U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–925 PDF 2016

CHILD NUTRITION ASSISTANCE: ARE 

FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

SERVING THE BEST INTERESTS OF 

SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 16, 2015 

Serial No. 114–19 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 16, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom, Governor, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Additional Submissions: 

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut: 

Report: Retreat Is Not An Option ............................................................ 28 

Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California: 

Prepared statement of from Taylor, Mr. Rodney, Director of Nutrition 

Services Riverside Unified School District .......................................... 50 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

Chairman Kline ......................................................................................... 71 

Barletta, Hon. Lou, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 71 

Bishop, Hon. Mike D., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Michigan ............................................................................................. 72 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia .............................................................................. 72 

Thompson, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 72 

Secretary Vilsack, response to questions submitted for the record .............. 74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

CHILD NUTRITION ASSISTANCE: ARE 

FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

SERVING THE BEST INTERESTS OF 

SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES? 

Tuesday, June 16, 2015 

House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, 

Salmon, Guthrie, Rokita, Messer, Brat, Carter, Bishop, Grothman, 

Curbelo, Stefanik, Allen, Scott, Davis, Grijalva, Courtney, Fudge, 

Polis, Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici, Takano, Jeffries, Clark, Adams, 

and DeSaulnier. 

Staff present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle Belland, 

Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Martha Davis, Staff 

Assistant; Kathlyn Ehl, Professional Staff Member; Matthew 

Frame, Legislative Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; 

Daniel Murner, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy 

Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; 

Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Staff Assistant; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Denise 

Forte, Minority Staff Director; Tina Hone, Minority Education Policy Director and Associate General Counsel; and Brian Kennedy, 

Minority General Counsel. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the Committee on 

Education and Workforce will come to order. 

Good morning, Secretary Vilsack. Welcome to the Education and 

Workforce Committee. Thank you for joining us to discuss an issue 

I know we all care deeply about, that is providing low-income children and families access to healthy meals and snacks. 

We know the important role nutrition plays in a child’s development and education. As I have said before, it is just common sense 

that if children are hungry or malnourished then they are less likely to succeed in the classroom. That is why the Federal GovernCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

ment has long invested in programs that aim to provide America’s 

most vulnerable students the nutrition assistance they need. 

Ensuring children have access to healthy food is a goal we all 

share and lies at the heart of our effort to reform federal child nutrition programs, many of which are set to expire later this year. 

We have conducted several hearings and briefings to learn more 

about these programs, as well as the rules and regulations that dictate their implementation at the state and local levels. 

What we have learned from students, parents, school nutrition 

professionals, government watchdogs and other key stakeholders 

and, yes, even in the Department of Agriculture is that the latest 

reauthorization of federal child nutrition laws is the most farreaching and costliest in a generation. 

Current law requires the department to prescribe how much 

money schools charge for meals, what food can and can’t be served 

in schools and how much of it can be served. In other words, Washington is responsible for deciding what and how much our children 

eat. 

These regulations have created an environment where students 

aren’t getting the nourishment they need, and food and taxpayer 

dollars wind up literally in the trashcan. 

Julia Bauscher, president of the School Nutrition Association, 

conveyed to the committee the concern she is hearing from school 

nutrition professionals across the country. Julia described how regulations are resulting in harmful consequences that threaten the 

ability of schools to best serve students. 

She went on to decry the sharp increase in costs and wastes and 

the historic decline of student lunch participation under the new 

requirements. 

We are often told that more than 90 percent of participating 

schools are complying with the law. First, as we learned from the 

Government Accountability Office, it is highly likely this number is 

overly optimistic. 

But let us not forget that schools that choose to participate must 

comply with the law. The question is not how many schools are in 

compliance. The question is, at what cost? The department estimates that participating school districts will be forced to absorb 

$3.2 billion in additional compliance costs over a 5-year period. 

To make matters worse, fewer students are being served. Since 

the regulations were put in place, participation in the school meals 

programs has declined more rapidly than any other period over the 

last three decades with 1.4 million fewer children being served 

each day. 

I saw these challenges firsthand during my visit to the Prior 

Lake School District in Savage, Minnesota. Students described 

smaller portion sizes and limited options that left students hungry 

and more likely to buy junk food. After students petitioned the 

school board, Prior Lake has decided to drop out of the school 

meals program next school year. It is the only way the school can 

meet the needs of its students. 

And the problems with the law don’t stop there. The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture, and the GAO 

identified examples of programs misusing taxpayer dollars, raising 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

serious concerns about whether or not we are actually assisting 

those in need. 

As we work to reauthorize federal child nutrition programs, we 

must find solutions that will ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent 

and children are well served. 

We know developing a one-size-fits-all approach is not the answer. More mandates and more money aren’t the answer either. Instead, we should look to improve these programs by giving states 

and school districts the flexibility they need to fulfill the promise 

of child nutrition assistance. 

Duke Storen from the not-for-profit organization, ‘‘Share Our 

Strength,’’ advised at a recent hearing, quote: ‘‘It is critical to remove bureaucratic barriers and create efficiencies that will allow 

us to reach those kids who currently go without,’’ close quote. 

I look forward to discussing how we can achieve just that without 

imposing more burdens on our schools. 

Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us to share your perspective on these important issues, and I look forward to our discussion. 

And with that, I will now recognize the committee’s ranking 

member, Mr. Scott, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning, Secretary Vilsack, and welcome to the Education and the Workforce Committee. Thank you for joining us to discuss an issue I know we all care 

deeply about: providing low-income children and families access to healthy meals 

and snacks. 

We all know the important role nutrition plays in a child’s development and education. As I’ve said before, it’s just commonsense that if children are hungry or malnourished, then they are less likely to succeed in the classroom. That’s why the federal government has long invested in programs that aim to provide America’s most 

vulnerable students the nutrition assistance they need. 

Ensuring children have access to healthy food is a goal we all share and lies at 

the heart of our effort to reform federal child nutrition programs, many of which 

are set to expire later this year. We have conducted several hearings and briefings 

to learn more about these programs, as well as the rules and regulations that dictate their implementation at the state and local levels. 

What we have learned from students, parents, school nutrition professionals, government watchdogs, other key stakeholders, and yes, even the Department of Agriculture, is that the latest reauthorization of federal child nutrition laws is the most 

far-reaching and costliest in a generation. Current law requires the department to 

prescribe how much money schools charge for meals, what food can and cannot be 

served in schools, and how much of it can be served. 

In other words, Washington is responsible for deciding what and how much our 

children eat. These regulations have created an environment where students are not 

getting the nourishment they need, and food and taxpayer dollars wind up in the 

trashcan. 

Julia Bauscher, president of the School Nutrition Association, conveyed to the 

committee the concerns she is hearing from school nutrition professionals across the 

country. Julia described how regulations are resulting in harmful consequences that 

threaten the ability of schools to best serve students. She went on to decry the 

‘‘sharp increase in costs and waste and the historic decline in student lunch participation under the new requirements.’’ 

We are often told that more than 90 percent of participating schools are complying with the law. First, as we learned from the Government Accountability Office, it is highly likely this number is overly optimistic. But let’s not forget that 

schools that choose to participate must comply with the law. The question isn’t how 

many schools are in compliance, the question is: At what cost? 

