U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–359 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–732

THE NUTRITION TITLE OF THE NEW FEDERAL

FARM BILL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 19, 2001

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

ZELL MILLER, Georgia

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan

BEN NELSON, Nebraska

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE, Minnesota

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho

MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director/Chief Counsel

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Chief Counsel for the Minority

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk

KEITH LUSE, Staff Director for the Minority

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

HEARING(S):

The Nutrition Title of the New Federal Farm Bill ............................................... 01

Thursday, July 19, 2001

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 01

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., a U.S. Senator from Indiana, Ranking Member,

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ......................................... 02

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................ 06

Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from Kansas ................................................... 04

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie A., a U.S. Senator from Michigan .................................. 07

Wellstone, Hon. Paul. a U.S. Senator from Minnesota ........................................ 07

WITNESSES

Panel I

Bost, Eric M., Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ............................................ 09

Greenstein, Robert, Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities, Washington, DC ................................................................................. 12

Haskins, Dr. Ron, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution, Washington, DC ......... 16

Panel II

Concannon, Kevin W., Commissioner, maine Department of Human Services,

Augusta, Maine .................................................................................................... 35

Dieppa, Celine, Food Stamp Program Participant, Manchester, Connecticut .... 38

Ford, Karen, Executive Director, Food Bank of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa ........... 33

Frank, Dr. Deborah A., Director, Growth and Development Clinic, Boston,

Massachusetts ...................................................................................................... 41

Garza, Dr. Cutberto, Professor, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell

University, Ithaca, New York ............................................................................. 44

Leavitt, Dean M., Chairman and CEO, U.S. Wireless Data, Incorporated,

New York, New York ........................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 52

Lugar, Hon. Richard G. .................................................................................... 54

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie A. ............................................................................... 56

Bost, Eric M. ..................................................................................................... 58

Concannon, Kevin W. ....................................................................................... 112

Dieppa, Celine ................................................................................................... 118

Ford Karen ........................................................................................................ 98

Frank, Dr. Deborah A. ..................................................................................... 123

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—CONTINUED

Garza, Dr. Cutberto .......................................................................................... 131

Greenstein, Robert ............................................................................................ 70

Haskins, Ron ..................................................................................................... 87

Leavitt, Dean M. ............................................................................................... 120

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

American Public Human Services Association ............................................... 140

State of Wisconsin, Department of Workforce Development ........................ 136

(1)

HEARING ON THE NUTRITION TITLE OF THE

NEW FEDERAL FARM BILL

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2001

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room

SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin,

(Chairman of the Committee), presiding.

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Harkin, Baucus,

Stabenow, Wellstone, Lugar, and Roberts.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,

and Forestry will come to order.

Good morning. I want to welcome my colleagues as well as our

distinguished panelists who have come to testify before the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee this morning.

Our committee has a tradition of working in a bipartisan manner

to address nutrition and hunger issues, and I particularly want to

acknowledge the close working relationship that I have had over

the years with the ranking member, Senator Lugar, and of course,

with the former chairman and former ranking member, Senator

Leahy.

Today we will be focusing on nutrition, food security, and health

as well as our Nation’s nutrition safety net.

While the Farm bill places an emphasis on farmers in rural

America, it really is about all Americans. The nutrition title is a

critical part of this bill and of our jurisdiction. We are fortunate in

America to have the safest and most abundant food supply in the

world, but we still have a great deal of work to do. While hunger

has been reduced in the last 30 years, food insecurity rates are still

too high. Approximately 10 percent of U.S. households, many with

children, face the possibility that they will not have enough of the

amounts and kinds of foods they need to stay healthy at some point

in a month’s time.

Our crucial responsibility is to make sure that our Nation’s nutrition and food security programs are maintained and strengthened.

It is unacceptable that in the last six years, the percent of eligible people who participated in the food stamp program dropped

from 71 percent to 59 percent. In other words, of those who were

2

eligible 6 years ago, 71 percent participated; of those eligible now,

only 59 percent are participating. At the same time, use of food

pantries and soup kitchens is on the rise. I would like to know why

that is happening.

Contrary to some of the stereotypes about food stamp recipients,

over half of them are children, nine percent are elderly, and nine

percent are persons with disabilities. Most of the rest are adults

who work for a living.

We need to make sure that our Nation’s food pantries and soup

kitchens are able to help people in need, but not as a substitute

for the food stamp program.

We need to continue to support other commodity programs such

as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Nutrition

Program for the Elderly. These programs deliver food to people who

would otherwise go hungry and help to support markets for the

products of American farmers.

We also have to keep in mind the strong connection between nutrition and health. We know that dietary factors play a large role

in the risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes which account for about two-thirds of the deaths in the U.S. each year.

I am alarmed by the high rates of obesity among children, especially, and the resulting rise in the prevalence of adult diseases

such as diabetes among children.

Total costs, including medical costs and lost productivity attributable to obesity alone, amounted to an estimated $99 billion in

1995.

A 1988 report by the U.S. Surgeon General noted that, and I

quote: ‘‘For the two out of three adult Americans who do not smoke

and do not drink excessively, one personal choice seems to influence long-term health prospects more than any other—what we

eat.’’ Simply put, poor nutrition and dietary habits are sending far

too many Americans to an early grave, or to the hospital for medical treatment.

It is critically important that our Federal nutrition programs do

all they can to encourage healthier eating habits and lifestyles.

Finally, we should also expand our efforts to fight hunger and

improve nutrition overseas. Specifically, I hope we will be able to

incorporate in our bill the McGovern-Dole legislation to create an

international school nutrition program for developing countries.

This is a bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation that deserves

our strong support and, I hope, early action.

I look forward to hearing from our panelists concerning ways in

which we can maintain a strong safety net that ensures food security and sound nutrition for all Americans.

[The prepared statement of Senator Harkin can be found in the

appendix on page 52.]

With that, I will yield to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Lugar.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM INDIANA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

3

This committee has a long tradition of bipartisan support for

meeting the needs of children and families who face hunger and

food insecurity, and you have noted that very thoughtfully in your

opening comments this morning. I look forward to continuing our

thoughtful and productive partnership as we take up the nutrition

title of the Farm bill and reauthorization of the Food Stamp Program. Today’s hearing certainly provides an opportunity to gather

recommendations for strengthening the program, which is the foundation of our Nation’s nutritional safety net.

I am a long-time advocate for placing high priority not only on

an effective Food Stamp Program but on the entire package of nutrition assistance programs. During the discussion of welfare reform in 1996, I took a firm stand, as you did, to preserve a strong

nutritional safety net. This meant retaining the Food Stamp Program as a national entitlement program and making certain that

school meals did not become block grants.

For children, a healthy diet is essential to sound physical development and school performance, both prerequisites to becoming

productive adults. Sufficient food and healthy eating habits offer a

direct way to reduce the incidence of serious diseases such as diabetes and hypertension, as you have noted.

Despite our commitment to Federal nutrition assistance, there is

a need to periodically review how well the associated programs are

meeting their goals and to consider what changes might work better.

For example, I actively supported a provision included in the

Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2001 to pilot-test some administrative changes in the Summer Food Service Program. While this

program is intended to provide meals to low-income children during

their summer vacation, a majority of those who qualify for free and

reduced-price meals during the school year are not participating.

Indeed, a study in the press today indicates less than 20 percent

of those children are participating.

It has been a challenge to recruit summer food service providers

given the burden of the program’s cost accounting procedures. Our

14-State pilot program, which includes my home State of Indiana,

is testing the tradeoffs of eliminating some of these requirements

and streamlining others.

The upcoming Farm bill provides the occasion for looking more

closely and systematically at the Food Stamp Program. We know

that food stamp case loads have declined as a result of an improved

economy, the welfare reform initiative, and a lower participation

rate among eligible persons. Even more dramatic changes have occurred in the cash welfare program, Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families, or TANF.

These changes in cash welfare caseloads have implications for

the Food Stamp Program. According to USDA statistics, among

food stamp households with children, the proportion of households

with earnings jumped substantially between 1994 and 1999.

Not only is the profile of food stamp families shifting, but the

program participation rate is changing as well. Between 1994 and

1999, the proportion of eligible individuals who received benefits

went down, as you have noted, from a little over 70 percent to less

than 60 percent. Two contributing factors are routinely identified.

4

One is the complexity of program rules while impose a burden on

food stamp applicants and recipients as well as challenges for eligible workers who must apply those rules.

The second factor is the quality control system used to assess

program performance. This system focuses solely on benefit payment error, which means that States may emphasize payment accuracy over recipient service.

There are, however, some fundamental principles that we should

apply in evaluating reauthorization proposals. Specifically, I will

consider how well each recommendation maintains the program’s

role to provide a nutritional safety net, increases program simplification and flexibility in a way that benefits needy families, and

finally, enhances program administration and reflects the keen

competition for resources and the need for prudent use of Federal

funds.

I am especially looking forward to today’s witnesses and their

ideas that will support those principles.

[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar can be found in the

appendix on page 54.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.

Senator Roberts.

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

KANSAS

Senator ROBERTS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not have a prepared statement, but I was jotting down some

notes from my memory that would certainly buttress and be commensurate with your comments and those of the distinguished

ranking member.

I can recall so well serving in the House—and it was when you

were in the House, Mr. Chairman—the support of this program in

a bipartisan way. That was about the only way we could pass the

Farm bill as I recall, with the coalition of the folks interested in

food stamps and nutrition. It goes back to the days of former Chairman Bob Pogue and Tom Foley and Kiki de la Garza, myself, others. It has been a very strong commitment.

The witnesses who are here know about that, especially Robert

Greenstein, who has been in this business for some years—he is

sort of the ‘‘god-prince’’ or the godfather of this effort, if that is the

right word.

I would just simply say that we hear a lot about a counter-cyclical payment or what is needed in the farm program. The Food

Stamp Program is basically a counter-cyclical program. As the

economy improves, hopefully, people will no longer find the need

for food stamps, when people find jobs. On the other hand, when

it turns down, we get into a serious problem.

I understand that when we went through this in 1996—and that

was quite a battle—Senator Lugar referred to those most unique

times, and I might say that it was my feeling as the new chairman

of the Agriculture Committee at that particular time that we had

real problems with the Food Stamp Program from the standpoint

of fraud and abuse. That is not fair to the recipients and is certainly not fair to the taxpayer. Robert Viadiero was the new inspecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:44 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 082359 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 82359.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
5

tor general down at the Department of Agriculture. I felt very

strongly at that time and still feel today that this was a Federal

responsibility, and we were going to undertake the commitment of

welfare reform, but we knew that that would be very difficult and

would be a long-term task. We certainly did not want any family

to fall between the slats, so to speak, into a situation where they

were being denied essential services.

A great many Governors came to town, Mr. Chairman, at that

particular time, one in particular from Michigan who recommended

that this be a block grant program and that this was a key test.

It was a key test. The Governors, it seemed to me, were very strong

in their testimony, saying they needed the block grant and certainly would like to have the Food Stamp Program; but in all candor, what they wanted was the money. They did not want to run

the Food Stamp Program. Can you imagine 50 different food stamp

programs in 50 different States?

We did not feel that that was appropriate, and against considerable very strong political pressure, I can remember those days in

Bob Dole’s office and in the office of—let me see, what was his

name—it was Newt Gingrich. We had what we called ‘‘meaningful

dialogue,’’ and it was our thought that we could certainly preserve

and strengthen the Food Stamp Program but make the needed reforms.

Mr. Chairman, we had a situation at that particular point in

time where, in Philadelphia and New York, the inspector general

conducted a sting operation and found out that the grocery stores

were not the grocery stores, that people were simply trafficking in

food stamps—$3 billion was allegedly saved from those efforts as

we went through some reform measures. That is where the EBT

card came in and provided such a valuable service. Dean Leavitt

will be on the second panel and can go into more of what we are

experiencing with the EBT card. I might add that the late Bill

Emerson from Missouri was a real leader in that. Pardon me for

going on for so long, but these are fond memories in regard to what

we were able to do.

In the House agriculture appropriation bill, it seems to me that

the last time around, there was $5 billion provided over 10 years

relative to the changes that we have made since the 1996 Act, and

as I understand it, in the House agriculture appropriation bill for

2002, the estimate is, because of the slowdown in the economy—

and doubtless Bob and others can make the statement if this is not

accurate—800,000 people are estimated to be coming on in regard

to food stamps because of the slowdown in the economy. That is

about $1.5 billion, $1.8 billion, somewhere in that neighborhood.

We really have our work cut out for us to continue to monitor

this, and I have probably said enough, except to thank Bob and

thank others who have been active in this as we continue to monitor.

One other thing, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for your

statement in regard to the possibility of an international school

lunch program, the McGovern-Dole effort. I note in talking with

Secretary Veneman that she has asked the folks in Rome who participate in the World Food Program for information to make sure

that it is cost-effective and that somehow we could fit some degree

6

of commitment if we possibly can in this cycle. I am very much for

that, for a lot of different reasons, and I will not go into that, but

I do know that the World Food Program is providing that information to Secretary Veneman, because the young lady who is doing

that is my daughter, Ashley Roberts. You can put me down as a

strong supporter.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

I will yield to my other Senators. I hope, in the interest of time,

that we might keep it a little short. We have a limited amount of

time. I do want to get to the witnesses, but I would like to recognize other Senators for, hopefully, short opening statements.

Senator Conrad.

Senator CONRAD. I give my time retroactively to Senator Roberts.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Baucus.

Senator ROBERTS. You do not have to laugh that loud, Paul. You

are turning into me, and I am turning into you. This is ridiculous.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Baucus.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement and

make just one point.

The Finance Committee is going to reauthorize welfare reform

and the Agriculture Committee is going to reauthorize the Farm

bill next year, and food stamps is clearly an integral part of that.

I would hope that we could figure out a way where States like mine

can continue a waiver on certain aspects of the Food Stamp Program.

We in Montana have for years received a waiver with respect to

utility costs, and the current administration is saying that that will

no longer be available. I say that because our per capita income in

Montana, or wage per capita income is 50th in the Nation. We are

first in the Nation in the number of jobs necessary per household

to make ends meet. We are 27th in the Nation in cost of living. We

are a mid cost of living State, and we are a low-income State.

It is tough, and all I am saying that if we reauthorize this nutrition title that we address that issue.

I might also just give a ringing endorsement of the various school

lunch and school breakfast programs. In my State, they have

worked just wonderfully. If you stop by and see these kids, it is just

heart-warming. It gives you a sense that, my gosh, a lot of the stuff

we are doing back here in Washington really does make a difference to real people. Just mark me down as a big champion, and

also, on the international school lunch program idea, I would like

to help make that work as well.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Baucus.

