364 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom...................................................................................................... 6, 10 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(iii) 

I N D E X 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

Page 

Animal Disease Traceability ................................................................................... 71 

Animal Identification ............................................................................................... 71 

Animal Identification Enforcement ........................................................................ 80 

Anthropod-Borne Animal Disease Lab ................................................................... 75 

ARRA Broadband Program ..................................................................................... 44 

Biofuels/Bioenergy Industry .................................................................................... 76 

Biofuels/Bioenergy Investments ............................................................................. 76 

Biomass Crop Assistance Program ......................................................................... 65, 67 

Broadband in Rural America .................................................................................. 63 

Broadband in Rural and Remote Areas ................................................................. 64 

Broadband in Rural Schools ................................................................................... 60 

California’s Cut Flower Industry ............................................................................ 73 

California’s Plant Pests Eradication ...................................................................... 73 

Catfish Inspections Rule ......................................................................................... 95 

Charging Children for School Lunch ..................................................................... 86 

Child Nutrition Programs Delivery ........................................................................ 45 

Chinese Food Safety Processes ............................................................................... 44 

Chinese Poultry Imports and Food Safety ............................................................. 90 

Civil Rights Administration .................................................................................... 62 

Climate Change Research ....................................................................................... 58 

Cost of the Animal Identification System .............................................................. 80 

Cotton and Peanut Storage ..................................................................................... 65 

Country of Origin Labeling ..................................................................................... 78 

Creating a New Animal ID System ........................................................................ 72 

Creating School Gardens ......................................................................................... 85 

Crop Insurance ......................................................................................................... 56 

Departmental Administration Reorganization ...................................................... 64 

Direct Farm Payments ............................................................................................ 65 

Discrimination Settlements for Women and Hispanic Farmers .......................... 93 

Economic Rural Development Plans ...................................................................... 98 

EPA Regulations on Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................. 89 

Farm Safety Net Payment Limitations ................................................................. 63 

Florida Rural Development Director ...................................................................... 95 

Food Safety Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 91 

Food Safety Processing Equivalency ...................................................................... 77 

Food Safety Research at Clemson University ....................................................... 89 

Food Vendor Eligibility Requirements ................................................................... 41 

Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in Schools ................................................................ 46 

FSIS HACCP Regulations ....................................................................................... 92 

Generating Economic Activity in Rural America .................................................. 97 

Grass-Fed Beef From Tennessee ............................................................................ 77 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

iv 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations ................................................................ 90 

Horticulture and the Nursery Industry ................................................................. 60 

Illegal Imports from China ..................................................................................... 90 

Impact of Indirect Land Use on the Biofuels Industry ......................................... 58 

International Agriculture ........................................................................................ 68 

International Feeding Initiative ............................................................................. 66 

Investment in Rural America ................................................................................. 61 

Lack of Chinese Food Safety Cooperation ............................................................. 91 

Legislation to Compensate Women and Hispanic Farmers ................................. 94 

Market Access Program........................................................................................... 64, 66 

Mr. Kingston Opening Statement .......................................................................... 4 

Ms. DeLauro Opening Remarks ............................................................................. 1 

National Animal ID Program ................................................................................. 79 

National Export Initiative ....................................................................................... 69 

National School Lunch Program Suppliers ........................................................... 41 

Nutrition Programs Participation .......................................................................... 86 

Organic Agriculture ................................................................................................. 55 

Parity for Discrimination Against Minority Farmers ........................................... 82 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Boyd ....................................................................... 112 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Davis ...................................................................... 114 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Farr ........................................................................ 108 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Jackson .................................................................. 137 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Kingston ................................................................ 100 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Obey ....................................................................... 140 

Questions for the Record, Ms. Emerson ................................................................. 142 

Questions for the Record, Ms. Kaptur ................................................................... 115 

Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act ........................................................... 46, 68 

Regional Innovation Initiative ................................................................................ 62 

Regional Innovation Initiative and Healthy Food Financing Initiative .............. 96 

Rural Electric Loan Program Budget Cuts ........................................................... 78 

Rural Housing Assistance ....................................................................................... 60 

School Lunch Program............................................................................................. 84, 85 

School Lunch Program Reimbursement ................................................................ 88 

School-to-Farm Issues ............................................................................................. 67 

Secretary Vilsack Opening Statement ................................................................... 6 

SNAP Eligibility Requirements .............................................................................. 83 

South Korean Trade Agreement ............................................................................. 83 

Statutory Authority for FSIS .................................................................................. 92 

Strengthening Food Safety Requirements ............................................................. 42 

Sudden Oak Death Syndrome and Consistent Plant Pests Protocols ................. 87 

The Budget Deficit ................................................................................................... 43 

The First Lady’s Lets Move Initiative ................................................................... 43 

The School Lunch Program ..................................................................................... 59 

Trade with Cuba ...................................................................................................... 69 

USDA’s Role in DOL’s H2A Program Regulations ............................................... 63 

Violations of Food Safety Requirements ................................................................ 42 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Conservation Stewardship Program................................................................... 177, 183 

Dairy Support Programs ......................................................................................... 170 