The department estimates that participating school districts will be forced to absorb $3.2 billion in additional compliance costs over a five-year period. To make 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

matters worse, fewer students are being served. Since the regulations were put in 

place, participation in the school meals programs has declined more rapidly than 

any other period over the last three decades, with 1.4 million fewer children being 

served each day. 

I saw these challenges firsthand during my visit to the Prior Lake School District 

in Savage, Minnesota. Students described smaller portion sizes and limited options 

that left students hungry and more likely to buy junk food. After students petitioned 

the school board, Prior Lake has decided to drop out of the school meals program 

next school year. It is the only way the school can meet the needs of its students. 

And the problems with the law do not stop there. The Office of Inspector General 

for the Department of Agriculture and the GAO identified examples of programs 

misusing taxpayer dollars, raising serious concerns about whether or not we are actually assisting those in need. 

As we work to reauthorize federal child nutrition programs, we must find solutions that will ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent and children are well served. 

We know developing a one-size-fits-all approach is not the answer. More mandates 

and more money aren’t the answer either. Instead, we should look to improve these 

programs by giving states and school districts the flexibility they need to fulfill the 

promise of child nutrition assistance. 

Duke Storen from the not-for-profit organization Share Our Strength advised at 

a recent hearing, ‘‘It’s critical . . . to remove bureaucratic barriers and create efficiencies that will allow us to reach those kids who currently go without.’’ I look forward to discussing how we can achieve just that without imposing more burdens 

on our schools. 

Again, Secretary Vilsack, thank you for joining us to share your perspective on 

these important issues. I look forward to our discussion. With that, I will now recognize the committee’s ranking member, Congressman Scott, for his opening remarks. 

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

Today we will discuss the implementation of the 2010 Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act as well as policy ideas for the upcoming reauthorization for the Child Nutrition Act. 

I would like to thank our secretary of agriculture, Mr. Vilsack, 

for being with us to discuss this important issue. 

More than 60 years ago through the enactment of the first federal child nutrition program, the National School Lunch Act of 

1946, Congress recognized that feeding hungry children was not 

just a moral imperative, but also an imperative for the health and 

security of our nation because so many of our youth were malnourished and not prepared for military service. 

In 1946, the 79th Congress passed the National School Lunch 

Act, quote: ‘‘As a measure of national security to safeguard the 

health and well-being of the nation’s children and to encourage the 

domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and 

other food by assisting the states through grants and aid and other 

means in providing an adequate supply of food and other facilities 

for the establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of 

non-profit school lunch programs.’’ 

Today we are faced with another crisis that impacts our nation’s 

national security. Our children are now too obese to enlist in our 

nation’s military. One-third of children in this country are obese or 

overweight and childhood obesity has tripled over the last 30 years. 

According to one report, our nation has the second-highest obesity rate in the world. Obesity-related illnesses are costing a shocking $190 billion a year. This not only weakens our economy, it also 

increases our budget deficits. 

While all segments of our population are affected, school insecure 

and low-income families are especially vulnerable to obesity and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

other chronic diseases due to the additional risk factors associated 

with poverty. 

Unfortunately, the poorest among us have the least access to 

healthy foods, many times without full-service grocery stores and 

farmers’ markets in their communities. 

In my home state of Virginia, first lady Dorothy McAuliffe has 

been focusing not only on ending childhood hunger, but also on improving access to Virginia’s fresh and locally grown agricultural 

commodities. This dual goal helps children, supports our farmers, 

and strengthens local economies. 

The reality is that the negative effects associated with poor nutrition are preventable. We still have a long way to go, but there 

are positive signs of progress through the implementation of the 

child nutrition programs. 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 

Children, the WIC program, has consistently proven to be a costeffective investment that improves the nutrition and health of lowincome families. The program has led to healthier infants, more 

nutritious diets, better health care for children, and, subsequently, 

higher academic achievement for students. 

For some students, their only access to nutritious meals is at 

school through the school meal programs. And we know that children and teens can consume up to half of their total calories at 

school. 

During the average school day in 2011, more than 31 million 

school children ate school lunch and over 12 million ate school 

breakfast. It is up to us to ensure that our children are fed nutritious meals that can support them as they learn and grow. 

For the first time in over 30 years, the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act has given the opportunity to make the reforms that improve the nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of children. 

Studies have shown that children are now eating more fruits and 

vegetables, and in many schools there has been widespread acceptance of the new nutrition programs. 

As we address the implementation of the law, it is important to 

remember that the guidelines are evidence-based, not based on politics or corporate bottom lines. They reflect the healthy eating habits most of us in the room try to follow each day. 

While there are a small number of schools still working to meet 

compliance with the new standards, the vast majority of schools, 95 

percent, report that they are successfully implementing the new 

healthy meal standards. 

These programs are powerful tools in providing greater economic 

opportunities for at-risk youth and helping them break free of the 

tragic cycle of poverty. It is critical that we work with schools to 

ensure that they have the support they need to be successful. 

So I look forward to hearing about the USDA’s new technical assistance initiative, Team Up for Success, and how the unique challenges of schools are being met. 

Today we have the opportunity to discuss the scope and impact 

of the new school meals and WIC programs. And I hope that we 

will also discuss ways to improve and strengthen them. 

This year’s reauthorization of the child nutrition programs 

should build on the progress we have made over the last 5 years. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning and thank you, Chairman Kline, for holding this 

hearing. Today we will discuss the implementation of the 2010 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act as well as policy ideas for the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act. I would like to 

thank the Agriculture Secretary, the Honorable Tom Vilsack, for 

being with us today to discuss this important issue. 

More than 60 years ago, through enactment of the first federal 

child nutrition program—the National School Lunch Act of 1946— 

Congress recognized that feeding hungry children was not just a 

moral imperative but also an imperative for the health and security 

of our nation. 

In 1946, the 79th Congress passed the National School Lunch 

Act ‘‘as a measure of national security, to safeguard the health and 

well-being of the Nation’s children and to encourage the domestic 

consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food, 

by assisting the States, through grants-in aid and other means, in 

providing an adequate supply of food and other facilities for the establishment, maintenance, operation and expansion of nonprofit 

school lunch programs.’’ 

Today, we are faced with yet another crisis that impacts our nation’s national security—our children are now too obese to enlist in 

our nation’s military. 

One-third of children in this country are obese or overweight and 

childhood obesity has tripled in the past 30 years. According to a 

report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N., our 

nation has the second highest obesity rate in the world, and obesity-related illnesses are a costing a shocking $190.2 billion per 

year. This weakens our economy and increases budget deficits. 

While all segments of the population are affected, food insecure 

and low-income families are especially vulnerable to obesity and 

other chronic diseases due to the additional risk factors associated 

with poverty. Unfortunately, the poorest amongst us have the least 

access to healthy foods, many times without full-service grocery 

stores and farmers’ markets in their communities. 

In my home state of Virginia, First Lady Dorothy McAuliffe has 

been focusing not only on ending childhood hunger, but also on improving access to Virginia’s fresh and locally grown agricultural 

commodities. This dual goal helps children, supports our farmers 

and strengthens our local economies. 