I will just ask staff to make sure that we pay attention to the

waiver issue when we develop our bill.

Senator BAUCUS. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have to leave

now. We had to recess the Finance Committee because we had a

7

bomb scare, and I have just received a note that there is no bomb

up there.

The CHAIRMAN. What are you guys doing over there?

[Laughter.]

Senator BAUCUS.We are ready to reconvene.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Good luck.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Stabenow.

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

FROM MICHIGAN

Senator MICHIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be

part of a safe committee; so far, we have not had any bomb scares.

I will submit a full opening statement, Mr. Chairman, for the

record. Let me just say that I share the feeling of my colleagues

about the nutrition title. It is critical. I would like to note that the

average demographics of a person today on food stamps is very different from what one might typically think of in the past. We are

talking about people who are working. We need to look very closely

as we reauthorize these programs and at what is really happening

to our families.

I would also just mention that the commodity programs of course

are important in two ways—both in terms of nutrition for our children and availability of fruits and vegetables and other important

items for families, and also important for our farmers. We in Michigan have benefited from being able to include apples and cherries,

and we are now looking to include asparagus, in the school lunch

program.

Michigan has the largest Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) in the country, and we are very interested in working

with you, Mr. Chairman, as always, and I am very interested in

making sure that this title is really strengthened and meets the

needs of our families.

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.

[The prepared statement of Senator Stabenow can be found in

the appendix on page 56.]

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dayton.

Senator DAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I will forego an opening statement. Senator Wellstone and I have to go to the Finance Committee to testify in behalf of the Trade Adjustment Assistance reauthorization, and we will be returning after that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Wellstone, do you have a statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL D. WELLSTONE, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM MINNESOTA

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. Chairman, I will just take three minutes, but I do want to take three minutes, because this is one of

the reasons I wanted to serve on this committee. This is one of the

most important things that we are going to be doing.

We have three panelists here at the beginning, all of whom have

a lot to say that is important, and I am going to run and testify

and come back.

First, this is a safety net program that has worked well in terms

of dramatically reducing malnutrition and hunger in our country

8

going back—my history goes back, although I have never played a

large role, to all the anti-hunger work, the studies that came out

in the mid to late sixties, and then, what we have done with food

stamps.

We have to take a very close look at eligibility. Let us be honest

about it. With the welfare bill, we cut the benefits for legal immigrants, and when the adults do not get it, the children do not get

it even though they are eligible. The whole issue of eligibility we

need to go back and revisit. There are many people who could benefit, and there are a lot of children who could benefit who do not

because of the eligibility question.

We have not at all kept up with inflation, just in terms of purchasing power, and the minimum benefits are so minimum as to

do serious damage to our vision and goal as a country that children

should not go hungry nor, frankly, should adults.

Then, finally, we have got to make sure that people who are eligible actually receive the benefits. Because of your help, Mr. Chairman, and others, in the last ag appropriations markup, I had an

amendment that asked the Food and Nutrition Service—and Mr.

Bost might want to talk about this—to do a study of what in the

world is going on when you have over a 30 percent decline.

I just got the report today, and I will be talking more about it

later, but I want to get it to all members of the committee. Mr.

Chairman, just listen to one figure here. ‘‘Slightly less than half

the decline, 44 percent, occurred because fewer people were eligible

to participate.’’ It goes through some other things. Then, ‘‘The remainder of the decline, over half, 56 percent, occurred because

fewer eligible individuals participate in the program.’’ For a variety of different reasons, Dr. Haskins and I did not

agree on the welfare bill; but we do agree that when people move

from welfare to work out there in the counties in this country, they

ought to know that they and their children are eligible for these

benefits. We have lost a lot of the infrastructure of outreach where

people do not know.

I just want to say to you, above and beyond WIC and school

breakfast and school lunch, that I am focused on this like a laser

beam, and I am very pleased to be on this committee. I really think

that we can do something very important and positive. Some of the

results out there are harsh. It is crazy that one out of every 10

households is, quote, ‘‘food-insecure,’’ and that 35 million Americans, 10 or 15 million of whom are children. We can do better.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Wellstone. I look

forward to working with you on it.

Senator WELLSTONE. We will be back.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

I will just say at the outset again that today’s hearing is going

to be focusing mainly on the nutrition programs, specifically the

food stamp, and hunger food bank issues.

Earlier this year, Senator Lugar held a hearing on all the child

nutrition programs. I am hopeful that we might come back again

at some other point and just look at the school lunch and school

breakfast programs. Those programs are not up for reauthorization

in this Farm bill, but we could discuss them in this Farm bill, and

9

I am open to making some changes to the child nutrition programs

in the Farm bill. In your testimony, this morning, please let us

know if you have anything to say about that. I do intend to have

another hearing sometime later on—I do not know when—just on

that issue of the school lunch and school breakfast and other child

nutrition programs.

With that, we welcome our first panel.

Mr. Eric Bost, Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer

Services at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mr. Robert Greenstein, Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Dr. Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute constitute our first panel, and then we have a second panel.

I will say at the outset that all of your statements will be made

a part of the record in their entirety, as well as the opening statements of Senators sitting here today. I would ask if you could summarize your statement for us. I would appreciate it. We will try to

limit it to seven minutes or so on the lights.

Mr. Bost, welcome, and please proceed.

STATEMENT OF ERIC M. BOST, UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD,

NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman and Senator Lugar, and other members

of the committee, good morning.

I appreciate the opportunity to join you today to discuss the reauthorization of the Food Stamp Program, to build on its history

of success to meet the demands of the new century.

I am pleased to represent the administration in the process of reauthorizing the Food Stamp Program, the foundation of the Nation’s nutrition safety net, as part of the Farm bill. I look forward

to working with this committee as we develop a reauthorization approach that preserves those aspects of the program that have

served this country so well over the past decades and makes the

changes needed for the program to function even more effectively

and efficiently into the future. The Food Stamp Program touches

the lives of millions of people who need a helping hand to put food

on the table.

Because food stamps are not targeted or restricted by age, disability status, or family structure, recipients are a diverse group

representing a broad cross-section of the Nation’s poor. In 2000,

over half of all food stamp recipients were children, about 9 to 10

percent were elderly, and another 10 percent were disabled. Many

recipients worked, and the majority of food stamp households were

not receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

However, most food stamp households had little income and few

resources available to them. Only 11 percent were above the poverty line, while 33 percent had incomes at or below half the poverty

line. About two-thirds of all households had no accountable assets.

The program is clearly successful at targeting benefits to the neediest Americans.

The Food Stamp Program responds to economic changes, expanding to meet increased need when the economy is in recession and

contracting when the economy is growing. Because benefits automatically flow into communities, States, or regions of the country

10

that face rising unemployment or poverty, the program tends to

soften some of the harshest effects of an economic down turn.

However, over the last decade, food stamp participation rose

more sharply than expected during the relatively short and mild

recession in the early nineties, and then fell more sharply than expected after 1994, during a sustained period of economic growth.

In April of this year, the program served about 17 million people,

down from about 28 million at its peak in March 1994. In recent

months, however, the participation decline has slowed and may

have ended. Over half of all States are now serving more people

than they did a year ago. It is important to note that as participation has declined, program costs have also dropped considerably.

Annual costs have declined by over $7 billion since fiscal year 1995.

In 2000, 98 percent of households that received food stamps were

entitled to some benefit. Problems tend to occur far more frequently in cases where an eligible household is provided with the

wrong amount of benefits. Difficulties in determining the correct

level of benefits stem from a number of factors—the intricacies of

program rules designed to target benefits precisely; the complex

circumstances of working families; and the need to anticipate the

circumstances of program participants.

When errors resulting in overpayments do occur, the Department

works very hard to recoup those funds from those who received

them.

Since the program was last reauthorized, we have seen a revolution in the way that food stamp benefits are delivered. In 1996,

only 15 percent of benefits were delivered electronically. Today, 80

percent are delivered through EBT. Forty-three State agencies now

operate EBT systems for the Food Stamp Program, and 41 are

Statewide.

A lot of things have changed since welfare reform. In important

ways, the States have been the leaders in the revolution in making

these changes—restructuring their welfare programs to require

work, time-limited assistance, improving child support enforcement, and encouraging parental responsibility.

I believe that the Food Stamp Program has contributed to the

success of welfare reform by supporting the transition from welfare

to work. Welfare rolls and the proportion of food stamp households

on welfare have fallen sharply, while the percentage of food stamp

households with earnings has grown. Today, the Food Stamp Program serves more families that work than families that receive

welfare.

We have talked about the tremendous decline. However, I believe

that the complexity of program requirements may be deterring participation among people who are eligible for benefits, especially

working families. There is a growing awareness that we need to reform the quality control system, which Senator Lugar made reference to, to ensure that it more effectively encourages payment accuracy without discouraging States from achieving other important

objectives.

My view is that every person eligible to receive food stamps

should have full and easy access while maintaining integrity in our

programs. We need to reexamine how the Food Stamp Program

recognizes and supports its multiple program goals.

11

Let us talk about reauthorization, and I am just going to note

some broad proposals.

We are interested in ensuring that we facilitate working families’ access to food stamp benefits while minimizing burdens for State

agencies; and finding ways to reduce burdens on applicants and

participants and to reduce administrative complexity for people

who actually implement the program. As States explore innovative

welfare policies, at the same time, we should examine whether program changes, including increased administrative flexibility, could

help to ensure that all those at risk of hunger have access to the

benefits they need. We also need to improve the program’s effectiveness in promoting healthy diets.

Additionally, prudent stewardship of Federal resources is a fundamental responsibility and critical to continued public confidence

in this program. We must be vigilant in the fight against error,

fraud, and abuse, and ensure that the taxpayer investment in this

program is used as effectively as possible.

I am very pleased to join the discussion as we begin today to preserve the elements of the Food Stamp Program that have contributed to the history of success and to strengthen and improve it to

meet the challenges for a new century.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased

to answer any questions that you may have of me.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bost, thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bost can be found in the appendix on page 58.]

The CHAIRMAN. We move to Robert Greenstein, founder and Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a

nonprofit institute that conducts research and analysis on public

policy issues, with an emphasis on low-and moderate-income families.

I just want to say for the record that I started working with Mr.

Greenstein when I first came to the Congress back in the 1970’s,

and I know of no one who has dedicated more of his life, energy,

expertise and knowledge to the subject of nutrition and nutrition

programs than has Mr. Greenstein. You and your agency have provided an invaluable service both to the House and the Senate over

all these years, and we appreciate that and welcome you back to

the committee.

Senator CONRAD. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Conrad.

Senator CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, might I associate myself with

your remarks about Mr. Greenstein?

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.

Senator CONRAD. He is a national treasure, and we are lucky to

have him.

Senator STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, if I might also associate myself with your comments and indicate that in a few moments I am

going to have to leave to preside over the Senate, and I do not want

any of our guests to assume that that indicates a lack of interest.

We are just very pleased that you are all here.

The testimony that I do not have an opportunity to hear in person, I certainly will scrutinize the written documents.

12

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly understand. Thank you very much,

Senator.

Mr. Greenstein, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREENSTEIN, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES,

WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Thank you for the invitation to testify, and

thank you for your kind words. It has been my honor to work with

all of you over the years. I also wanted to particularly note—Senator Roberts was talking about the welfare law—as we talk about

where we are today, we would be in a very different place today

if it had not been for the efforts of Senator Lugar in 1995 and 1996

on both food stamps and school lunch. He was really the champion

in that period.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. As several of you have mentioned, the profile

of the Food Stamp Program has changed; it has become much less

a program for welfare families and much more a program for working families.

Ten years ago, the number of food stamp households that received welfare and had no earnings was more than double the

number who worked. Today the number of food stamp households

who work far exceeds the number who get cash welfare and have

no earnings.

As the undersecretary noted, there has been a large decline in

program participation—more than 10 million people since 1994, the

largest decline in the program’s history. The economy was clearly

a major factor here, but far from the only factor.

As my first chart up on the board shows, from 1994 to 1999, the

number of people who were poor declined 16 percent, but the number of people receiving food stamps declined 35 percent. Part of

what happened—several of you mentioned this—was that the participation rate changed.

You noted that the proportion of eligible people who participate

went down from 71 percent to 59 percent. I would also note that

the percentage of eligible children who participate went down from

86 percent to 69 percent.

The undersecretary also noted that there had been a substantial

decline in food stamp costs. From 1994 to 2000, food stamp benefit

expenditures declined 23 percent after adjusting for inflation.

There are a number of factors there—the economy, the decline in

the participation rate, and also very much the changes in the welfare law.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated at the time the bill

was passed that it would reduce expenditures $28 billion over 6

years, and the CBO estimates showed that two-thirds of the food

stamp savings resulted from provisions to reduce food stamp benefits for households that remained eligible, often on an across-theboard or quasi-across-the-board basis that reduced benefits for the

working poor and the elderly and the disabled along with others.

Why was that in the welfare law? Because this committee and

the House Agriculture Committee were assigned austere budget

13

reconciliation targets assuming deep reductions in food stamp expenditures, and the committees had to comply.

Those benefit cuts had no relation to the welfare reform goals of

promoting work and marriage, and as a result of them, budget cuts

were deeper in the Food Stamp Program than in any other major

social program in the Federal Government.

It is interesting if we look at the next chart and turn to food

stamp expenditures. The top line in the chart is CBO’s estimate of

food stamp costs before the welfare law was passed. The middle

line is CBO’s estimate of what the costs would be as a result of the

welfare law at the time that it was passed—and these numbers we

have adjusted downward to reflect the lower unemployment than

CBO thought at that time. The bottom line shows the actual expenditures. See how far it is below the middle line. The main difference between the bottom line and the middle line is that reduction in food stamp participation rates that several of you referred

to in your opening statements.

One more background point on what has been happening to participation. This is one of the most stunning figures of all. Citizen

children in legal immigrant families remained eligible for food

stamps. Their eligibility was not affected by the welfare law. In

1994, 1,350,000 of them were in the program; four years later, only

350,000 were. There was a decline of one million citizen children,

a 74 percent decline, apparently related to the fact that there was

a lot of confusion over the larger immigrant changes, and when the

parents and the other family members became ineligible, apparently, there has been widespread misunderstanding and belief that

these children are ineligible as well.

What do we do? Clearly, we want to focus on doing better with

working families. It is still the case that virtually 100 percent of

the families on assistance, on welfare, who are eligible for food

stamps get it; but among working families, only about half of those

eligible get it.