Food Nutrition Service Programs ........................................................................... 171 

Food Safety Inspection Service ............................................................................... 165 

FSIS Residue Inspection ......................................................................................... 185 

International Food Aid ............................................................................................ 190 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

v 

Mr. Alexander Opening Remarks ........................................................................... 146 

Ms. DeLauro Opening Remarks ............................................................................. 145 

Ms. Fong Opening Statement ................................................................................. 147 

National Organics Program................................................................................. 169, 189 

OIG Budget .............................................................................................................. 188 

Peanut Price Data ................................................................................................... 175 

Questions for the Record, Ms. Kaptur ................................................................... 195 

Risk Management Agency ....................................................................................... 167 

School Nutrition Programs ..................................................................................... 181 

USDA Local Food Procurement .............................................................................. 179 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS 

A La Carte Foods ..................................................................................................... 273 

After School Meals ................................................................................................... 274 

Agricultural Efforts in Ohio .................................................................................... 278 

Budget Deficit .......................................................................................................... 268 

Child Nutrition Programs Reauthorization ........................................................... 268 

Childhood Obesity ................................................................................................ 262, 288 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 299 

Commodities ............................................................................................................. 283 

Community Eligibility for School Meal Programs ................................................ 267 

DoD Fresh Program ................................................................................................. 291 

Farm to School Program...................................................................................... 273, 286 

Food Insecurity ........................................................................................................ 295 

Food Policy Assessment .......................................................................................... 297 

Funding Offsets for Child Nutrition Reauthorization .......................................... 269 

Industry Support ..................................................................................................... 297 

Institute of Medicine Report—Recommendations ................................................. 259 

Kitchen Equipment in Schools ............................................................................... 296 

Ms. Delauro Opening Remarks .............................................................................. 201 

Nutrition Education ............................................................................................. 279, 294 

Nutritional Standards in Schools ........................................................................... 260 

Obesity vs. Hunger .................................................................................................. 280 

Philadelphia Universal School Program ................................................................ 265 

Program Simplification ........................................................................................... 270 

Purchase Locally Grown Commodities ................................................................... 293 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Davis ...................................................................... 316 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Jackson .................................................................. 317 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Kingston ................................................................ 300 

Questions for the Record, Ms. Kaptur ................................................................... 308 

Reauthorization Offsets ........................................................................................... 292 

Reimbursement for Paid Meals .............................................................................. 261 

Reimbursement Rates ............................................................................................. 260 

School Breakfast Program ...................................................................................... 291 

School Wellness Program .................................................................................... 293, 295 

Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program ......................................................... 275 

Statement by Dr. Brownell ..................................................................................... 217 

Statement by Dr. Chilton ........................................................................................ 230 

Statement by Mr. Concannon ................................................................................. 203 

Statement by Mr. Faber .......................................................................................... 241 

Statement by Ms. Neuberger .................................................................................. 246 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

vi 

Streamline Procurement Process ............................................................................ 292 

Sugar Beverages ...................................................................................................... 274 

WIC Program ........................................................................................................... 293 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE 

CNP—Equipment Grants ........................................................................................ 391 

CNP—Farm to School Teams ................................................................................. 381 

CNP—Healthier U.S. Schools Challenge ............................................................... 372 

CNP—Improper Payments ...................................................................................... 373 

CNP—Indirect Costs Charged to School Food Authorities .................................. 361 

CNP—Program Applications .................................................................................. 368 

CNP—Reauthorization ........................................................................................ 360, 370 

CNP—Reauthorization Offsets ............................................................................... 364 

CNP—Reimbursement Rates .................................................................................. 378 

CNP—School Meals Cost Study Budget Request .................................................. 372 

Direct Certification .................................................................................................. 401 

Federal and State Partnerships ............................................................................. 389 

Fresh Fruits and Vegetables ................................................................................... 397 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative ......................................................................... 379 

Hunger in America .................................................................................................. 375 

Mr. Concannon Opening Remarks ......................................................................... 325 

Mr. Kingston Opening Remarks ............................................................................. 323 

Mr. Post Opening Remarks ..................................................................................... 349 

Ms. DeLauro Opening Remarks ............................................................................. 321 

Ms. Paradis Opening Statement ............................................................................ 337 

Nutrition Assistance Programs Contingency Reserves ........................................ 382 

Nutrition Education..................................................................................... 384, 395, 400 

Poverty in America .................................................................................................. 391 

Questions for the Record, Mr. Jackson .................................................................. 403 

Second Harvest ........................................................................................................ 366 

SNAP—Benefits Issued Biweekly .......................................................................... 393 

SNAP—Community Networks ................................................................................ 394 

SNAP—Finger Imaging in the Application Process .............................................. 363 

SNAP—Indefinite Funding Authority .................................................................... 380 

SNAP—Missouri Payment Error ............................................................................ 369 

SNAP—Timeliness of the Application Process ...................................................... 361 

TEFAP Commodities ............................................................................................... 398 

WIC—Adjunct Eligibility ........................................................................................ 390 

WIC—Infant Formula ............................................................................................. 376 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1