The reality is that the negative health effects associated with 

poor nutrition are preventable. We still have a long way to go, but 

there have been positive signs of progress through 

implementation of child nutrition programs. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 

has consistently proven to be a cost-effective investment that improves the nutrition and health of low-income families. The program has led to healthier infants, more nutritious diets and better 

health care for children, and subsequently to higher academic 

achievement for students. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

For some children, their only access to nutritious meals is at 

school, through the school meal programs, and we know that children and teens can consume up to half of their total daily calories 

at school. During the average school day in 2011, more than 31 

million children ate school lunch, and 12.5 million ate school breakfast. It is up to us to ensure that our children are fed nutritious 

meals that can support them as they learn and grow. 

For the first time in over 30 years, the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act has given us the opportunity to make reforms that improve the nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of children. 

Studies have shown that students are now eating more fruits and 

vegetables, and in many schools there has been widespread acceptance of the new nutrition standards. 

As we address the implementation of this law, it is important to 

remember that the guidelines are evidence-based; they are not 

based on politics or corporate bottom-lines. They reflect the healthy 

eating habits most of us in this room try to follow each day. 

While there are a small number of schools still working to meet 

compliance with new standards, the vast majority of school districts—95 percent—are successfully implementing the new healthy 

meals standards. These programs are powerful tools in providing 

greater economic opportunities for at-risk youth, and helping them 

break free of the tragic cycle of poverty. It is critical that we work 

with schools to ensure they have the support they need to be successful. I look forward to hearing more about the USDA’s new technical assistance initiative, Team Up for Success, and how the 

unique challenges of schools are being met. 

Today we will have an opportunity to discuss the scope and impact of the new school meals and WIC programs. I’m hopeful that 

we will also discuss ways to improve and strengthen them. This 

year’s reauthorization of the child nutrition programs should build 

on the progress we’ve made over the last five years. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to be included in the permanent 

hearing record. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 

days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing 

record. 

I will now introduce our distinguished witness who probably 

needs no introduction being a Cabinet secretary. But just as a reminder, the honorable Tom Vilsack is the secretary of the United 

States Department of Agriculture. 

Secretary Vilsack has served as the secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture since 2009. In this role, he manages a staff of 

over 100,000 as they implement the administration’s agriculture 

policies, including oversight and implementation of the federal 

child nutrition programs. 

Prior to his appointment, Secretary Vilsack served two terms as 

a governor of Iowa as well as two terms as a state senator. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

It is always nice to have somebody from a neighboring state here, 

Mr. Secretary. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Let the record reflect our witness answered in the affirmative. 

And they always do. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me just remind you very briefly of the lighting system. Some hearing rooms 

have gotten a lot more sophisticated than our old one. Ours is pretty straightforward. 

We have got the green, yellow, and red lights. You can largely 

ignore those. I have never gaveled-down a Cabinet secretary for 

opening remarks that were a little too long, but please just be 

mindful that we have a lot of members who want to ask questions. 

And then when we get to the question-and-answer period, I will 

do my best to keep my colleagues to the 5-minute rule. 

Mr. Secretary, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And in the interest of time, perhaps the chair would allow me 

to associate myself with the ranking member’s remarks and the 

chairman’s remarks relating to the integrity of the program. 

If you take Representative Scott’s remarks and your remarks on 

the integrity of the program, you pretty much have my opening 

statement. 

And with that, I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The testimony of Secretary Vilsack follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 94925.001
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 94925.002
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 94925.003
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 94925.004
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 94925.005
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 94925.006
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 94925.007
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 94925.008
17 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman KLINE. Did we even bother to turn on the green light? 

Well, Mr. Secretary, that is absolutely outstanding. That does set 

a record. 

[Laughter.] 

Let met start, if I may. 

Yes, put me on the clock. 

As I mentioned to you very briefly, and I will give you a chance 

to talk about the numbers here, but I went to visit a school in my 

district to learn about the school meal program because some of the 

students had written a letter, signed a petition suggesting that 

maybe they ought to get out of the program. 

So I went to visit them, and very, very nice school, students coming through the lunch program with amazing technology. They had 

a little card and they could put it up there and immediately the 

cashier saw who they were and that they were on the program. 

And things were going pretty well. Then I sat down with the four 

students and the principal and some other adults there as well, but 

I found it very interesting in the discussion with the students. 

There were two young women, this is a high school, two young 

men. One of the young men was getting ready to go on scholarship 

out to Arizona to play football. And I am not sure how much he 

weighed, I did not ask him, but well north of 200 pounds. And one 

of the young women clearly weighed probably half of that. 

And yet part of their complaint was, look, this system has got us 

trapped here because we have to have the same portions and that 

does not make any sense to us. If you are going to go out to play 

football on a scholarship, it seems they thought, and it seems to be 

reasonable to me, you ought to have more food. 

And so what was happening was that because the portions were 

not large enough in all cases, they were taking their own money 

and going and buying food. And it clearly was not the sort of 

healthy lunch that was being served in the school cafeteria. 

And it was indeed a healthy lunch, and they did not have complaints about how the food tasted. They said they liked the broccoli, 

so I took them at their word, and they liked the fruit and so forth. 

But they certainly were upset about the portions. 

And the fact that they then had to go and buy more food, stop 

off at a fast-food place or something like that is clearly not what 

we are trying to get to here. 

And this was a relatively wealthy school. And these kids probably had the money where they could stop and buy that food. And 

some students with not those resources couldn’t do it. 

So it seems to me that while the students wanted healthy meals, 

but the meals that they were being served did not meet their needs 

and they were so upset about that they petitioned to drop out of 

the program, now, of course, the school has agreed to drop out of 

the program, how can you say, if you are saying, that the program 

is working as advertised when you have those kinds of problems? 

We clearly have an issue where a football player it seems ought 

to be having a considerably bigger portion than someone half their 

weight. 

Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I think I would start by explaining that the standards that have been established were based 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

on expert advice and direction from the Institute of Medicine in 

terms of what an average-sized individual would need at that point 

in time during the day. 

It is roughly 25 calories less than the meals were previous to the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. So it is not that significant in 

terms of the difference. 

You know, this is not, in fairness, all-you-can-eat at Applebee’s. 

This is a school lunch program. And the reality is, based on surveys, the vast majority of students, high school students, elementary students, and middle school students, have accepted and are 

in favor of these new standards. 

A recent survey by Robert Wood Johnson had 70 percent of elementary and middle school kids saying they liked the new standard; 63 percent of high school kids. 

I don’t doubt that you are going to find a few folks who have concerns, and that is why we have suggested that they can bring a 

snack. There is no reason why they can’t bring a snack to school. 

There is also a sharing table, opportunities for those who aren’t 

going to eat everything that is on their plate, for whatever reason, 

can share with those who want more food. 

There are vending machines at the school that will provide consistent, smart, and healthy snacks. 

So there are ways to address this issue without necessarily rolling back the standards and creating a significant rollback. 

And I think the reason why I associated myself with Representative Scott’s comments is that we are dealing with twin issues here. 

We are dealing with 17 million youngsters who are food insecure. 

At the same time, we are dealing with nearly a third of our youngsters who are obese or at risk of being obese. 

And indeed, our national security is indeed threatened, which is 

why Mission: Readiness has been so strongly in favor of these 

standards, retired admirals and generals saying we have got to get 

our kids in better shape. 