The first thing one needs to do to address that is to overhaul—

and Senator Lugar mentioned this in his statement—the quality

control system. The way the quality control system works today, it

penalizes States for serving working families. Why? Because error

rates are higher among working families than welfare families. If

the family is on welfare, it gets a benefit, a cash welfare payment,

it stays the same from month to month, the welfare office makes

the payment and knows what it is. If a family leaves welfare for

low-wage work, in many cases, the earnings fluctuate. The number

of hours change a bit from month to month. Many of these jobs do

not have paid sick leave—if you are off for a day, you get less that

month, you get more the next month. As a result of the Food

Stamp Program measuring precise benefit accuracy from month to

month, these fluctuations result in higher error rates for working

families in virtually every State than for welfare families.

That means that a State that does better in moving people from

welfare to work and has more working families and fewer welfare

families on food stamps has a higher error rate than a State that

still has most of its caseload on welfare. That is really not the effect we would want.

14

Adding to that, the current system imposes or subjects to a potential fiscal penalty every State that has an error rate above the

national average—half the States in any given year. That type of

system was put in place by Congress back when food stamp error

rates were up toward 17 percent in the overpayment rate. The

overpayment rate today is 6.5 percent. We have a system that is

not realistic for the current situation, and it drives States to institute procedures that make it harder for working families to qualify

and stay on the program, like making them take time off from

work to come back into the office every three months to reapply.

A second area, also already mentioned—simplification is important. I see the lights are coming on. I have a number of ideas on

the simplification front; I would be happy to discuss those——

The CHAIRMAN. If you want to take a couple of extra minutes,

go ahead. I am willing to bend the time somewhat.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. The one that I will mention now—and there

are a lot of more detailed ideas—the one theme that I would mention now is that I would urge you to consider simplification in part

through greater alignment, or allowing States to make greater

alignment of food stamps and Medicaid. We often think of food

stamps and welfare. The number of households with children receiving both Medicaid and food stamps is now much larger than

the number that either program has in common with welfare.

Who are the people who get food stamps and Medicaid and not

welfare? They are working families. You h ave children getting food

stamps who are eligible for CHIP—I know you have been very interested in this, Senator Lugar—or Medicaid, who are not enrolled

in health care. You have children on Medicaid who are not enrolled

in food stamps. If we could simplify the system—for example, have

a single definition that States can apply with gross income across

both food stamps and Medicaid, so that you could do a simpler,

joint application for working families, maybe without having to go

to the welfare office, we could both improve nutrition for working

families, have more incentives to work, and reduce the ranks of the

uninsured at the same time.

I also think that some attention should be paid to the one provision still remaining from the welfare law in which an inflation adjustment that was formerly in place is no longer in place. Senator

Lugar tried valiantly to maintain that inflation adjustment. The

House did not agree to it. This was part of the ‘‘meet the reconciliation target’’ issue. We should not have the benefits eroding to inflation over time.

The final item I would like to mention involve gaps in coverage

in two key areas that emerged in the aftermath of the welfare

law—legal immigrants and the adults age 18 to 50 who are not

raising minor children. In both cases, Senator Lugar and this committee passed provisions in 1995 that were much more moderate

than what ended up in the final law.

In the case of the 18- to 50-year-old adults, I would actually suggest that the committee look at the provision that this committee

passed in 1995 in its welfare law, as distinguished from the both

harsher and much more complicated for States to administer provision that ended up in the final law.

15

With regard to immigrants—and let me end on this note—Mr.

Chairman, the Food Stamp Program’s restrictions on legal immigrants today are much more severe than those in SSI, Medicaid,

CHIP, TANF, or any other major means-tested program the Federal Government runs. The Food Stamp Program is the only

means-tested program—the only one—that denies eligibility to

large categories of poor legal immigrants who entered the United

States before August 21, 1996, the date the welfare law was signed.

It is out-of-step with every other program in that regard.

With regard to the people who entered the country after August

22, 1996, under the welfare law, in Medicaid and TANF, States

have the option of making legal immigrants who entered after August 22, 1996 eligible after they have been in the country five

years, and most States have taken that option. In the CHIP program, Federal law requires States to make children eligible—the

new entrants eligible—after they have been here for five years. In

the Food Stamp Program, they still remain ineligible at that point.

For families with children, food stamps is different than the other

programs in that regard.

I would also note that prior to the enactment of these provisions,

the error rate for immigrant families was about the same as for native families. Now the immigrant provisions are so complicated in

the food stamp law that the latest data show that the error rates

for immigrant families are much higher for native families. They

have gone up because of the added complexity the law created.

In summary, this is a wonderful program, and this committee

has done exemplary work over the years, but there is definitely

need for improvement.

Finally, I will just make a statement, Mr. Chairman, and if you

want to ask, I will be happy to elaborate during your question period, but for reasons I will be happy to elaborate on, I would actually strongly recommend against doing school lunch and school

breakfast in the Farm bill. They are up for reauthorization in 2003.

I suspect that on this committee at the end of the day, there is

going to be a lot of interest in agriculture and commodities, and

there is going to be only so much money for nutrition. When you

look at the reductions in expenditures in food stamps, you are

going to need virtually all of that money there. You can come back

in 2003 and make improvements in school lunch and school breakfast. If you use some of the nutrition money in the Farm bill, whatever amount it may be—and I hope it is significant—for lunch and

breakfast, you will end up shorting these very basic issues that are

crying out to be addressed in the Food Stamp Program.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say that you do not think we should address or that we should address the school lunch and school breakfast program in this Farm bill?

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Should not.

The CHAIRMAN. We should not; let it go until 2003?

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Yes. There are not—— The CHAIRMAN. OK. I will cover that with you later.

Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenstein can be found in the

appedix on page 70.]

16

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Haskins, a Senior Fellow in the Economics

Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, and a co-director of

the Institution’s Welfare Reform and Beyond Initiative.

Welcome, Dr. Haskins.

STATEMENT OF RON HASKINS, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS

INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. HASKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar.

It is a great privilege to be here today. I really appreciate being

invited to testify in the shadow of Bob Greenstein.

In a former life, I was a staffer in the House—my I.Q. was too

low to get a job in the Senate, so I took a staff job in the House,

where I was privileged to work on the welfare reform bill—and

that is what I would like to focus my testimony on today.

Let me tell you a simple story that has five parts. The first part

is that in 1996, Congress changed our welfare program, our major

cash welfare program, AFDC, and required States to design programs that would encourage or, where necessary, force mothers to

work.

The second part is that, lo and behold, they passed a law in

Washington, and out there in the countryside, they actually did

what the law asked them to do. The States devised these programs,

and mothers left welfare in droves and went to work—I have submitted some data in my testimony to demonstrate those facts—and

as a result of that, there have been many, many affiliated results,

but perhaps the most impressive and the most important is a dramatic reduction in child poverty, particularly if we use broader

Census Bureau measures that take into account the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC.

The third point is that, as I have just suggested, the reason why

we have had such success in reducing child poverty and increasing

family income as well is because of what we can call the work support system. That is the main reason I want to talk to the committee today.

That system is composed of the Earned Income Tax Credit, food

stamps, child care, child support enforcement, and several other

benefits that go to working families. If you look carefully at the legislative history, you will find that since 1985, all of these programs

have been either created in whole or have been dramatically expanded. I hate to make an accusation like this, but it actually appears that the Congress had vision; that Congress wanted to create

a situation that would both suck people off welfare by giving them

the incentive and would provide them with a very strong—I hesitate to use the word ‘‘safety net,’’ because that is usually associated

with welfare—but would provide additional income because Congress knew that so many of these families were going to be lowincome and did not have the skills and experience to demand higher wages, so they were going to have to work at low wages.

The fourth point is that there is something very nice about this

system, because it reflects its bipartisan origins. The strong work

requirements and especially the strong elements of the 1996 legislation are clearly conserved in the Republican origin. Members of

this committee and other committees actually fought against some

of these provisions and reluctantly, at least in two or three of them,

17

President Clinton signed the bill. As a result, we have a lot of families who have left welfare, and now, for the liberal side of this, we

have this very strong work support system in which we invest billions of dollars—spending has grown like made since 1996—it actually started a little before that—so we have a nicely balanced system that I believe has strong bipartisan support, and at least in

a good economy, it works very well, with one exception—and this

is my fifth point in this story—and that is that food stamps and

Medicaid are a big problem—a big problem.

Recent research—Bob said that about 50 percent of the families

leaving welfare who are eligible for food stamps get it—recent research suggests the number may be closer to 40 percent. We have

a very large number of children and single mothers out there—an

exceptionally worthy group, in my opinion—and they are not receiving their food stamp benefits.

I would like the committee to consider this. The typical mother

is earning around $10,000. If she has two children, she gets about

another $4,000 in EITC, so she has $14,000. At that point, she is

eligible for about $2,000 in food stamps, which is virtual cash in

this case. Imagine a difference to that mother and those children

of an income of $14,000 as compared to $16,000. That is the topic

that this committee should address. We should all want that family

to have that additional $2,000, and we know for certain from all

kinds of national datasets that many of them—probably a majority—are not getting the money.

Now, what is the cause of this? There are many causes. There

is plenty of blame to go around for people who like to blame. Right

at the heart of it is the quality control system. Bob has already

made several references to this, as has Secretary Bost. The quality

control system really and truly, if you think about it, is exactly opposed to the purposes of TANF.

In the TANF program, if the States do not put people into work,

they are literally fined by the Federal Government. In the Quality

Control Program, if the States put people to work, they are virtually fined by the Federal Government, because in every State,

they have higher error rates in the cases of people who work.

Something simply has to be done to the statutes to allow the

States more flexibility. I would suggest that the committee look at

four things.

It is not surprising that this has occurred. It is a new world.

Things change dramatically. We have many more single mothers

out there. It is not surprising. Now the committee and the committee in the House should respond appropriately by getting to the

bottom of the problem and solving it.

First, we have to change the asset limit for vehicles especially.

It is more important than ever now for mothers to have good transportation because so many of them work. That is the first thing.

The second thing is at least consider—I am not enough of a food

stamp expert to know all the ins and outs—but it makes some

sense to separate, at least for purposes of quality control, working

families from the disabled and the elderly, because they are so different, and it is possible that a good solution could be fashioned

around that step.

18

The third thing is that I want to strongly endorse Bob Greenstein’s suggestion of finding a solution that is also compatible and

works hand-in-hand with Medicaid, because we had exactly the

same problem in Medicaid. When I was still with the Ways and

Means Committee, we had a hearing about this and invited several

States, and they employed very aggressive administration action to

make sure that people knew they were eligible, to make it as easy

as possible for them to get the benefits—for example, in one State,

Florida, you could do the entire application and re-application by

telephone—those kinds of measures were very, very effective. Coordination with Medicaid is important.

The final thing and probably the most important would be to

lengthen the accounting period for the purpose of the quality control. As Bob mentioned, it is simply impossible with low-income

families to trace their income. It could change every week, and

there is no administrative system known to man or God that can

follow the wages of an external group from week to week; it just

cannot be done.

When the quality control investigators come along and have a

week to examine a case, they can reveal a lot of these things, and

that is why the error rates in these cases are so high. We should

at least give the States a 6-month period in which they are held

harmless for any changes in income among families that work.

Let me leave you with this thought. I believe there are very few,

if any, actions that the Congress could take in the next 18 months

that would have a more immediate and pervasive effect on child

poverty than solving this food stamp issue and making sure that

these families get their food stamp benefits.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haskins can be found in the appendix on page 87.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Haskins, and thank you all for

very excellent statements. As I said, they will be made a part of

the record in their entirety.

Dr. Haskins, I would just ask you to compare and contrast the

role of TANF as opposed to that of the food stamp program, and

what you conclude about the appropriateness of TANF being a

block grant and the Food Stamp Program, being a national program.

Mr. HASKINS. I may be in agreement with Bob Greenstein that

I would never say block grants are great, plus I was involved when

the House wanted a food stamp block grant, and Senator Lugar, as

Bob pointed out, was very strongly opposed to it, and we did not

wind up with a block grant.

There is no question that if you have a block grant, you do not

have to worry about the administrative details. You give the States

a bunch of money, and it is their problem. You can still have accountability, but you do not have to worry about the amount of

money going up. That is what we have in TANF. In food stamps,

when you have an open-ended entitlement, if the States are not

careful in the administration, if costs the Federal Government a lot

more money, and fraud goes up; that reduces public support. There

are lots of problems with fraud in any program that does not have

good quality control.

19

As long as food stamps is an open-ended entitlement, there simply has to be some type of quality control. That is why the 6-month

hold-harmless period should at least be tried. If the committee is

concerned that that could lead to more fraud—and it would lead to

some more not deliberate fraud, but to more overpayments; I am

quite certain of that—— The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by a 6-month hold-harmless

period? I do not understand.

Mr. HASKINS. Under current law, when the quality control investigation takes place, they look at a case in great detail, and if a

working family got a job and was making $7 an hour, and in week

one, they worked 35 hours, the next week they worked 40, the next

week they worked 38, the normal State administrative system

could not follow those changes. Furthermore, the family might quit

work for two weeks—we know this; very clearly, many families are

in and out of the labor force. That to be accurate, you have to follow all those changes.

What I am proposing and several others have proposed—and the

States can give you a lot of information about this—is that the

statute allow the State to make an accurate collection of information and computation when the family goes to work; and then, for

the next six months, as long as the family continues working, you

would not have to take into account changes in wages. Then, at the

end of six months, you would have to redetermine and make sure

the wage is still correct, and hours of work, and so forth. Or, if the

committee were nervous about that, you could do it for three

months. That is an essential part of the solution that the States

have a period during which they are held harmless.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Greenstein, your observations?

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I very much agree with Ron’s point on the six

months. I would note that the Department last November issued

a regulation that now gives States the option of essentially doing

what Ron just suggested; however, while some State are moving in

that direction, the State take-up has been less than one otherwise

would have expected, because there are still on the part of States

concerns about the quality control issues generally on having a lot

more working families on the program. My sense is that one needs

to couple these kinds of improvements with the quality control improvements, and then, that more States will be able to take advantage of the option.

There is another proposal also in a regulation that was issued in

November, but it has not taken effect yet, that the States have suggested that is an excellent idea. I presume Ron would like this also.

There is this very difficult situation, as Ron mentioned, when a

family leaves welfare for work. The food stamp office knows this

family’s circumstances are changing—the exact income is changing—so often, to protect themselves against errors, what the food

stamp office may do is to end the family’s current food stamp certification period at that point and say ‘‘You have to come back and

reapply.’’

Now, here the family; it is now ineligible for welfare, because it

is going work. It is told ‘‘We are ending your food stamps; you can

come back in if you want to reapply.’’ It assumes that it is no

longer eligible for food stamps, either, and it does not come back.

20

The suggestion—it originated from the States—was to give

States an option to freeze the food stamp benefit for a transitional

period when a family works its way off welfare. The regulation

would allow States to do that for three months, but because that

regulation needs approval from the management side of OMB

under a technical paperwork issue, it still has not been allowed to

take effect, and States are waiting for it.

Some of us are actually suggesting you consider in reauthorization lengthening that transition period; maybe that should go to as

much as six months.

The one point where I would mildly disagree with Ron—our conclusion is the same; the mechanism would be different—is that I

do not actually think you need to do more in statute on the vehicle

issue because of the provision that you enacted in October that

gives States the option of aligning their vehicle rule with their

TANF vehicle rule. We are just completing a survey of what States

are doing, but a large number of States are moving to solve that

problem—30 already, the undersecretary says—so I am not sure

that one needs—by the way, a final point that I would make is that

a block grant is the wrong way to go, but here was an example,

the legislation you passed in October. You did not do a block grant.

You said here is an area, the vehicle rule, where it makes sense

to give States the option to align their vehicle rule with the TANF

rule. The regulation that I am referring to says give States the option of freezing the benefit for working families for six months. The

reg that I hope will be approved at OMB soon says give States the

option of freezing the benefit for the family that works its way off

welfare for three months. Rather than a block grant, we can find

discrete areas where an appropriate option, flexibility for a State

to simplify matters in a way that facilitates service to working families, coupled with reform of the quality control system, could help

make a lot of progress.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bost, do you have any observations?

Mr. BOST. Yes, just a few. What we are looking at is a combination of all of those factors. Up until a month or so ago, having had

the opportunity of running one of the largest food stamp programs

in the entire country, we looked at making all of those changes, to

some extent.

Let us talk about this certification period. For some families, it

was three months, for some families, it was six months, and for

some families, it was essentially nine months. For us, the issue was

having the flexibility to make some kind of determination.

The other thing that I instituted 2–1/2 years ago that probably

helped us a great deal was the call center. We implemented call

centers which would essentially allow families to call to note

changes, and they did not have to come in if they were working.

The other thing was to extend office hours to evenings and Saturdays, so that if they had to appear in person, they could do that.

On this issue of the quality control system, I would agree. All of

us are absolutely correct in savings that we do need to do some

things in terms of changing it. The problem or the issue or the

challenge is—to what? No one has asked to what. They say, well,

it needs to change; it is too complicated. We are working on what

21

to change it to, because we have got to maintain integrity in our

system.

I do believe very strongly that we do need to look at making

some adjustments in terms of what that system is, because as so

many people have said, a significant number of States have indeed

been sanctioned.

On the other side of the coin, there is some incentive or there

should be some incentive for States to ensure that accurate food

stamp determination is made for people who come into their offices,

to ensure that people get every dollar that they should receive.

There has to be that balance in terms of accuracy determination,

and incentives in programs, but there also has to be some sort of

quality control there to ensure that we address issues directly related to fraud and abuse. They go hand-in-hand, as far as I am concerned.

I have one final point—I want to talk about participation rate.

When I looked at Texas in the report that was most recently released this morning, low participation rates are directly related to

several factors. One, we have people who are working, earning

more money, and they are no longer eligible. No. 2, some clients—

and this is not from research but from me actually going out and

talking to clients—some clients, many clients, have essentially said

to me that they found the process difficult to understand, so they

did not come in to apply. A third group of people essentially said

that when they were no longer receiving TANF, they were not

aware that they may still be eligible for food stamps.

It is a combination of all of those factors, but let us not forget

that first large group. Many people, as a result of welfare reform,

as a result of a very strong economy, are no longer eligible to receive food stamps because they have a job, they have income.

There are those other three or four categories of people who are

very, very important, but that is one that sometimes we overlook.

The CHAIRMAN. I have two other questions, and I will just ask

one and then wait for my second round.

Right now, it is my understanding that the average expenditure

for food by families in America is about 11 percent of disposable

income. Yet under the Food Stamp Program, we expect poor people

to spend up to 30 percent of their disposable income on food. Then,

food stamps are supposed to make up the difference between the

30 percent and what is needed in order to have a healthy diet.

What would you think about lowering that 30 percent? Why

should we ask poor people to spend 30 percent of their disposable

income on food when the rest of us are spending 11 percent of our

disposable income on food?

Mr. GREENSTEIN.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I am going to surprise you and say no, I would

not favor lowering that, and here is why. Being practical, again,

you are going to have a limited amount of resources for the nutrition title, and I hope that you improve the adequacy of food stamp

benefits. Lowering the 30 percent figure is very expensive. It is

going to consume a lot of the limited resources that you would have

available, and it would target the biggest benefit increases to the

highest-income households on food stamps.

22

Let us suppose you lowered it from 35 percent to 25 percent. You

would be increasing the benefit by five percent of income. Well, for

somebody at 120 percent of the poverty line, you would increase

the benefit three times as much as for somebody only at 40 percent

of the poverty line.

Let me suggest a better way to deal with that. A better way to

deal with the issue that you are raising, is to look at the standard

deduction in the Food Stamp Program. We have a standard deduction which was actually created under a proposal of Senator Dole

back in 1977. The standard deduction is a proxy for certain expenses that households have that take away money that they otherwise might spend on food, and those expenses rise over time, it

was adjusted for inflation until the welfare law—this was a provision that I referred to earlier where the House approach rather

than the Senate approach ultimately prevailed.

There is another funny thing about the standard deduction. The

standard deduction is the same for a single individual as for a family with several children, but the family with several children has

more expenses. There is a bill that has been introduced on a bipartisan basis by Senators Specter and Kennedy and Leahy and others

that proposes to replace the current standard deduction with one

equal to 10 percent of the poverty line. The first 10 percent of the

poverty line—if your income is only 10 percent of the poverty line,

it is not like you can spend 30 percent of that small amount on

food.

That would have two effects. Over time, it would improve the

adequacy of the benefit. It would target it more to the people most

in need than lowering the 30 percent figure would do. It would address the anomaly in the program that exists today whereby the

standard deduction in the same for a single individual as for a family with children.

I would rather spend the bucks on that than on lowering the 30

percent figure.

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you.

Mr. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, could I just add that especially if

these extended accounting periods and so forth are put in statute,

I would be very surprised if the Congressional Budget Office did

not say that there will be a cost to these. That is a crucial thing

to support working families, and it is another reason to husband

your resources and focus them on this big problem. I am almost

sure it will have a CBO estimate. Nobody has gotten an estimate

yet to my knowledge, but I am almost positive there will be a cost

ascribed to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Greenstein, go ahead.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I was just going to briefly add that this committee is going to face a difficult decision. You have an allocation

from the Budget Committee. We have talked about the magnitude—the Undersecretary’s figure was that food stamp expenditures have come down at $7 billion a year.

There is a figure in Ron Haskins’ testimony where he notes that

at the time the welfare law was enacted—correct me if I am getting

your testimony wrong—it is an interesting piece of work that Ron

did in the last few weeks—at the time the welfare bill was enacted,

23

CBO forecast that food stamp expenditures from 1997 through

2002 would be $190 billion.

Mr. HASKINS. Yes.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. When he looked at what the actual expenditures have been and CBO projects for the next year or two, it is

$120 billion. It came down $70 billion more over six years than the

amount the welfare law already was assumed to save.

Mr. HASKINS. That is right.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Here is what I am getting to. You are going to

have a decision, which I know will be difficult for you, where the

same dollars have to be divided between the agricultural side and

the nutrition side. The things that we are all talking about cost

some money. The House is talking about $2 billion over 10 years

for the food stamp part. We cannot begin to do the things that we

are talking about for $2 billion over 10 years. You are going to need

to have more than that to address these issues.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, the point that I was going to make in

reaction to your suggestion, is the issue that there is not one suggestion, but several suggestions, so it is a question of, one, how

they fit, and two, the fact that all of them are going to cost a significant amount of money. Therefore, it is a question of the biggest

bang for the dollar.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The testimony that all three of you have presented is just very

helpful, and likewise the oral testimony on the changes that we

might make. This last colloquy on cost is important, and Mr.

Greenstein’s earlier comment strategically, that he would favor not

having the title in the Farm bill and taking our chances maybe the

year after. That, we will have to take a look at simply because I

am not sure that in the year following the Farm bill or whenever

this is to be taken, there are additional funds. I am open to instruction as to where you find the liberality beyond this given the budget construct that we are working under, but can you illuminate

that any more? In other words, if we were not to put this in the

Farm bill—and as you have suggested, one reason for not doing so

is not to run into competition with other claimants in the Farm

bill—where do we get the money later on, or how do we deal with

this more favorably?

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Let me clarify. I have created a misimpression

of what I was saying.

I am strongly in favor of including the food stamp title in the

Farm bill—strongly in favor of it. What I was saying was in response to Senator Harkin’s question that I did not favor doing

school lunch or school breakfast in the Farm bill. I strongly favor

doing food stamps in the Farm bill. Lunch and breakfast have

never been a part of the Farm bill. They are also under a different

committee of jurisdiction in the House. They come up for reauthorization in 2003. There is not an immediate crisis in them. In fact,

unlike this big decline in participation in food stamps, there has

really been no decline in participation in school lunch, even in free

school lunch, even in spite of the reduction in poverty and the improvement in the economy. Congress seems to have an easier time

24

politically finding resources when the time comes for the school

lunch program given its broad popularity.

My fear if you did school lunch or school breakfast in the Farm

bill, is that the first decision the committee makes is agriculture

versus the nutrition title, and you end with an amount for the nutrition title that, whatever the number is, it is probably going to

be less than I hope it will be. Then, out of that limited amount of

money, if one does lunch and breakfast there, you are taking it out

of food stamps, and my guess would be that some of whatever you

do in lunch in particular, a significant amount of that will be middle-income children, and as Ron is saying, the principal focus now

has to be on working poor families with children in the Food Stamp

Program. That is the No. 1 issue. I do not think you will end up,

unfortunately, with enough resources to do all that should be done

there. I would not dilute it further by doing lunch and breakfast,

but I definitely recommend in favor of doing the food stamp title

in the Farm bill as it has traditionally been done.

Senator LUGAR. How about the WIC Program; which way would

that fall—in the bill now, or outside of it, or are there other things

we should identify?

Mr. GREENSTEIN. WIC is up for reauthorization in 2003. Again,

there is not any immediate crisis. It should be reauthorized in

2003. Also, since WIC is a discretionary rather than a mandatory

program, this committee does not get charged with costs. Those are

charged to the Appropriations Committee each year in the appropriations cycle.

Senator LUGAR. With regard to the changes that are suggested

here, probably as we proceed with them—and each of the ones that

you have made with regard to the accountability factors and the

various ways in which we can simplify or make it more flexibility

for States, and each of you have suggested, as opposed to maybe

having a general Federal standard that States be given some discretion in these things—I suppose that as we begin our reform efforts, we probably ought to get some CBO scoring as we go along

so that we all understand that there are some costs involved, and

there are no surprises at the end of the trail.

Having said that, do you have any idea what kinds of costs we

are likely to run into? Have any of you costed out any of the reform

suggestions that you have made this morning?

Mr. BOST. Senator Lugar, we have just started to line up some

of the possible changes and recommendations and essentially what

kind of impact they would have, and I have folks in our shop looking at putting numbers behind those. At this point, I do not have

any firm numbers that I am willing to share, because I do not want

to be premature in terms of putting them out there and then having to defend them down the road until I get all of my questions

answered. I would say generally that it is going to be a significant

amount of money in terms of the types of changes that all of us

have talked about. You are looking at increasing access; you are

looking at making the system easier to negotiate; you want to bring

people in; you want to provide incentives to States to ensure that

they do that. The States are essentially going to say that it is going

to cost them more money for those things to occur.

25

I know, having had the opportunity to run a State system, there

were some other additional initiatives that I felt that I could do if

I had received more money from the Federal Government. From

that vantage point, all of these things are going to cost us a significant amount of money.

Mr. HASKINS. Could I add one point to that, Senator Lugar?

Senator LUGAR. Yes.

Mr. HASKINS. I know that this will do not good with the Congressional Budget Office, and it does not help the bottom line, but

when thinking about this additional spending, we should keep in

mind that what we are talking about here is getting benefits to

children who are eligible under current law. I know that that does

not make any difference to CBO, but it does make a difference

when you consider the types of proposals that you might support.

Our goal is not to create new eligibility or to increase benefits;

it is to get benefits to people who already deserve them under current law.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Senator, CBO has costed some proposals that

are in some bills that other Members have introduced, like the bill

I mentioned that Senators Specter and Kennedy have introduced,

and Congressmen Walsh and Clayton introduced a similar bill in

the House. Based on past CBO estimates in-house at our center,

we have done some rough estimates of what we think would be the

approximate amount CBO would estimate. I will just read you a

few of them.

The standard deduction provision that I mentioned a few min- utes ago is about $2.7 billion over 10 years. If one gave States the

option of doing transitional food stamps for families working their

way off welfare, we think that that is about $1.7 billion over 10

years.

There is a package of pretty interesting simplification options

that we have been working on and developing based on conversations with a number of State people. Those have not been costed

yet by CBO. We are guessing that they are going to end up somewhere in the $200 million to $500 million range over 10 years and,

depending on what you do on legal immigrants, that could be a few

billion dollars over 10 years.

CBO does not yet have cost estimates on the quality control reforms, and we are not sure exactly how those are going to be

costed. Hopefully, those will not be too significant.

These are some initial-type estimates. That is not to say that

none of these provisions cannot be designed in a way that costs less

and also does less, but the bottom line is that these things cost real

bucks.

Senator LUGAR. Well, it strikes me, and I suspect the chairman

would agree, that we probably ought to line up on a sheet of paper

the proposals for reform, most of which, it seems to me, have extraordinary merit, and see what they are going to cost; and then

have our draftsmen try to think, in the tradition of Dr. Haskins’ work in the past, about how you can mitigate the cost of any of this

and still get most of the effects of it, even after the sticker shock

has hit from the initial list.

Secretary Bost, it is very important—and I have no idea what

the policy of the Secretary is here, or yours—but if there are strong

26

recommendations that you have—and these are certainly exemplified in your testimony today—that the administration provide a

program fairly quickly, both for the things that we ought to do and

the costs. I understand you do not want to make it prematurely,

but we are coming down the trail rapidly with regard to farm bill

preparation, and unless those of us around this table are going to

sort of scratch it together, parsing the testimony to pick out this

and that and so forth, you have got a shop of people who are experts to do this kind of work. Again and again, with each of the

administration witnesses, without being difficult about it, I am just

saying speak nor or forever hold your piece. This is the time.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree.