So on balance, if you follow the expert advice, if you provide options and snacks and sharing tables and you see a preponderance 

of students accepting these standards, I think we are on the right 

track. 

So you know, I am convinced that we have—you know, we have 

also looked at the issue of plate waste, suggesting somehow that 

folks are throwing food away. The reality is Harvard has looked at 

this, the Rudd Center has looked at this and they have found that 

in fact kids are consuming more fruits and vegetables and there is 

no more plate waste today than there was before the passage of the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. 

Chairman KLINE. My time has indeed expired. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I understand that 95 percent of the school districts are reporting 

that they are in compliance with the upgraded standards in the 

last reauthorization. Is that right? 

Secretary Vilsack. That is correct, Representative, and that is 

why they are entitled to the 6 cents reimbursement increase. 

Mr. SCOTT. And is there any reason to reduce the standards? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

Secretary Vilsack. I can’t see the reason to reduce the standards. 

We have provided flexibility, as you well know, in sodium, whole 

grains, and in other aspects of the rule. I think we will continue 

to look for opportunities to be flexible. But I don’t think you want 

to roll the standards back. 

Mr. SCOTT. And are the standards based on medical and professional, scientific advice? 

Secretary Vilsack. They are, consistent with the Institute of Medicine Standards. 

Mr. SCOTT. There is a program, community eligibility, where if 

an overwhelming portion of the students are eligible that you can 

go school-wide and forget about eligibility and just serve everybody. 

Can you talk about that program a little bit and how it avoids a 

lot of the administrative costs associated with the program? 

Secretary Vilsack. Fourteen thousand schools, over 2,000 school 

districts and 6.4 million children are currently benefiting from the 

Community Eligibility Program. It essentially says to a school district that if you have more than 40 percent of your youngsters who 

are directly certified as being TANF eligible or Medicaid eligible 

then you are entitled to adopt community eligibility, which essentially allows you not to have to require a student to take an application form home, have it be filled out by mom or dad, and brought 

back to school and then calculated and aggregated by the school 

district. 

It allows the school district to essentially receive reimbursement 

based on a mathematical computation, multiplying the number of 

free and reduced kids by 1.6, and that is the amount of resources 

that the school district gets. 

About half the school districts that are eligible for this have 

adopted it. And I think there are two reasons why we need to continue to press this program. One is it indeed saves money for the 

administration, roughly $29 a student is saved. 

Secondly, it provides more accurate reads in terms of the number 

of kids who are actually going to participate in the program, so it 

reduces error rates and provides greater access. 

So saving costs, reducing error rates and greater access. 

We continue to promote this. One of the issues, frankly, is school 

districts use the free and reduced lunch calculation to determine 

their eligibility for Title I funding. So I have spoken to Secretary 

Duncan about whether or not we could create a similar mathematical formulation that would get over the issue with Title I. And 

I suspect if we did that we would probably see even greater participation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Have you done any rules and regulation 

changes for the school breakfast and lunch programs that ensure 

that more children are participating? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are more children participating in 

school breakfast. Well over 1 million more students are participating, 300 million more meals are being served this year than previous years. 

I think one of the greatest things that we have been able to do 

is to reduce the stigma of school breakfast in terms of providing opportunities for meals in the classroom so that kids aren’t necessarily segregated at the beginning of the school day in the cafeCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

20 

teria, so that people can make a judgment about their financial 

well-being. 

And so based on those kinds of standards and based on those 

kinds of activities, we are seeing an increase. 

Obviously, we don’t have attached to it additional reimbursement 

rates as we did with the school lunch program, but we are seeing 

increased participation. And teachers will tell you that they are 

happy to see this because a hungry child is not a child who is ready 

to learn. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you seen any evidence that nutrition programs 

save money by reducing health care costs or other expenses? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, to the extent that we are dealing with the obesity issue, it is about $14 billion a year in annual health 

costs for kids currently. And those will increase when they take the 

chronic diseases that they are currently suffering from into adulthood. 

So to the extent that we can get a handle on the obesity issue 

and to the extent that we provide proper nutrition to kids who are 

living in food-insecure homes, we are going to see better health outcomes. 

And frankly, we see that already with the WIC program, 

healthier births, more immunizations, better cognizant development as a result of the WIC program. 

Mr. SCOTT. And that reflects reduced costs? 

Secretary Vilsack. It obviously does. And the same thing I think 

could probably, the same argument could probably be true for the 

summer feeding program as well. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Foxx. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

I want to associate myself with the comments of the chairman 

in terms of his comments related to the imposition of rules from 

Washington, which impose one-size-fits-all attitude. And I think in 

my question I will reflect that. 

But you said something in your comments or in answer to a 

question that I think illustrates that so well. You said there is no 

reason why they cannot bring a snack; that is up until now, until 

such time as perhaps the Agriculture Department determines that 

children can’t bring snacks. 

The attitude is you are allowing them to bring snacks, so that 

the rulemaking comes from here, it is the permission is being given 

by Washington. That ought to be freedom of choice. And the attitude that there is no reason means you haven’t declared a rule. 

But let me ask my question about the competitive foods rule, because it goes along with that. 

You issued a rule in 2013 called the competitive foods rule. You 

couldn’t estimate the costs or the effect on school revenue without 

any certainty, but you did note that the 247,000 comments which 

focused on finances, most of them were concerned that the rule 

would reduce school revenue. 

Additionally, it is estimated that school revenue authorities received, on average, 16 percent of their revenue from competitive 

food sales. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

21 

So how did you determine the rule was responsible action and requirement from this administration? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, first of all, let me clarify my remark involving snacks, if I might. I wasn’t suggesting that folks were being 

allowed to bring snacks. They have always been allowed to bring 

snacks. There has been no prohibition and there never will be a 

prohibition about mom or dad providing a youngster the opportunity to take something to school to snack on. So that ought to be 

clear. If I didn’t make that clear, I should have. 

Studies of vending machines providing healthier snacks have indicated that there has not been a significant decline in revenue to 

school districts that have studied this and looked at this. 

And I would also say what is of interest to me is that we provided $94 million at the beginning of this process for school districts to be able to utilize the money to assist them in better implementation. 

Today, now 5 years after the passage of that act, there is still 

$24 million of that resource that has not been spent by schools, and 

we have encouraged school districts and states where the money 

has not been spent to encourage the utilization of those resources 

if schools are suffering or having difficulty. 

So it is odd to me that we still have $24 million on the table. 

Hopefully this hearing will allow us to continue to put that information out so that people take advantage of those resources. 

Ms. FOXX. You can give me this answer later. But I wonder, have 

you tried in the Department of Agriculture to put the employees in 

the Department of Agriculture on the school food lunch program for 

a week or 2 to see how they respond to it? I think it would be an 

interesting experiment. 

But I have a second question. The USDA’s OIG highlighted high 

rates of improper payments in the national school lunch and breakfast program. They said the lunch program is one of 13 federal 

high-error programs. 

I know you and the ranking member talked about the integrity 

of the program, but what are you doing to address the high error 

rates, reduce fraudulent benefits and make sure the programs are 

serving those most in need? 