Senator LUGAR. Now, people say, well, we have not had a lot of

time, and that is true, and there is still the problem of getting people confirmed. The chairman has been very helpful, and in a bipartisan way, this committee has moved people along readily—but

still, you have problems, and I understand. In your shop, you are

there; you are confirmed——

Mr. BOST. A month ago.

Senator LUGAR [continuing]. You have some helpers——

Mr. BOST. One month ago. Senator Lugar, to respond to that, we

are working with all deliberate speed to ensure that I put forth

those recommendations just as quickly as I possibly can.

Senator LUGAR. That is great.

Mr. BOST. As I said, I have been here one month; I am learning

all the hoops that I need to go through; I am learning everyone

whom I need to talk to. I have had at least four or five meetings

personally with my staff to make a determination on those recommendations that I feel are very important that I would like you

to consider, along with giving those assignments out so that people

can attach costs to them. I really do believe that I bring a little bit

of a unique approach to it, having had the opportunity of running

the program, too, of being on both sides of the fence almost at the

same time.

Senator LUGAR. It is an extraordinary approach; and supplemented by your two colleagues at the table today, perhaps we can

fashion something fairly rapidly. I look forward to those recommendations, in all seriousness.

Mr. BOST. Thank you.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. So do I.

Senator DAYTON.

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very sorry to have missed the testimony. I am trying to

catch up here, reading, and I do not really have a set of questions

because I would like to get on to the next panel.

I would just note from what I have been able to glean so far that

I am very alarmed by the testimony that has underscored the decline in participation and utilization of these important programs.

I note, Dr. Haskins, that you and perhaps others have made

some recommendations both in terms of making this program less

restrictive and, like all Federal programs, unnecessarily complicated in terms of eligibility determination as well as granting

greater flexibility to the States with the working participants so it

27

can be worked more in concert with TANF. I am looking forward

to the next panel to address maybe some specific recommendations

in this area, because I certainly think, Mr. Chairman, that this

program has been so important to so many Americans that we really ought to look with alarm at these declining participation rates

and make sure that whatever we do in this reauthorization improves access and efficiency.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Dayton.

Senator WELLSTONE. Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am also sorry that I missed the testimony. Senator Dayton and

I had to testify at another committee about workers out of work

and the need to get Trade Adjustment Assistance.

I have some questions, if it is OK. One thing that I want to say

at the beginning, which is in just a little bit of disagreement with

Dr. Haskins—I am in complete agreement on the whole issue that

those people who are eligible should be participating, and I want

to come back to the report today from Food and Nutrition Service— but again, whether we like it or not, we cut some of the food stamp

benefits in that welfare bill. For example, a typical family of three

with a monthly income of $957—that is 81 percent of the poverty

line, Mr. Chairman—is eligible for $154 in food stamp benefits

under current law. If we had not had the across-the-board reductions in the welfare law, they would be receiving $174. That is an

11 percent increase. To that family, that is really important. Some

of the minimum benefits are laughable. The lowest is $10 a week

for one person, or something like that. It is pretty embarrassing,

frankly. I do not think it is just a question of making sure that the

people who are eligible get the benefits that they are eligible for;

we need to look at the benefits.

I understand Senator Lugar’s point about the restraints that we

are operating under, but there is also the other cost—and I also

want to make the point about eligibility again. One of the things

that has also been a huge problem—and one of you, it was Bob,

talked about the issue of the savings in the cuts in food stamp benefits—we cut the food stamp benefits for legal immigrants. Have

you noticed that the politics in this country about immigrants is

changing? Then, we restored it, for children and disabled post1996. The point is that a lot of the children still do not get the benefits because their parent or parents are not eligible, so they do not

go.

Let us get real about what we did. We are going to have to face

this decision. I want to push hard that we restore eligibility for

benefits for legal immigrants. There are a lot of legal immigrants

in this country with their children. There is more to it than just

expanding eligibility.

Let me now go to my question. The first question is for Undersecretary Bost. I appreciate the report. I have been asking for this for

a while, and I am so pleased that you came forward today. The

Food and Nutrition Services people do good work, and again, it is

a matter of—one more time for the record—glass half-full, glass

half-empty. Undersecretary Bost said—and he had every right to—

listen, remember that you had a certain percentage who were no

28

longer participating because they were not eligible because they

were working—44 percent. We might be more troubled that over

half of the people who are not participating are still eligible. We

have had something like a 30 percent decline. There were a lot of

reasons, and you were very forthright about this, and I appreciate

your testimony.

What would you recommend that we do, Secretary Bost, by way

of—and I know that Dr. Haskins is interested in this as well—what

do you think we need to do to make sure that the people who are

eligible right now know they are eligible? Where is the outreach?

Where is the infrastructure?

Mr. BOST. There are a couple of things we can do at the Federal

level and also have the opportunity of doing from the State level.

One, provide information across the board to those persons that we

think are eligible; two, provide additional training of staff for persons who come in to apply, especially those who are receiving

TANF, and when it appears that they are no longer going to be receiving TANF, also make them aware that they might still be eligible for food stamps. That is one thing we did in Texas that saw a

little bit of a reversal in terms of the number of people who fell off

the welfare rolls but were still eligible for food stamps and did not

come back in to apply.

The other issue that we have heard consistently from clients is

the issue about it being difficult for them to access services. There

are two categories—people who work, people who do not work.

Those persons who do work essentially said, ‘‘It is difficult for me

to take off and come in to apply.’’ The second group of people essentially said, ‘‘I do not understand all of the rules. I do not understand all the pieces of paper that I need to bring in to ensure that

I am eligible.’’

We need to address both of those groups of persons, and we have

all talked about some steps that we can take to do that. When you

combine all of those initiatives, you will see—and I believe that we

have seen—a significant turnaround in terms of those persons who

are indeed eligible and are now participating.

I know that the commissioner from Maine, a good friend and colleague of mine, Kevin Concannon, has done an outstanding job in

terms of ensuring—and I know that he is due to testify, and he can

talk about some of the things that they have done in Maine—to ensure that people who are indeed eligible actually come in to the offices to apply.

All of those are things that can be done.

One final point—and I am going to speak wearing both hats now,

since I have only been in this role for 30 days. There are some

things on the State level that I wanted to do, but I could not afford

to do them. On the issue of call centers, I got a 50–50 match. I did

two or three. I would have wanted to have done more if I had more

money to do it.

On the issue of training, I appropriated money to train all of our

staff. I could have done more training, because I believe that training is very important.

There is the issue of public service announcements. I could go on

and on. It is a question of how much money you want to put out

there to ensure that you address this issue.

29

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you. The light is yellow, and I want

to fire two questions to each of the other panelists, and then you

can answer, so I do not run out of time.

By the way, my understanding is that right now, it takes an average of five hours for someone to apply.

Mr. BOST. That is not true.

Senator WELLSTONE. OK. Good. That is great.

Mr. BOST. In the office in Texas—— Senator WELLSTONE. This is according to the recent testimony

before the House subcommittee.

Mr. BOST. Maybe that is an average. We were able to put all the

information on one application—food stamps, TANF, and Medicaid.

I am not going to say that it is short, by any means, but the average time period that it would take a person to apply was about two

hours.

Senator WELLSTONE. OK.

Mr. Greenstein, on the issue of fraud—you were talking about

quality control and how it does not work—are there ways that we

can revamp the quality control system—maybe you went over

this—and still protect ourselves against the concerns about fraud?

If you could speak to that, and then, Dr. Haskins, I want to ask

you about the whole issue of benefits for legal immigrants, because

that comes up over and over again—on food stamps—if I could.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. There are a number of things to look at in the

quality control area, but the single most important is the outdated

provision in the food stamp law that says no matter how well

States perform as a group, every State above the national average

is subject to penalty. In other words, even if the States as a group

move to very good performance, in any given year, roughly half of

them are subject to penalty, which puts tremendous pressure on

the States. We have had State directors say to us, ‘‘Look, here is

a possible procedure; it might lower my error rate a few tenths of

a point, but it is going to impede participation by working families,

and I do not want to do it.’’ If 10 or 15 other States adopt it, that

forces me to consider it, because we are all measured against each

other for this national average.

The USDA in the mid to late eighties, under the Reagan administration, contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to do

a study of the food stamp quality control system and recommend

changes. One of their principal recommendations was that the system should penalize the States that are the outliers, that have the

outlying, unusually high error rates—not everybody who is above

the national average.

Now, there is a provision in the food stamp law that also gives

the Department the authority to go after and exact financial penalties on any State that is negligent in the administration of its

program.

Senator WELLSTONE. Does that mean the people who are eligible

do not get the benefits—that kind of error?

Mr. GREENSTEIN. No. We used this some when I was running the

program in the late seventies. This rarely happened, but you have

a procedure that Congress has put in to reduce overpayments and,

for whatever reason, a State just does not implement it—something

egregious like that.

30

Here is my point. We can revamp the quality control system so

the sanctions apply to the outliers, and you still have the authority—if a State is not an outlier but loses a lot of money because

of gross negligence, the Department still has the authority to identify that individual State and do something. We should not automatically be subjecting half of the States to sanctions in a given

year.

One quick point on another front when you were mentioning improving participation. One of Mr. Bost’s former colleagues, Don

Winstead, who runs the programs in Florida, said to me some

months ago, ‘‘Bob, more of us States are moving to enable working

families to apply for Medicaid outside the welfare office. If food

stamps is not enabled to move with them, we are going to have

families that are not on welfare—they are not going to the welfare

office for welfare, they are not going to the welfare office anymore

for Medicaid—if the only thing they have to go for is a complicated

food stamp process, we could lose even more of them.’’ One of the recommendations I made and Ron also talked about

was enabling food stamps to move in line with Medicaid for working families, so you would have a simple process by which working

families could apply for both together.

Senator WELLSTONE. Put child care in there.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. If you align food stamps and Medicaid first, you

then may be able to ultimately put child care in there as well. That

is the right vision.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

I have one last question I want to ask. The food stamp program

is a Federal program. Yet it is administered by the States. It has

come to my attention over the years that in some States now, the

application for food stamps is two pages long, and in some States,

it is 30 pages long. If it is a Federal program administered by the

States, why can’t we come up with a standard form? What is wrong

with having a standard form that is two pages long? If some States

can get by with two pages, why can’t all States?

Mr. Bost.

Mr. BOST. Well, It is a question of what some States feel like

they need. In the State of Texas, we were able to combine our form

to include both TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid on four pages,

front and back, that included both English and Spanish.

The CHAIRMAN. On four pages?

Mr. BOST. On four pages.

The CHAIRMAN. You included them all?

Mr. BOST. We included them all. I brought it down from 10 pages

to about four pages. To respond more specifically to your question,

we are in the process of working with all the States to talk about

this issue of making the application and the application process

more user-friendly.

The issue is that there are some—and Bonnie will correct me if

I am wrong—but I do believe there are some instances where there

are State mandates in terms of information that they need to collect, so they just added them all on one form, and that has essentially extended the form. In addition to those Federal requirements,

there are also State requirements that States have put on one

form. Also, there is the State infrastructure in terms of being able

31

to collect all the information, put it into computers and actually use

it. The Department is in the process of working with all of our

State partners now to address this issue of making a form or developing a form or providing them with the flexibility to ensure that

the form is just as customer-friendly as it can be.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to look at that issue as we reauthorize the Food Stamp Program. If States want to collect a lot of different information, let them do it another way do it on a State program form.

Mr. Greenstein.

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Federal rules, some of them rooted in the law,

require States to, for example, track all kinds of minute pieces of

income that only small numbers of households have—income for

giving blood, all kinds of minute forms of assets. You could help the

States shorten the forms if, as part of reauthorization, we enable

some cleaning out of these tiny forms of income and assets that few

people have—it would not be a big cost—but not require the States

to have to—and you should look at the number of little pieces of

assets—— The CHAIRMAN. Right. Why do some States form have, as I have

been informed, include a couple of pages, and some States——

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Senator, some of the States that have short

forms then have supplemental worksheets that the workers go

through that ask all kinds of detailed questions.

Mr. BOST. That is exactly right. As a part of what we are doing

now in terms of those recommendations—let me give you a really

good example of what I am talking about.

About 18 months ago when I looked at the form, I had them line

them up in terms of Federal questions that we have to ask, State

questions that we have to ask, and other things that we can change

and tinker with. I looked at all of those, put them on the board,

and we looked at those that we had to have and those that we did

not think we wanted to have, and we called the folks at USDA and

said maybe we should not have to have them, and maybe we can

put them on something else.

The State questions that we were asking over a period of time

were piled on top of each other, so I took them all out. That is how

we were able to bring it down to about four pages, by going

through that process—and I do believe that many of the States are

in the process of doing that now.

The CHAIRMAN. I would ask all of you here—you are all experts

on this—if you have any suggestions on how we might proceed on

that from here. Most of those questions are not legislated. They

must be rules—I do not know. If we have legislated them, I would

like to take a look at it. If they have accumulated over the years,

as you say, Bob, maybe we can weed some of those out.

Any advice you have for us on how we might do that would be

appreciated.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, during the course of reauthorization,

in terms of the recommendations that we are developing now, those

are going to be some of my recommendations, to delete some of the

stuff that is on there now that is of no value to us.

The CHAIRMAN. When are you going to get those recommendations to us? I mean, we are moving ahead on this Farm bill.

32

Mr. BOST. As quickly and as deliberately as I can. I do not have

a date.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator WELLSTONE. In 20 seconds, I had asked Dr. Haskins

about legal immigrants and what his recommendation was on

whether we should restore the benefits.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes. Go ahead.

Mr. HASKINS. Senator, I would not change a semicolon in the law

that was passed in 1996. America offers immigrants the greatest

deal in the world, literally. They come to the country with the most

individual freedom, the hottest economy. They are required by our

laws to have a sponsor if there is a possibility that they cannot

support themselves. When they become citizens, they are eligible

for welfare benefits just like every other American. In the 1996

law, we made them eligible for several programs that had to do

with self-advancement, like Head Start and other education programs. In addition to that, we covered many emergency situations.

This is simply a value distinction. It does not make sense to

bring people to your country for opportunity and then put them on

welfare. Taxpayers should not have that obligation; their sponsors

have that obligation.

Senator WELLSTONE. Well, I do not want to get started—can I

take 20 seconds?