Secretary Vilsack. There are three reasons why we have the 

error rate that we have. And I think we probably would be in 

agreement with this committee that it is an unacceptably high 

rate. 

There is a certification issue involving parents basically providing information about income, that is not necessarily accurate or 

incomplete. 

There is an aggregation that takes place at the school district, 

where they basically aggregate all of the information provided to 

the state, that sometimes errors are in that process. 

And there is an error at the cashiers’ location when a person 

goes through the line. 

A couple of things about this error rate. The dollar amount is a 

little bit suspect because if you are going through the line and you 

don’t take one item that you are supposed to take, that entire cost 

of that meal is considered to be an error. So probably more inforCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

22 

mation needs to be gleaned in terms of what the cost of these errors are. 

But we have done several things. One, we have provided a series 

of professional standards that will, I think, increase the professional standards of the folks at the cashiers’ table so that they will 

make fewer errors. 

Two, we have begun the process of data mining to determine 

where we might provide additional help and assistance in schools 

that are repeatedly having problems. 

Three, we are pressing community eligibility as well as direct 

certification because we know, for example, in the direct certification program there is a significant decline in errors when the direct certification process is used. 

We are also looking at simplifying the application and providing 

an online application so that we reduce errors in that respect. We 

are also developing an Office of Integrity within the school lunch 

program. 

But we would have better results, I think, if we could receive 

permission from Congress to do more reviews of schools than we 

currently have. There is a limitation, and I think it is the only program of this kind where there is a limitation, where we can only 

look at 3 percent of schools. 

If we had an opportunity to look at more than 3 percent, I think 

we would have greater accountability on all three areas. 

We are seeing a reduction in error rates on the aggregation side 

because we have been working with states. We still have work to 

do on the certification and on the cashiers’ side. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me ask a couple of questions about access and greater access, 

maybe speak to some of the current barriers for year-round service 

that students need and how potentially this year’s reauthorization 

could do a lot to reduce or even hopefully eliminate some of those 

barriers. 

You know, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was very important. It extended service, it involved community-based organizations and year-round, extended weekends, holidays. How can we go 

forward to expand greater access to children and to families? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think one of the focuses that we have 

had is during the summer months. Obviously, I think as has been 

stated earlier, children receive somewhere between a third and 

two-thirds of their calories at school. And we are in the process of 

trying to figure out how to deal with those gaps. 

I am proud of the fact that we are now serving 23 million more 

summer meals than we did several years ago, but there is still 

work to be done because only 16 percent of kids who are eligible 

for summer meals are participating. 

So we are looking at several things. One, we are looking obviously at greater partnerships. I was in Baltimore yesterday at a library, encouraging libraries to potentially look at as sites where 

kids are spending a lot of time during the summer months. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

We are making sure that we reach out to schools and take a look 

at whether or not they might be willing to participate in the seamless school project which allows schools to essentially provide meals 

throughout the summer months. 

We are continuing to look for ways in which we can encourage 

service organizations to participate. So there is a significant effort 

relating to summer feeding, which I think will go a long way to addressing some of the concerns that you have outlined. 

The community eligibility and direct certification efforts also will 

make sure that kids who are currently not getting served in school 

districts because their parents don’t get the application in, or for 

whatever reason, that those kids will also be served. 

So we would strongly encourage a continuation of those programs 

and expansion of those programs. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We have received examples, several examples at 

this hearing and other hearings about the abuse of WIC, the lack 

of choices, why some schools drop out. So you know, I appreciate 

very much the fact that you referenced some of those examples 

with studies. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, just to be clear about this. Since 2013 

when we fully implemented these standards, 58 schools out of over 

99,000 schools have dropped out of the program—58 out of 99,000- 

plus. 

And some of the schools have dropped out, we now read there 

was a Houston Chronicle article yesterday, some of the more highprofiled schools that were profiled in Time magazine at the beginning of this process that dropped out are now coming back in because they realized that they weren’t going to save money, they realized that the program was actually something that would benefit 

kids. 

So you know, we believe there is significant compliance here and 

we believe that with the flexibilities that have been provided and 

the resources and the assistance, the equipment grants, the smarter lunchroom grants where we are encouraging school districts to 

look creatively about how to display food and how to serve food, the 

Team Up for Success program that the chair and ranking member 

mentioned, which allows us to have struggling schools teamed up 

and mentored by succeeding schools, all of this is designed to provide assistance and help. And we think it is making a difference. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. You know, there is a system of budgeting or a 

metric now for budgeting dynamic scoring. And as such, it never 

includes savings. And I wish that now with this new system that 

we would include savings. 

My question to you, nutrition, preparedness for learning, health, 

all are investments in these babies, in these kids that receive the 

programs, that qualify for it. In anticipation, what are we looking 

at in terms of what we are saving not only society, but in terms 

of money as well? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, Representative, I apologize, I should 

have this number off the top of my head, but there actually has 

been a study done of the WIC program in terms of its potential impact and effect on children, women, and infants. 

And it indeed focuses and recognizes that with improved immunization, with improved and healthier births we are indeed saving 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

money. To the extent that we get a handle on the obesity issue, as 

we discussed earlier, that also will help provide savings. 

But at the end of the day, this is ultimately about making sure 

that youngsters are in the best position to be as productive as they 

want to be and can be. And the reality is if you are hungry or you 

are concerned about your self-image in school, you are going to 

have a harder time. And so that is one of the reasons why we are 

focused on making sure that these standards are implemented 

properly and making sure that the kids get access as they need. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Now Mr. Thompson, you are recognized. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

Secretary, good to see you. 

Secretary Vilsack. Good to see you, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I wanted to zero in on a certain initial question 

on a certain area of the standards within the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act of 2010. And it has to do with milk. 

And I know you had mentioned about academic professionals 

who were somehow responsible and behind the standards. Although, as I recall from the process and also from, quite frankly, 

my visits, I spend a lot of time in schools, eat a lot of school 

lunches, you know, it seems like our school nutrition professionals 

were largely ignored. And they have a lot of concerns. 

But my initial question I have for you, it has to do with the milk 

area. And the standard reads that only fat-free, unflavored or flavored, or unflavored low-fat fluid milk, 1 percent milk or less, is 

allowed. Now, if truly those academic researchers who set that 

standard were spot on, we wouldn’t be seeing since 2012 to 2014, 

you know, schools serving 187 million fewer half pints of milk despite the fact that the population in the public schools is going up. 

And so I am not looking for criticism, I am looking for solutions, 

actually, to that. 

You know, given what we know about the nutritional value of 

milk, which is, I think, significant, it is cause for concern. 

And so to give schools more options and flexibility in providing 

milk, I recently introduced H.R. 2407, the School Milk Nutrition 

Act, in conjunction with my colleague Joe Courtney. 

Now, one of the bill’s provisions would provide schools with the 

option of offering low-fat, 1 percent, flavored milk rather than only 

fat-free if milk contains no more than 150 calories per eight ounce 

service. Obviously, still concerned with the over-all, arching purpose of what the 2010 act was reportedly written under. 

I just want to check. I mean, do you agree that declining rates 

of milk consumption are cause for concern? If so, do you believe the 

USDA should work with Congress to preserve milk’s integral role 

in school meals? 

Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I see that I am going to get 

double teamed on this issue based on the lineup here. 