The CHAIRMAN. We have another panel to hear from.

Senator WELLSTONE. We will just have a major debate about it

later.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HASKINS. Name a time and place, Senator—I will be there.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

We will now dismiss the first panel and ask our second panel to

come to the witness table.

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome Karen Ford, Executive Director of

the Food Bank of Iowa; Kevin Concannon, Commissioner of the

Maine Department of Human Services; Celine Dieppa, a Food

Stamp Program participant; Dean Leavitt, Chairman and CEO of

U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.; Dr. Deborah Frank Director of the Grow

Clinic for Children at Boston Medical Center and Dr. Cutberto

Garza, a professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

Mr. Bost, before you leave, I would just like to say that I want

this panel to hear from Mr. Leavitt.

Mr. BOST. I will be right back.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I did not know if you were leaving.

Mr. BOST. No. I will be right back.

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you.

We welcome our second panel, and again, without objection, all

of your written statements will be made a part of the record. I will

ask each of you to keep your remarks to 5 to 7 minutes, and we

will use the lights here.

First, Ms. Karen Ford, Executive Director of the Food Bank of

Iowa. You have been here before, Ms. Ford, and we welcome you

back.

33

STATEMENT OF KAREN FORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOOD

BANK OF IOWA, DES MOINES, IOWA

Ms. FORD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ranking member

Lugar, and distinguished committee members.

My name is Karen Ford, and I am the Executive Director of the

Food Bank of Iowa, which is an affiliate of America’s Second Harvest.

The Food Bank of Iowa is housed in a 53,000-square-foot warehouse in Des Moines. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I want to

once again invite you and Mr. Halverson to visit at your earliest

convenience.

Last year, 4.2 million pounds of grocery product was distributed

to 240 member agencies and food banks. Nineteen percent of the

product distributed was TEFAP and bonus commodities. The Food

Bank has a 42-county service area covering 30,000 square miles,

populated by one million Iowans living in small towns and on

farms.

I am here today to provide suggestions for food stamp reauthorization that will be contained in the Farm bill moving through Congress this year or next. It is my understanding that the House Agriculture Committee is proposing only $2 billion out of the over $70

billion in new funding in the Farm bill to go to food stamp support.

Mr. Chairman, that is not enough and is very shortsighted based

on what I see in our State of Iowa and what food bankers see

across the country.

A recent study was done as a followup by Mathematica about the

welfare system in Iowa, and it showed that after five years, even

though people had moved off welfare, they were in essence no better off than they were before welfare reform. The reason was because they had moved off of cash assistance, but they were still in

low-paying jobs, and with any kind of disturbance in their family

situation, it was predicted that they would be back in need of assistance.

As a food banker, I just want to throw this in. I am requesting

full funding of TEFAP administration, which to me means storage,

distribution, warehousing. I thought that was important when I

put this in my statement, but then, on Monday, I received a note

from the program manager of TEFAP in the State of Iowa, informing me that they had run out of money, and there would be no reimbursement for the month of September for warehouse distribution and storage. This now comes very close to home. I am hoping

that you will look at that as the cost of doing business as opposed

to simply an administrative, paper-shuffling kind of thing.

In April of last year, Governor Vilsack created and appointed me

to the Iowa Food Policy Council, a forum to study and make recommendations on food security and other food policy issues.

One of our first concerns was the food stamp participation level.

From 1996 to 2001, participation in Iowa has dropped 28.9 percent,

while demand on food pantries and feeding programs has increased. What is going on? America’s Second Harvest ‘‘The Red

Tape Divide’’ review helped to give us a few clues.

In Iowa, the application is over 10 pages long, but even more disturbing is that it is written at a 12th grade level. I was at a meeting with deans from Iowa State University, and they were appalled

34

at that; they said that their recommendation would be that the application be shorter, user-friendly, and written at a 6th grade level.

I do have some new information. In the fiscal year ending June

30, participation in Iowa was up with food stamps 5.1 percent. Part

of that may be because although there is not much outreach, there

has been a lot of outreach done through the food pantries and the

soup kitchens and the emergency feeding programs, because being

overwhelmed, they suddenly—or, maybe they have always known

the importance of the Food Stamp Program—but now they are encouraging people to go.

The other thing is that last week, The Register reported that the

Salvation Army had turned away 500 people who had come in need

of assistance to help fulfill the contract that they had made with

the energy company because of last winter’s high bills. That is the

kind of disturbance in a family’s life that would cause this talk

about rebounding back into a cash assistance program. That is not

only Salvation Army; Catholic Charities and Saint Vincent de Paul

said the same thing. They have simply run out of money to be able

to help.

Based on my experiences, having the ability through this Policy

Council, to look into what goes on and how Iowa’s program is run,

I have the following recommendations.

First, maintain the Food Stamp Program’s benefit entitlement

structure so that all who may qualify based on need can receive

necessary nutrition assistance.

Second, simplify the Food Stamp Program by simplifying the eligibility requirements, the application process, change reporting and

recertification.

It is apparent in our State that the reason why people are not

necessarily overly encouraged to use food stamps is because of the

quality control system, which requires USDA to calculate penalties

for States that perform below the national average and to pay

extra administrative funding to States that have very low error

rates. Too often, a State’s error rate is the only measure of performance in administering the program that receives any attention.

It also seems to have the effect—and ‘‘paralyze’’ might be a little

too strong—but of just being unwilling to make any significant

changes because of the error rate.

Then, to make it more complicated, the Department received an

award from USDA because it had lowered its error rate. It is kind

of hard to tell them they are doing something wrong when they are

being told they have done something really right.

The other thing would be to increase the minimum benefit level

to $25 as opposed to the $10 currently. Hopefully, that would be

a bit more of an attraction to the many, many seniors who live in

Iowa; and also change the Food Stamp Program’s name and implement EBT. Many stereotypes revolve around the name ‘‘Food

Stamp Program.’’

These recommendations will not come cheap and will not happen

at all without your help. We need to help ensure that funding in

this Farm bill is made available to support changes that will make

it easier for families and our seniors to access the Food Stamp Program. The best thing you can do for food bankers across the country is to strengthen the Food Stamp Program. Nothing else that I

35

can see will alleviate the tremendous demand for emergency food

more than a strong food stamp safety net.

I agree that the food stamp administrators in Iowa are in a difficult position. With strict adherence to the QC system and the current financial crisis, food stamp reauthorization offers the best opportunity to make needed changes. I can only see that as—we have

kind of come full circle—that it is time for the Federal Government

to take the lead. In some States—obviously, in Texas—they have

made broad strokes and gone a long way toward having a really

excellent program, but that is not occurring in every State.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Karen. Thank you for

being here, and thanks for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ford can be found in the appendix on page 98.]

The CHAIRMAN. Next, we will go to Mr. Kevin Concannon, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services.

Mr. CONCANNON.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN W. CONCANNON, COMMISSIONER,

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, AUGUSTA, MAINE

Mr. CONCANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members

of the committee.

I am Kevin Concannon, Commissioner of the Maine Department

of Human Services, and I am very pleased to be here today, both

to speak to and to support the Food Stamp Program.

In Maine, it is of vital importance to our State. We are 37th in

per capita income, and the ability of thousands of Maine households to maintain a nutritional support system is heavily reliant on

access to benefits provided by the Food Stamp Program.

I am proud of the fact that Maine ranks fourth in the Nation in

participation rate among households that are eligible for the program. According to the USDA, Maine reaches approximately 82

percent of eligible households. Over 53,000 families and 100,000 individuals receive food stamps in Maine on a monthly basis. Annually, that represents about $84 million to the Maine economy.

My predominant focus in Maine with regard to the Food Stamp

Program has been on access. While in TANF, we have experienced

a 55 percent decline in caseload, our decline in the Food Stamp

Program has only been about 18 percent from its highest point. I

might say parenthetically that we have the highest number of people on Medicaid and the CHIP program in the history of the State;

we have had no decline there.

We believe the largest influence on these numbers has been the

message we deliver to recipients. When a household in Maine applies for public assistance, as part of the application, they must attend a mandatory orientation. I attended one myself last week.

During the presentation, our staff stresses the availability of resources to households, including food stamps, medical assistance,

and other support services when and if they leave the TANF program and the cash assistance program.

We see the Food Stamp Program benefits as important transitional benefits for working households, while perhaps a longer-term

benefit to the elderly and disabled to achieve appropriate nutrition.

36

Maine has taken advantage of some available options currently

available under waivers, but much more needs to be done from our

perspective.

Even the options and waivers currently available do not come

close to addressing some basic faults that have accumulated in the

Food Stamp Program over its long history. I really support the

comments from the three panelists who appeared initially this

morning on simplifying some of the complexity, increasing the benefits—for example, a minimum benefit is extremely important in

our State. If realtors tell us that ‘‘location, location, location’’ is the

predominant vector in real estate, then I would say ‘‘complexity,

complexity, complexity’’ is the major area of concern that I have

and the people who administer our program and the people applying for the program are currently faced with. I am very encouraged

by Undersecretary Bost’s comments about his experience in Texas

and in Arizona, and now as the person responsible for the program.

Along with efforts to enhance access to the program, we acknowledge the responsibility to ensure program integrity. There has been

far too much emphasis on QC or quality assurance, and far too little emphasis, if you will, on access and on outreach. There needs

to be a balance, and in my view, having administered the program

in Oregon as well as back East in Maine, there is too much emphasis on QC and not enough on simplifying and making sure that

people have access.

The States through the American Public Human Services Association have addressed many concerns to be considered during the

reauthorization process for the Food Stamp Program. We support

the recommendations in the APHSA ‘‘Crossroads’’ document. I have

attached for the record a summary from that.

Briefly, some of the recommendations are, first and foremost, to

simplify food stamp calculations. Current design of the program is

too complicated regarding the calculation of benefits. This is a

problem for recipients as well as for those folks who administer the

program, the people who work for us at the State or county level

across the country. Failure of recipients to understand these requirements may well discourage them from applying.

The program can and should be simplified, but simplification

should not undermine the fundamentally important goal of targeting. Bob Greenstein spoke to that. For example, in our State, we

are in the middle of a steep increase in the southern part of the

State in terms of housing costs, so we want to be able to target,

but there does need to be simplification.

Second, simplify the processing. Recipients do not understand

why the various Federal and State programs have different requirements. The Chairman referenced that in his questions. We administer the Medicaid program. I can fully and adequately meet all

the Federal Medicaid requirements in a single sheet, front and

back. I cannot do it in the current Food Stamp Program because

we have to have workers bring people in to subsequently, as was

mentioned, go off a worksheet to get that additional data that is

required federally. It is part of that obsession—my word; excuse

me—with the QC side of it, and there is not really commensurate

interest in commitment to the access side. Some of those complicated forms and applications are, again, protective, if you will,

37

or defensive devices by States to try to keep them out of trouble

on the QC side. It needs to be fundamentally revamped.

We need to simplify household composition. The current household composition rules for the Food Stamp Program are outdated.

There are examples of that in my testimony.

We need to simplify the assets. With the advent of welfare reform and recent interpretations regarding categorical eligibility,

some States, Maine being one of them, no longer subject families

with children to an asset test. I am very mindful among the assets

about vehicles. Maine has very little public transportation, and in

the wintertime, it is a very cold and wintry place; it is genuine winter, and you need an adequate vehicle. The vehicle limitations really need to be conformed in our case to the TANF program, but I

would exempt the first vehicle from any consideration of assets for

families. You want people to be in a safe vehicle, especially in wintertime.

We very much support transitional benefits. Although they are

now introduced for you can have them for a 3-month period, we

think they should be for six months. We have transitional benefits

in Medicaid, but it is for a much longer period of time. We help

people with child care for a much longer period of time. We are

very much focused on supporting families, and it is currently too

short a time.

There is absolutely a need to enhance the benefits to the elderly

and disabled. Maine has the fifth-highest percentage of elderly population in the country. This $10 minimum benefit—it is such a hassle to get so much for so little—dissuades people from coming for- ward. There ought to be at least a minimum $25 benefit, in our

view, for elderly and disabled people.

Electronic benefits transfer—this is my 30-second catharsis for

Maine—we are one of about 12 States that have currently not implemented EBT. The troubling thing in Maine is that the current

issuance cost for food stamps in Maine is $800,000 a year. As you

heard earlier, we have 82 percent of people receiving them. We are

very committed to making sure people get those stamps. Going to

EBT is going to cost us $2 million a year. I bring it from both parties of my legislature and the Governor—they are very unhappy

about this cost shift to us, which is really what it amounts to to

go to EBT, because of the rules that have been developed over

time. It is going to cost us more. We like the prospect of EBT; it

has many benefits, but it should not cost the State more.

On performance measures, I know of no other program that says,

look, we are going to have to rank half of you folks below the median and half above—other than introductory statistics, it just is

not very good social policy, and it really should be focused on State

by State, helping States to improve their performance. This year,

we are penalized as a State, interestingly enough, because we fall

just below the median. When I got that, I almost reached for my

‘‘purple pill,’’ because it bothered me a lot. We have the highest

rate of participation in our region, as we should have, yet we are

being penalized on the QC side. It makes no sense whatsoever to

me. Those performance measures are troubling.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we very much need the

Food Stamp Program. We are bullish on it. We know that it makes

38

a difference in people’s lives. We absolutely need the complexities

reduced, simplification, and some adjustments in the benefit.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Concannon.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Concannon can be found in the

appendix on page 112.]

The CHAIRMAN. Now we turn to Ms. Celine Dieppa, a food stamp

participant from Manchester, Connecticut.

Welcome.

STATEMENT OF CELINE DIEPPA, FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

PARTICIPANT, MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT

Ms. DIEPPA. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk

with you today. My name is Celine Dieppa, and I live in Manchester, Connecticut. I am a working mother of a 4-year-old daughter, Malexis.

I work at Shop Rite of Manchester, a local supermarket. At my

job, I do a little bit of everything. I work as a cashier at a customer

service booth and at the lotto desk. I usually work 30 to 35 hours

a week, but sometimes I get the chance to work 40 hours or more.

I am there for six and sometimes seven days a week. I earn $7 an

hour. I pay for rent and utilities, and although I do get help with

child care costs, I still have to pay $40 each month out of my pocket.

I have been participating in the Food Stamp Program on and off

for four years. This program has made a big difference to me. I

work to provide the beset for my daughter. I usually receive about

$60 to $70 each month in food stamps, but since my income goes

up and down, so does the amount of food stamps that I get. There

are times that I may get just $10 or $20 a month. I really appreciate the help that I get from this program, yet there are times

when it just is not enough. Sometimes it can be really hard to afford even the basics, like milk for my little girl. There have been

times when I have had to go to an emergency food pantry to supplement what I could buy in the store. The first time I had to do

this, I felt embarrassed and hurt that I needed to do this even

though I was working.