So you know, I have got to tell you, this is my personal view, I 

agree with you. I think if adding that option would encourage kids 

to drink more milk we should do that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think a little bit of flavor goes a long ways. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

25 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is my personal preference. But you 

know, I honestly—the challenge here, I think, is we have created 

so many options for kids today in terms of what they consume. 

And you know, in terms of the nutritional bang for the buck, 

there is probably nothing better than a glass of milk. And so, you 

know, I think that there ought to be some way of working with 

your proposal or a similar proposal to provide a bit more flexibility, 

and hopefully we would see more consumption of milk. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Why don’t I stay—I am going to milk this topic 

for all I can. 

[Laughter.] 

Switch over to a very important program that I personally—my 

wife and I when we were first starting out with our first child we 

were eligible for the WIC program, Penny and Parker were. So I 

have a question regarding milk as a critical component of the WIC 

food package. 

Contrary to the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations, the 

final WIC rule issued by USDA in March 2014 placed new restrictions on the availability of 2 percent milk for children ages two or 

older. 

Can you explain the basis for this new rule? And why was it finalized without allowing for a public comment period? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there was extensive opportunity 

for comment on the WIC rules over the course of several years. And 

so I think we had believed that we received all of the input that 

we needed to make a determination. 

You know, in terms of the WIC program, I think the goal here 

is to try to provide, supplement and complement what people are 

traditionally and normally purchasing. It isn’t necessarily to be the 

be-all and end-all, it is actually a complement and supplement. 

And so I think the development of the WIC package was designed to say, you know, people are already buying a lot of this and 

this and this; what aren’t they buying that they might be able to 

benefit from? And that is how the WIC package was put together. 

I suspect that is part of the reason. But if there is a more technical reason for that, Congressman, I will get that to you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You had mentioned about, in the time I have remaining, about 3 percent is what you are allowed to survey or 

measure. Do you have a number that you would be looking for that 

you would feel more confident in terms of looking for errors? If it 

is 3 percent now, what would you like to see it be? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, you know, it ought to be probably more 

consistent with every other program where we have greater flexibility to check. I don’t know that we necessarily have a magic number, but what we do know is the more we do of this, the greater 

the accountability is. 

And probably, in all probability, we identify where the problem 

areas are and we can solve it and so we can bring that error rate 

number down, which you all believe is unacceptably high, and you 

are absolutely right about that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And with my dairy farmers smiling ever more brightly, I will recognize Mr. Courtney. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

26 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony and your leadership over the last 6–1/2 years, 8–1/2 years. 

The ranking member mentioned in his opening remarks the interesting genesis of school lunch programs that followed in the 

wake of World War II. And fast-forwarding to the last reauthorization in 2010, as a member of this committee I remember, again, 

vividly some of the most powerful testimony that we had was from 

retired military leaders who, again, were describing a totally different challenge that our country faces now in terms of military 

readiness. 

And Mission: Readiness, which you alluded to, again, is a group 

of 450 retired military leaders who just recently issued a report, 

‘‘Retreat Is Not an Option,’’ which again reiterated the fact that 

one out of four 17-to 24-year olds are not fit to fight, and one out 

of eight who are actually serving are actually obese, diagnosed 

obese. That is $1.5 billion just to DOD’s budget alone in terms of 

dealing with that program. 

So when they say retreat isn’t an option, they are talking about 

retreat in terms of nutritional standards. And I think that is important to make that point clear. 

And I guess, you know, one question about the compliance issue, 

whether it is 90 percent or 95 percent or less than 90 percent, as 

GAO, I mean what I think it is important sometimes to not lose 

sight of is that your department has been trying to do, starting 

from zero in 2010 when the president signed this into law, was to 

get the trend moving in the right direction. 

And I guess the initiatives that you described, I mean, we are 

moving in that direction. Isn’t that right? I mean, it is not like we 

plateaued or we are sliding. 

I mean, the fact is that people, you know, just sort of get more 

comfortable with the system and also that you accommodate reasonable requests that were actually moving in the right direction. 

And I guess that is the point I want to just give you a chance 

to describe. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, change obviously is difficult. And you 

are absolutely right. The Mission: Readiness has been very, very focused on this for the reasons that you articulated. 

And there are, as has been discussed, health care cost reasons, 

academic achievement reasons, economic productivity reasons for 

doing this. 

You know, I think I have some confidence in that level of compliance because we basically rely and trust on our state partners who 

are administering this program to give us the information from the 

individual school districts that they receive. And so you have to assume that individual school systems are telling you the truth when 

they say we are complying with this and we qualify now for the additional reimbursement rate. 

And from a Robert Wood Johnson survey of parents, we find 80 

percent of parents think this is a good approach. The students, by 

the same survey, basically indicate acceptance of this. 

So I think we are headed in the right direction, but you know, 

it is going to take time. Just as it took time in terms of addressing 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

the issues in 1946, it is going to take time for the benefits of all 

of this to be perceived in data and information. 

But I have no doubt that we are going to see a healthier generation of kids in this country and our country is going to be better 

off for it. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And so it is my intention to, again, enter into the record ‘‘Retreat 

Is Not an Option’’ which sort of lays out the case, again, from these 

distinguished military leaders. 

And I also would be remiss if I didn’t follow up with Mr. Thompson’s point which is actually within that report they note the fact 

that the consumption of milk since the 1970s for the average school 

child was about 250 calories back then. It has slid dramatically, 

and sugary drinks have grown dramatically at the same time. So 

they have actually crossed so that kids are drinking more emptycalorie drinks versus milk. 

And I think that is frankly one of the reasons we are in the predicament that we are in right now. And that is why I think Mr. 

Thompson’s efforts, which I think, again, has bipartisan support, 

and we obviously welcome, you know, good suggestions to accomplish its goal, will help achieve the result that, again, these retired 

military leaders and yourself, now that you are on the record, think 

really will help us get to improve children’s health and readiness 

to deal with all physical challenges as they enter adulthood. 

With that, I yield back. Mr. Chairman, and I ask that this report 

be entered into the record. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 94925.009
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 94925.010
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 94925.011
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 94925.012
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 94925.013
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 94925.014
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 94925.015
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 94925.016
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 94925.017
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 94925.018
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 94925.019
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 94925.020
40 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

I would have been shocked if you had not brought up milk, so 

glad not to be disappointed. 

And just for everyone’s information, we are keenly aware that 

there is a microphone problem up here and scrambling to see if we 

can solve it. 

Mr. Salmon? 

Mr. SALMON. Thanks. 

Last month, the USDA released its second Access, Participation, 

Eligibility and Certification Study on measuring and reducing errors in the school meal programs. The department found a number 

of areas of fraud, waste, and abuse within these programs. 

And I have two questions regarding that. And then my last question is going to be regarding the administration’s recent decision on 

trans fats and how that is going to translate into the school lunch 

programs. 

The report cites improper payments being made in the school 

lunch and breakfast programs. How prevalent and costly are these 

improper payments? And what is USDA doing to prevent these occurrences? That is my first question related to the study. 

And during school year 2005–2006, USDA found significant levels of program errors in school food service providers’ abilities to 

adequately verify whether or not a child was eligible for certain reimbursement categories. 