It can be a real challenge and sometimes very frustrating for a

busy working parent like me to remain on the Food Stamp Program each month. I have to submit a monthly report that asks for

information about all my income in the last four weeks, my child

care expenses, and the child support i receive. In addition to filling

out this form, I have to attach documents to prove that everything

I write on this form is true. I have to be very organized, making

sure that I keep all my pay stubs and letters and copies of checks.

I need to make copies of everything and get the paperwork in on

time. If I lose something, or if I am late, I run the risk of getting

cutoff the program. I do get health coverage for my child through

the State’s HUSKY Program, and I am not asked to report monthly

in this program.

This month, I am not getting any food stamps at all because I

was able to work many more hours than usual last month; but I

am back to my regular work schedule now, and I hope that when

39

I submit my report next month, I will not have trouble getting back

on this program.

Having help from the Food Stamp Program means so much to

me and my child. If you can do something to make it easier for

working families like mine who are trying to balance work and

meeting the requirements of social services programs, it would be

a great help.

Thank you for listening to me this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Dieppa, for being here and

bringing it all back home, as they say, what this is really all about.

I congratulate you. You really bring it home about working families

and working mothers, especially single parents, who really need

help in this program. That is one of the way that we are going to

have to really look at how we change this program, because the

families that we are serving have changed over the last years, and

we have to address that.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dieppa can be found in the appendix on page 118.]

The CHAIRMAN. Now we move to Mr. Dean Leavitt, Chairman

and CEO of U.S. Wireless Data.

Mr. Bost, I wanted you to stay and listen to this, because one

thing caught my attention which had to do with farmers markets

and what has happened with the drop-off in participation by food

stamp programs participants markets. Mr. Leavitt is here at my

request to testify about that.

We welcome you to the committee, Mr. Leavitt.

STATEMENT OF DEAN M. LEAVITT, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, U.S.

WIRELESS DATA, INCORPORATED, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Mr. LEAVITT. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members

of the committee.

As the chairman indicated, my name is Dean Leavitt, and I am

Chairman and CEO of U.S. Wireless Data, a New York City-based

company specializing in the processing of wireless payment transactions.

I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the benefits of a new

technology my company has developed which provides farmers with

the ability to wirelessly accept EBT or food stamp cards, credit

cards, and other forms of plastic payment instruments at farmers

markets located throughout the United States.

As you are well aware, the Food Stamp Fraud Reduction Act of

1993, as proposed by Senator Leahy of Vermont, mandated the migration of the food stamp entitlement program from what had historically been a paper coupon-based system to one that would utilize electronic benefit transfer or EBT technology. As part of the

implementation of that Act, grocery store owners were provided

with electronic point-of-sale systems which would allow them to accept the newly issued EBT cards to program beneficiaries.

The point-of-sale equipment was provided to the store owners at

no cost to them. In addition, in most cases, the costs associated

with the phone line required for the authorization of such electronic transactions was also provided at no cost to the store owner.

The cost of the point-of-sale equipment was approximately $500.

The cost of the phone lines, depending on the geographical area,

40

ranged from approximately $50 to $200 for the initial installation

of the line and from approximately $10 to $50 per month for basic

services.

Now we have a problem. By all measure, the implementation of

the Act has been a tremendous success in terms of both the reduction in food stamp-related fraud as well as the convenience and efficiency the system offers the program beneficiaries and store owners.

However, one of the unintended consequences of the Act is that

the farmers markets, once a source of well-priced fresh fruit and

vegetables for food stamp beneficiaries, were by virtue of this implementation immediately foreclosed out of EBT card acceptance

due to the unavailability of electrical outlets and telephone lines for

electronic point-of-sale systems.

As such, over the seven or so years since the implementation of

the Act, there has been a dramatic fall-off in the visitation of farmers markets by EBT program beneficiaries for the purposes of purchasing fresh fruit and vegetables. Instead, program beneficiaries

have had little choice but to either purchase their produce at commercial supermarkets and grocery stores or to cut back on such

purchases completely.

Starting in September of last year, U.S. Wireless Data has been

working closely with the USDA and the State of New York in a

rollout of a wireless transaction processing solution for farmers

participating in the farmers market program in the New York metropolitan area.

The initial pilot program, which extended from early September

to December, included approximately 45 farmers in the New York

City area. Under the pilot program, farmers were provided with

wireless devices housing U.S. Wireless Data’s proprietary software

that wirelessly submitted transactional data to U.S. Wireless

Data’s host facility. Those transactions were then switched out to

the appropriate authorization facilities that either would approve

or decline the transaction. This takes approximately 5 to 7 seconds,

the entire transaction. If the transaction is approved, the terminal

prints out a receipt which is then handed to the EBT card user for

their records. As with the landline-based EBT program, the funds

are then directly deposited into the farmer’s account.

In addition to EBT cards, the point-of-sale terminals were also

programmed to accept commercial credit cards such as MasterCard,

VISA, American Express, Discover, Diners, as well as debit cards,

otherwise known as ATM or 24-hour cards.

The program ended in December with the end of New York’s

farming season. Incidentally, this device here is the actual handheld device that we are using for that program. It is a wireless

unit; it is battery-powered; it prints out a receipt after the transaction is completed. Also, while this particular one is set up for

magnetic card stripe reading, it can also be enabled for SmartCards, which I understand is utilized in many States for the WIC

program. It is a fairly versatile device, and it is working quite well.

As the pilot program was a success, starting in June of this year,

U.S. Wireless Data, again in concert with USDA and New York

State, started an actual commercial rollout of the program. As of

41

this date, two farmers are participating in the program, which by

all counts is running without incident.

In conclusion, we believe that offering wireless EBT card acceptance to farmers participating in the farmers market program not

only offers EBT beneficiaries the opportunity to expand their

choices and return back to their favorite venues for the purchase

of well-priced fresh fruit and vegetables, but it also levels the playing field between the larger supermarkets and grocery stores who

have had the benefit of EBT card acceptance for seven years now

and those farmers who have been unable to realize an important

component of their revenue stream that they enjoyed prior to the

implementation of the Act.

We at U.S. Wireless Data wish to commend Congress and the

Department of Agriculture for realizing the importance of both the

EBT and farmers market programs and the need to make such programs available to the widest possible audience.

To that end, Mr. Chairman, my staff and I are eager to work

with you, your committee, and the USDA in a concerted effort to

find a way to roll out a nationwide wireless EBT card acceptance

program. I am confident that we at U.S. Wireless Data are wellpositioned to continue its role as both the provider of the required

state-of-the-art technology and the implementor of the EBT wireless program to the farmers.

I thank you again for this opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Leavitt, for bringing this to our

attention and for your testimony. I will have a couple of followup

questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leavitt can be found in the appendix on page 120.]

The CHAIRMAN. Now we turn to Dr. Deborah Frank, Director of

the Growth and Development Clinic in Boston, Massachusetts.

Dr. Frank, welcome to the committee.

STATEMENT OF DR. DEBORAH A. FRANK, DIRECTOR, GROWTH

AND DEVELOPMENT CLINIC, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Dr. FRANK. Thank you.

I am honored to come before you representing the pediatric researchers of the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Project,

which we call CSNAP, and pediatric clinicians like myself, who

daily treat malnourished American children.

I specifically want to dedicate my testimony to the 19 children

whom I saw last night in evening clinic, mainly of working parents,

who are being doctored for malnutrition. It is for those children

that I speak who are too young to speak for themselves.

With major funding from the Kellogg Foundation over three

years, CSNAP monitored the impact of current public policies and

economic conditions on the nutrition and health status of low-income children younger than 3—very little children—in Baltimore,

Boston, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Washington,

DC.

If you could join us on the wards and in the clinics and sit in

on our scientific meetings, I do not think it would be difficult to reframe the discussion about the costs of increasing the availability

of food stamps to the costs of not increasing the availability of food

42

stamps in the terms of the health and work and learning potential

of America’s people, particularly America’s children.

As Ms. Dieppa said, there is not only anecdotal but hard medical

data that food stamps make a dramatic difference in the food security of families with children, and there is even clearer and a daily

growing body of medical evidence that food security is essential for

health.

The stories of the families that we care for daily confront us with

the stark reality, not found in any medical textbook, that if the cost

of housing and energy prices increase disproportionate to the levels

of wages and benefits, many working poor and low-income parents

have an insurmountable balancing act trying to find resources to

pay rent, have gas to get to work, and still be able to put enough

food on the table to keep their children healthy and learning.

As community health providers, we also find ourselves spending

incredible amounts of time trying to help families fill out Food

Stamp Program applications, which are longer and harder to understand than the one I fill out each year for my medical license.

You have well-documented the national and State-based rates of

food insecurity, but they do not tell the whole story. For example,

in Minnesota, the prevalence of food-insecure households is 10 percent of the State population, but for young children under 3 in poor

families coming to medical settings, it is 24 percent.

Hunger threatens the well-being of our next generation beginning in the womb. The nutritional status of a woman as she enters

pregnancy and the amount of weight she gains during pregnancy

are critical predictors of birth weight, which in turn is the most important predictor of a child’s survival, and for surviving children,

whether they will suffer from lasting impairments and school failures.

We also need to think in terms of ‘‘QC’’—a new word I learned

today—of dietary quality as well as dietary quantity. For example,

it has been shown that food-insecure women have diets that are deficient in folate. This is pretty scary, since there is a well-established connection between women’s diets being deficient in folate

and their children suffering from spina bifida.

It is not just the quantity of food and whether people gain

weight, but the quality of food that influences their health.

After birth, nutrition continues to exert major influences on

health and development. Any sick child loses weight; however, in

a privileged home, once the illness is resolved, children can eat

extra and get themselves back to normal growth and health. For

a low-income family, particular, for example, one that last month

had a good income, as Ms. Dieppa was describing, and this month

has less income, but their food stamp benefits are set to last

month’s income, food supplies can be uncertain even for feeding

well children. Once a nutritional deficit has occurred for a normal

childhood illness, there is no additional food to restore the child to

health. The child is left malnourished and more susceptible to the

next infection, which is more prolonged and severe. It is this infection-malnutrition cycle which, in the developing world, kills children and in our country leads to preventable recurrent illnesses

and costly utilization of health care resources.

43

In fact, we have found that food-insecure children under 3 are

twice as likely to require hospitalization. I would point out that two

days of hospitalization costs the Federal Government much more

than a year’s worth of food stamps.

Even with refeeding and medical care, malnutrition can inflict

concurrent and lasting deficits in cognitive development, posing serious implications for the malnourished child’s future ability to participate in the knowledge economy. This happens long before I see

a change in body size, because the first thing a child who is not

getting enough to eat does is be less active, less alert, and less interested. By the time that strategy has failed is when you actually

see a child coming in underweight.

My neighbor, a 5th grade teacher for new Americans, was worried about a hungry little girl in her class, and what she described

to me is classic. She said: ‘‘She is sick a lot, but she tries to come

to school, and some days, it is just like she is not there. Her skin

is dull, there is no spark in her eyes; she wants so much to please,

but some days, she can remember and learn, and the next day, she

cannot.’’

Well, if you can imagine sitting through one of these hearings

not having had breakfast or lunch, you can perhaps see why that

child cannot learn.

There is a recent article in Pediatrics by Dr. Allemo that found

that children who were food-insufficient had lower arithmetic

scores and were more likely to repeat a grade; food-insufficient

teenagers are three times more likely to be suspended from school.

No amount of standardized testing will alleviate the impact of

hunger on children’s ability to learn. To educate children, you first

must feed them, and you must feed them from conception through

high school.

In our study of 8,000 children under 3, we found that those

whose food stamp benefits were terminated or decreased are not

only more food-insecure, but food-insecure children are more likely

to be in poor health, anemic, and require increased hospitalizations.

I have been told that the Kennedy-Specter bill would restore food

stamps to legal immigrant families, provide outreach to let people

know they are eligible, and increase the minimum monthly benefit,

which I agree is crucial. These are measures which in medical

terms, I would call STAT, which means urgent.

I have also been told that some people think it is a good idea to

no longer offer shelter cost deductions. In southern Maine or in

Boston, this would be a disaster, and if the pediatric house staff

suggested it to me, I would tell them that I thought the idea was

‘‘NSG’’—not so good.

Distinguished members of the committee, I am here today to

urge you to prescribe a miracle drug for America’s families. This

miracle drug decreases premature births, enhances immune function, improves school achievement and behavior, and saves millions

of dollars in hospital stays and visits to emergency rooms each

year. Yet millions of American children and their families are deprived of this drug, and those who get it often get it in doses inadequate to protect their health.

44

This miracle drug is enough nutritious food. The pharmacy that

dispenses it is the Food Stamp Program, and you are the physicians who prescribe it.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Frank, very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Frank can be found in the appendix on page 123.]

The CHAIRMAN. We now turn to Dr. Cutberto Garza, a professor

at Cornell University.

Dr. Garza, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. CUTBERTO GARZA, PROFESSOR, DIVISION

OF NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES, CORNELL UNIVERSITY,

ITHACA, NEW YORK

Dr. GARZA. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, Senator Lugar, for the

opportunity to speak here today.

I have had the opportunity over a rather short period of time to

chair various international and domestic efforts. The compelling

message that I have received in all of these activities is consistent

with the message that Dr. Frank just gave you, and that is that

we expect more from our food supply than just the absence of disease. The many diseases that you and Senator Lugar alluded to are

terribly important in terms of prevention, but the public now expects that our food supply also achieves a state of well-being that

takes us beyond disease to optimal productivity, whether it be in

the classroom or on the job site.

These aspirations should not surprise us. Public expectations related to the food supply have increased steadily in the last 100

years, and I expect that they will continue to increase further.

Fortunately, these expectations are not misplaced. Our limited

but expanding understanding that what we eat can promote optimal development and protects us against predispositions to diet-related diseases supports the public’s expectations. These expectations are also supported by our increasing abilities to manipulate

the composition of our food supply.

Thus, the significant domestic and international interest in nutrition, health, food and agriculture, and our expanding scientific

capabilities place us in an extraordinarily privileged position. We

should maximize these undisputed advantages in these areas by

first strengthening USDA’s programs that sponsor peer-reviewed

research, second, improve our nutrition survey capabilities, because

in fact they help design our programs; and third, assure that both

domestically and internationally, our programs related to food and

nutrition reflect both the best scientific understanding and are of

a breadth and scope that match our achievements.

Thus, we have to be concerned with both how and what in food

stamps and other programs deliver.

Unfortunately, however, neither the country’s nor the world’s nutritional health reflects the public interest in diet and health or the

growing scientific understanding of the role of diet in genetic regulation.

Time permits that I review only two examples of my concerns.

The first relates to the need for more cohesive approaches for preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:44 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 082359 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 82359.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
45

venting childhood obesity, and the second to strengthening approaches for tackling childhood malnutrition internationally.

In the interest of trying to save the committee time, I am not

going to review the statistics in my statement related to childhood

obesity. The trends, alone are sufficient to alert us to the serious

short- and longer-term health problems exemplified by the growing

number of children with Type 2 diabetes, alluded to by Chairman

Harkin and Senator Lugar earlier, a condition that also is known

as adult-onset diabetes because it was exceedingly rare in children.

Now the American Diabetes Association warns us that Type 2 diabetes is commonly a disease of childhood onset. Obese children are

also at risk of heart, skeletal, and other abnormalities. Thus, we

have to be concerned of problems at both ends of the spectrum— the spectrum Dr. Frank so eloquently alluded to, and also, in terms

of obesity.

All the reasons for the alarming trends are not clear, whether we

look domestically or internationally. With little doubt, nutritional,

social, behavioral, cultural, environmental, and other biological factors conspire to produce a positive imbalance between energy intake and expenditure in ways that are understood incompletely.

More worrisome still is that unwanted weight gain is extremely difficult to reverse. Thus, prevention is key. A comprehensive and systematic assessment of the biologic and environmental factors that

are responsible for these trends and the development of a cohesive

strategy to prevent childhood obesity are needed to bind the numerous public and private efforts striving to cope with the status

quo and reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity.

Thus, we should look very carefully at how we structure various

food assistance programs aiming to maximize the implementation

of the dietary guidelines in WIC to support international and national recommendations for breast feeding, and that we link food

stamps with health systems in the way suggested by Mr. Greenstein earlier today. I should add that 10 years ago, I had the privilege of chairing a group at the National Academy of Sciences trying

to promote this and could find little interest within the Federal

Government. Thus I was heartened by the reception that his suggestion received this morning.

In an analogous manner, the causes of malnutrition are also

complex. I am going to focus primarily on international issues because Dr. Frank dealt so comprehensively with our domestic problems.

A comprehensive strategy also is needed to tackle international

malnutrition, and it is my view that leadership should come from

the United States. The number of malnourished children in the

world remains intolerably high, in part because we lack a sufficiently bold vision to minimize it. Elimination of malnutrition as a

public health problem within a defined time period should be a goal

for us, domestically and internationally.

We know the recipe for making healthy children, and good nutrition is a key ingredient, but not a magic bullet. I am concerned

that the overdue recognition of micronutrient deficiencies internationally is creating the illusion that supplying a few micronutrients will solve the problems that we face. Although tackling micronutrient deficiencies is an obviously important start, it will not be

46

sufficient. Fortunately, current knowledge permits us to act more

comprehensively. The ‘‘food for education’’ bill sponsored by Senators Harkin, Lugar and others in my view is an example of an effort that is responsive to humanitarian needs while reaching simultaneously for worthwhile educational and biological outcomes.

As proposals of this type are explored, critiqued, and I hope

championed more broadly, partnerships should be encouraged that

link them to programs tackling malnutrition in other critical life

stages. Thus, a program meeting food needs during key developmental periods in school-age children, such as the proposed international school feeding program, can strive to deal not only with

hunger and tackle micronutrient deficiencies, but also improve the

education of young women, enhance learning, and in the longer

term, establish self-sustaining, health-promoting behaviors associated with improved educational achievement.

In summary, we have some remarkable opportunities. The success of our agricultural system permits us to look beyond survival

to diet quality and beyond to well-achieving being at every life

stage.

Thank you for the time to share my views with you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Garza can be found in the appendix on page 131.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Garza.

I thank you all for your testimony.

Dr. Garza, I will start with you. One thing that I am

consideraing is what we might be able to do on this committee in

the nutrition portion of our title to address the increasing amount

of childhood obesity—you left the figure out, but it has almost doubled in the last 20 years. I have been told by pediatricians and

health officials at the NIH and at the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention in Atlanta that it is approaching a national epidemic, the onset of childhood obesity. That is coupled with the lowering of the age of onset of Type 2 diabetes, which is closely correlated with weight.

We are looking at how we can start to address that. Now, you

said something very interesting in your testimony. You said—let

me find it——

Dr. GARZA. I suspect you are referring to food insecurity being a

link——

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes—here it is. ‘‘Although incompletely understood, food insecurity—that is, the lack of confidence that food

will be accessible consistently—appears to increase the risk of overweight and obesity.’’

I do not understand that sentence.

Dr. GARZA. It may seem paradoxical to some that we can speak

about hunger and food insecurity in this country and still see the

alarming rates of obesity that we see, especially in low-income populations. However, as these issues have been researched, it is becoming increasingly clear that food insecurity, paradoxically, predisposes individuals to obesity in ways that we do not completely

understand. We are not certain if the link is with the quality of the

diet being incompatible with maintaining a healthy weight, or

whether the link is due to overeating when food is available because of the concern that food will not be available in the following

47

weeks. It may be a combination of these and other issues that we

do not understand.

Additionally, it may have to do with a very serious problem faced

by many individuals who are food-insecure: many live in neighborhoods that are unsafe, and thus physical activity is often curtailed.

Thus, there is a need for us to look comprehensively at what the

causes of what is rightly being called an epidemic and a very

alarming one.

The solution probably lies not only in improved nutrition but in

linking what food policy to physical activity, to how we plan our

neighborhoods, how we adjust——

The CHAIRMAN. How about nutrition education as a bigger part

of our nutrition programs?

Dr. GARZA. Exactly. Education will be important. The environment in which individuals will function will be equally important.

Paying attention to both should be of extreme concern to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this. What do you think about

the prospect of broadening the Food Stamp Program so that food

stamp recipients could purchase with their food stamps vitamin

and mineral supplements?

Dr. GARZA. I am not confident about that option. I do think that

however, implementing the Food Stamp and other nutrition related

programs that are sponsored by the Federal Government in ways

that would promote of the U.S. dietary guidelines, may be a much

more efficacious approach to dealing with the problem of obesity.

The dieting guidelines—provide 10 very clear goals or steps that

if followed could help get the obesity epidemic under control.

In some instance, yes, micronutrient supplementation of the type

that you refer to may be of importance, but micronutrient deficiencies, at least in this country, are not a major problem, at least

from a public health perspective.

The CHAIRMAN. It has always seemed incongruous to me that you

can use food stamps to buy twinkies, but you cannot use them to

buy vitamins. A lot of low-income people may not have a good vitamin and mineral intake, which they might be able to get if they

could do this.

Do you have an observation on that, Dr. Garza?

Dr. GARZA. Yes, but the cost of a twinkie per calorie is much less

than the cost of any fruit or vegetable that I am aware of. If you

are trying to stretch your food dollar, and you are interested in

having enough food, the calorie cost of a twinkie is much, much

less than the cost of a more highly nutritious food. That is the

strategy people are using. If you have to make ends meet, your

first goal is to meet your calories.

The CHAIRMAN. If people are obese, they do not need more calorie

needs.

Dr. GARZA. No, but remember that I also said that in fact——

The CHAIRMAN. They need protein and some other things maybe.

Dr. Frank, did you have an observation?

Dr. FRANK. Yes. Where I live, one bottle of baby vitamins costs

$8. People get 80 cents per meal per person maximum on food

stamp benefits nationally. If the food stamp benefits did not

48

change, and they bought that one bottle of vitamins, that would

mean that child would not get 10 meals.

I agree with Dr. Garza—and I know this is probably politically

not doable—but it seems to me that if food stamps cannot now be

spent on dog food, if they could also not be spent on soda and a

few other things of low nutrient density and high obesity promotion, that would be helpful. I would recommend more that vitamins be prescribable and reimbursed on all State-funded health

programs, but not to take away 10 meals to buy that bottle of vitamins, because what you gain on the swings, you are going to lose

on the roundabout.

Dr. GARZA. I would agree with Dr. Frank.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Dieppa, tell me about your situation. You

use food stamps, and you are working, and I congratulate you for

that. Do you take vitamin and mineral supplements or anything

like that?

Ms. DIEPPA. Yes, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You do. You cannot get them with food stamps,

can you?

Ms. DIEPPA. No.

The CHAIRMAN. How about your daughter?

Ms. DIEPPA. She takes children’s Centrum vitamins once a day,

and I take the same for adults.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. This is an interesting question, and we are

going to pursue it even more.

Do you have any views on this, Mr. Concannon?

Mr. CONCANNON. Just reflecting on it, it is one of the initiatives—because we have this challenge in our State, too; we see it

in the population. We have a current public health initiative trying

to work with school systems, because pediatricians speak to us

about food habits being influenced by the school lunch program,

and kids going through the line in the school lunch program and

not going to the broccoli line but to the side of the school lunch program that has French fries and a bunch of other things that may

contribute to some of these problems.

We have been more focused on that than on the access to vitamins per se. We have a lot of issues with the pharmaceutical industry, but I will not go there today.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have some observations on the school

lunch program. It seems to me that we have tried to make the

school lunch program into something that is so acceptable to young

people that we have basically turned it into a fast food operation.

They say that that is what kids want to eat—well, yes—if you hold

out some broccoli and a candybar, give me a break, I know which

they are going to pick. It seems to me that we have a higher obligation in our feeding program. That is also why I am so interested

in the school breakfast program.

I do not want to take any more time except to ask Mr. Leavitt— on the food stamp program and the farmer’s markets, you pointed

out that when we converted to EBT, the Federal Government actually paid for the installation of these systems in grocery stores?

Mr. LEAVITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Both the hardware and the connecting lines?

Mr. LEAVITT. Yes.

49

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any idea how much that cost us?

[No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bost, I am going to ask you if you could provide for the committee—I would just like to know, how much did

it cost us to wire up all the grocery stores in America for the EBT

cards? I was unaware until you brought this to my attention today

that we had actually paid for that; I did not know that we had paid

for the installation of the EBT machines in grocery stores.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, let us get those numbers, but we know

that to go to an EBT system, it is shared; it is a 50–50 cost. The

State puts out 50 percent, and the Federal Government pays the

other 50 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I see.

Mr. BOST.I do not know what the total cost is.

The CHAIRMAN. I see; so it is a State-Federal share.

Mr. BOST. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. BOST.I do not know what the total cost is.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not, either. If you could find some records

on that, I would sure appreciate it.

Mr. BOST. Yes, we will.

The CHAIRMAN. As a participant in farmers markets myself—I

was at one last Saturday—and you are right. They do not have the

facilities there to run debit cards and EBT cards and so on. I am

very intrigued by your proposal, Mr. Leavitt. It is something that

we should take a close look at here.

Mr. LEAVITT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could also just comment on the other discussion that took place a moment ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LEAVITT. If, as, and when there is some movement toward

the monitoring of what is purchased or what is allowed to be purchased and what is not allowed to be purchased, one thing we have

to make sure we keep an eye on is the ability to monitor. With the

kinds of technological advancements we are having in both the

wireless arena as well as the wired arena, those monitoring capabilities are also getting more and more enhanced so that you can

keep records of what each EBT card is being used to acquire at the

grocery store, the supermarket, or at an open air farmers market.

To look at a goal of ultimately being able to take a look at that,

we cannot forget about the technological requirements that may be

needed to see what in fact is being purchased.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very good point. Thank you very much.

Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Let me just say that the questions that you have

raised, Mr. Chairman, are ones that both of us are interested in.

These are age-old problems. First of all, with the electronic benefits situation, this came about because we had testify before this

committee year after year of enormous fraud and abuse; and, even

worse than that, food stamp coupons being used as currency in

Cook County, Illinois, for example, where people described drug

transactions and discounting and soon. This is a monumental problem, and obviously, the Federal and State governments cooperated

to try to bring some integrity to the program, because the political

opposition to using the Food Stamp Program for drug abuse and so

50

on gets to be very considerable. It is an unfair fight, and people

want that cut out.

We have probably alleviated enormous political hassles and perhaps redirected the situation given the benefit of electronics.

The point that you make, Mr. Leavitt, is one that gets to current

issues. We had a school lunch hearing this year, and the chairman

pointed out, as did others, that school authorities frequently sign

contracts with soft drink companies, and they want the machines

going all day. The school lunch authorities are aghast at this because people are imbibing this stuff all day—it may be calories, but

it is not nutritious. We have cross-purposes, with the superintendent saying ‘‘We need this money’’ for whatever—extracurricular activities or whatever—and it is a free country, with local control of

education, local school board—who are you folks to be reviewing

how we are administering our schools?

We are trying to review the school lunch program, but they are

saying ‘‘After all, we are still running the schools.’’ We go back and

forth on this. Now, a little bit of that is in your testimony today,

which is very important, and that is that if our Federal objective

as a people is the best nutrition, and we are going to help pay for

it, we would like to get our money’s worth, so we would like people

to buy things that are in fact healthy.

The question is always a value judgment—who determines what

is healthy; what is the freedom of choice for the consumer—and

those are age-old dilemmas, I suppose, in our Republic, but they

are very important.

What you are saying, Mr. Leavitt, is important, and that is that

unlike other times, given electronic means, we can monitor what

happens. We can punch in whether it is an apple or a soft drink,

and one has a ‘‘go’’ sign and the other has a ‘‘stop’’ sign, I suppose—if we want to do this. This is a very important question, and

our distinguished final witnesses, Dr. Frank and Dr. Garza, raised

it in very subtle ways, but also fairly directly in terms of what is

happening.

The chairman has asked about juvenile obesity. These are very

sophisticated problems involving environment as well as nutrition.

There has to be the ability to make choices—who determines the

healthy food, who monitors whether it is the ‘‘go’’ sign or a ‘‘stop’’

sign if we were to move in those directions?

I appreciate your testimony today as very informed, expert observers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lugar, for your observations.

This is a complex issue but one that we have to tackle and one

that we have to move ahead on. There are many facets to it.

We appreciate all of you being here, and thank you for your testimony and for your input.

The Agriculture Committee will stand adjourned until 9 a.m.

Tuesday, when we will continue hearings on the Farm bill. On

Tuesday, we will hear from those involved in animal agriculture,

our livestock producers.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

(51)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 19, 2001

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

(135)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JULY 19, 2001

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

Æ