The most recent study states ‘‘that though some improvements 

have been made, levels of program errors remain high.’’ To what 

degree do these errors affect the overall integrity of the program 

and access to meals for those who truly need them when people 

who don’t need them or should not qualify are getting them? And 

how much are these errors costing the taxpayer? What is food and 

nutrition services doing to address these errors? 

And then finally, could you just address what kind of impact the 

trans fat decision by the administration is going to have on school 

meal programs? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, we share the concern that you have 

about program integrity, which is why we have begun the process 

of professionalizing the standards for the folks who are the cashiers, the people who are basically making determinations at-site, 

on-site. We know that is one of three mistake areas or problem 

areas. 

Raising the standards and the understanding and the training 

for those individuals I think will help. 

We are also asking states to upgrade their training efforts as 

well so that personnel in the schools do a better job. 

Secondly, you know, the use of community eligibility and direct 

certification, we know from the data and the review of statistics 

substantially reduces the errors that you are concerned about. 

So to the extent that we can continue to look for ways to encourage districts, roughly 6.4 million kids, 14,000 schools, there are 

probably another 14,000 schools that could utilize community eligibility, they are unwilling or reluctant to do it, either because they 

have made the mathematical calculation that they won’t benefit financially, or, in all likelihood, they are concerned about their impact on Title I. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

Today Title I eligibility is dependent on your free and reduced 

lunch percentage of your kids. If we could find a way to basically 

allow for some kind of mathematical formula to translate so you 

didn’t actually need a specific count of free and reduced lunch kids 

for Title I, we would probably see a lot more school districts. That 

would substantially reduce the error rate. 

We also have to make the application simpler. Honestly, it is 

very complicated. And if you have got parents who maybe English 

is a second language type of thing, we probably need to make sure 

that we figure out ways to simplify that application to get the basic 

information. 

Online application might also help, so we are working on that. 

We have established an Office of Integrity to try to look at this. 

Earlier I mentioned the need for us to have increased capacity 

from Congress to review more schools. We currently are limited by 

Congressional mandate to only review 3 percent of schools in terms 

of compliance. 

Congressman Thompson asked me if there is a number. Now, my 

staff tells me that 10 percent would be more accurate and more 

helpful if we could get up to 10 percent review. That would certainly send a message and would begin to focus on the importance 

of making sure we are accurate on all of this. 

Data mining is also an opportunity for us to take a look and try 

to identify maybe school districts that are having difficulties and 

maybe focus time and attention on those individual schools. 

So there is a lot of activity going on in this space. And I think 

we will see significant reductions in those numbers over time. 

To the issue of trans fats, it isn’t something I have had a chance 

to talk to our team about because, obviously, the ruling came out 

from FDA today. But I did notice that 85 percent of food processors 

are already well on their way. There is a 3-year implementation 

time line, so I wouldn’t anticipate that this is going to create serious and significant problems in terms of standards relative to 

school lunch. 

Mr. SALMON. Do you think there might be an onslaught of litigation from attorneys toward some of these food companies that have 

been using trans fats in the last several years? I mean, is that a 

possibility? 

Secretary Vilsack. I want to make sure I understand your question. You mean in terms of people suing because of trans fats? 

Mr. SALMON. Right. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, as a lawyer, people can be pretty creative and look for opportunities potentially. I don’t think you can 

discount that possibility. 

I would certainly hope that, you know, honestly that we would 

be looking for ways in which we could find consensus and not conflict on issues involving nutrition. 

I am told that our school meals and snacks are already limited 

to zero grams of trans fats, so we are already where we need to 

be. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Polis? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony today as well 

as the time you recently took to travel to my district and hear from 

many of my constituents. And I certainly appreciate your diligent 

work in the realm of child nutrition, a passion and a cause that I 

share with you. And there has been a lot of discussion about that 

today. 

But I did want to bring some other items to your attention as 

well. 

Specifically, I wanted to talk about the idea of establishing conservation compliance enforcement parameters around agricultural 

support programs that are funded by the Federal Government. 

As you know, this concept dates to the Reagan administration attempting to curb environmental concerns through limiting taxpayer 

support and subsidies. It can help make sure that we can address 

environmental impact and reduce exposure to taxpayers. 

Specifically, the conservation compliance enforcement program 

focuses on reducing soil erosion, protecting the long-term capability 

to produce food, to make sure we don’t do anything to increase 

short-term production at the expense of the long term, reducing 

sedimentation, improving water quality, and preserving and protecting wetlands. 

What we saw, however, in a 1995 inspector general’s report is 

that 20 percent of growers who see large federal subsidies are simultaneously failing to comply with the conservation standards 

surrounding impacts to the erosion of wetlands. 

So that is a lot of money that goes to those who are causing irreparable damage to some of our most unique and fragile ecosystems. 

In last year’s farm bill, I was thrilled to see the conservation 

compliance language added back into the law for crop insurance 

subsidies. 

But with a track record of 20 percent noncompliance, I wanted 

to ask how USDA can better implement and enforce this provision 

going forward, if you have any more recent statistics than the inspector general’s report from 20 years ago or if there are plans 

under way to come up with new statistics with regard to noncompliance, and how you plan to use the tool of withholding subsidies to ensure compliance. 

Secretary Vilsack. June 1 was an important date in terms of conservation compliance because on that date operators who didn’t 

have on file their AD–1026 form were required to do so. 

This is a new opportunity in a new area, particularly for specialty crop producers. And so we have made a concerted effort in 

terms of outreach to remind folks of that requirement and to also 

remind them of the consequence if they didn’t file the 1026 form. 

They now have an opportunity and responsibility for developing 

and devising a plan and for our local NRCS offices to ensure that 

those plans are followed. 

I can tell you that I am very proud of the fact that we have a 

record number of producers now enrolled in voluntary conservation 

of one sort or another. Well over 500,000 producers are participating in conservation, well over 400 million acres, which is a 

record. That number continues to rise and will no doubt continue 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

to rise with the farm bill programs that we have, including the regional conservation partnership program. 

You know, we are looking for ways in which NRCS can provide 

more technical assistance, more on-the-ground assistance, and less 

paper shuffling, so we just recently launched the NRCS gateway 

which allows for operators to be able to access information online 

at their convenience without the necessity of coming to an office. 

That should free up folks to do more technical assistance, more review, more compliance activities. 

I don’t know that there is any more recent study on the issue 

that you have raised. And I will certainly ask when I get back to 

the office if there is, and if there is we will get it to you. 

Mr. POLIS. And I think you alluded to this, but it sounds like you 

are doing what you can through automation to free up staff time 

and resources to ensure that the program succeeds. 

Secretary Vilsack. I would encourage you and your staff to take 

a look at the new gateway that we launched. I think it is a great 

opportunity for saving time and effort. It complements the work 

that we are doing on the farm loan side with some of the automation that has taken place recently in terms of reporting. 

Mr. POLIS. And what about utilizing the tool of withholding subsidies for noncompliance? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is the ultimate responsibility or ultimate penalty if folks are not in compliance. And that is the law, 

and we will obviously follow the law. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 

As chairman of what we colloquially call the K through 12 subcommittee on education here on this committee, I have gone to 

schools all over Indiana and all over the country and stuck my 

head in a lot of garbage cans to see what was in there, took a lot 

of school lunches. And I know you do the same thing across the 

country. And I am sure you would agree as well that the best part 

of that experience is talking with the kids. I seem to learn a lot. 

They continue to teach me at least. 

One of my concerns throughout all this and the several hearings 

we have had, though, is the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse 

and perhaps the real waste, fraud, and abuse, whether it is the 

fraud documented in the WIC program or the ineligible students 

that are receiving free and reduced breakfasts and lunches. 

And I appreciate the discussion we have had about you needing 

to see more than 3 percent in terms of a sample. And you have offered 10 percent as a goal that should be changed in law. 

If you do that on a school-wide basis, though, 10 percent, 

shouldn’t the schools also at least get a 10 percent sampling of the 

applications? Because I understand right now they only do about 

3 percent under the law as well. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the goal here is to figure out a 

way in which we can hold folks accountable and to figure out ways 

in which if there is— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

Mr. ROKITA. Is 3 percent at the school level? 

Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, what? 

Mr. ROKITA. Is the 3 percent application sampling at the school 

level? 

Secretary Vilsack. Let me check on that. I don’t know. 

Yes, that is accurate. 

Mr. ROKITA. Should we raise it to 10 percent? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, to the extent that we think looking at 

more applications will provide us more information that will allow 

us to reduce error rates, I would be in favor of anything that would 

enable this. 

You know, obviously, we don’t want to necessarily create busy 

work for schools. But I think we need to explain to them that this 

is an issue that we are all concerned about and they have a responsibility to work with us to reduce the error rate. 

Mr. ROKITA. I might be willing to help you with that in light of 

other technologies or other ways we can get to the bottom of waste, 

fraud, and abuse. I think you make a reasonable request. 

As I have gone to one school in particular, I believe it was in Lafayette, they made me a batch of mashed potatoes under their current goals and guidelines, and they were god awful. And then they 

made me a batch of mashed potatoes under the regulations that 

they have to get to within the next 10 years, and they were just 

terrible. 

Have you had any of those experiences? Or have all your experiences been good? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, look, I think you could probably go to 

schools, if you went to all 99,000 schools that are currently trying 

to comply, you would find a circumstance, a day, a meal, an entree 

that probably you wouldn’t like. 

That is why we have focused on ways and strategies to help 

school districts do a better job. Part of it is bringing chefs into the 

schools to explain how you might be able to utilize better cooking 

techniques. 

That is why we have focused on school equipment grants to give 

schools the ability to produce meals on-site. It is why we have developed our Team Up for Success program, linking struggling 

schools with succeeding schools so they have got a mentor who is 

in a similar circumstance to say, hey, you can do this. 

Mr. ROKITA. I have found, Mr. Secretary, I found creative people 

there. I mean, these were deep-fry cooks, okay? And the first batch 

of mashed potatoes actually had butter buds in them, so they were 

already using substitutes and things like that. And then the new 

regulations, the new batch of mashed potatoes, demonstrated regulations that had under 30 milligrams of sodium. 

I mean, at some point you have got to—but all right, I understand what you are saying. Maybe the chefs can come to our 

schools in Indiana. 

Going to the department of integrity that you speak of, interested 

in learning more about that. Do you have all the teeth you need 

in law for this? 

Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, what? 

Mr. ROKITA. The department of integrity you speak of, do you 

have all the teeth that you need in current law in order to make 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

that department of integrity work? Or what do you envision it 

doing that is actually going to make a difference? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is starting, I think, with taking a look 

at the application process and determining whether or not there 

are ways in which we can prevent errors and mistakes on applications that increase the error rate. 

It is also working with software producers to develop an online 

application process that could potentially reduce errors as well. 

You know, obviously, if we are given more capacity and more opportunities to look at more schools, there would be a responsibility 

there as well. 

There is data mining that can be done to take a look at where 

if we have repeat issues involving a particular state. 

And it may be able to identify where standardization, additional 

training in a particular state might be helpful. 

Mr. ROKITA. I am out of time. I am sorry. Thank you very much 

for your questions. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Sablan? 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is always nice to have a conversation with you, sir, and you know, especially when you are reporting to us that about 90 percent, that over 90 percent of our 

schools in the country are now meeting the national guidelines for 

the school meal program. 

And I don’t know what it was like around the family dinner, but 

my experience is that it is always that kid, meaning me, who made 

a stink about eating vegetables growing up. And I would get all the 

attention while everyone else quietly enjoyed what was put on the 

table. 

So it is good to hear that 90 percent of kids we are feeding with 

the program are getting along with it, if not complaining. I have 

heard some complaints from kids eating brown rice. 

But in my district where we all expect to eat white rice at every 

meal, the school system has gradually introduced more nutritious 

brown rice by adding a little bit over time. And I understand that 

this approach is working. And I cannot overemphasize what a significant cultural shift that represents. 

And I have to compliment the school system. The Northern Mariana Public School System received a block grant to support its 

child nutrition program. It serves over 14,000 meals each day to 

over 11,000 school children. 

Now, food costs have gone up since 1991, the year when the 

block grant started in the Northern Marianas. And I am concerned 

that there has been no review since then, whether the payment 

rates in the Northern Marianas are proportional to the costs of providing nutritious meals there as for Guam, for Alaska and Hawaii 

in 1979 in exercise of your authority to do so under Section 10 of 

the Child Nutrition Amendment of 1978. 

So my question is, would you be willing to exercise this authority 

again to review payment rates in the Northern Marianas so that 

you can set the appropriate reimbursement rates to reflect the 

costs of food in that area, in my district? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would be happy to work with you, Congressman, on that issue. And obviously, more of a general comment 

on your comments, you know, we are pleased with the fact that we 

are seeing more fruits and vegetable consumption by kids as a result of these standards. 

And honestly, you know, when we deal about food waste, I hope 

that maybe, if it isn’t this committee, some committee will work 

with us to deal with the fact that today in America 30 percent of 

all the food that is produced in this country is wasted, 30 percent. 

It is 133 billion pounds of food. And that is a global issue as well. 

And if you think about 30 percent, you think about all the costs 

associated with producing that, it is a focus of ours now. We have 

over 2,000 partners that are looking at ways in which we can reduce food waste across the country. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. And Mr. Secretary, when I signed up for the 

Army Reserves, I actually almost got turned down because I was 

fat, obese. But a number of recent studies indicate that one-third 

of all children between the ages of 6 and 9 are overweight or obese. 

In talking about the childhood obesity epidemic in this country, 

I think it is sometimes hard to make the link between obesity and 

hunger. Can you help clarify that link to us, please? 

Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, I didn’t catch the last one. 

Mr. SABLAN. Can you clarify the link between obesity and hunger? 

Secretary Vilsack. It is somewhat difficult for some to understand that they can sometimes be twin challenges that a particular 

youngster could face. 

If you live in a family that is struggling financially, then they are 

looking for food products that will basically provide substance, but 

also try to deal with the pangs of hunger, so oftentimes they look 

at processed foods. 

Those families may have limited access to full-scale grocery 

stores. That is one of the reasons why we have improved the SNAP 

program to allow the redemption of EBT benefits, SNAP benefits 

at farmers’ markets. That is why we have the food insecurity initiative that we launched to encourage more fruit and vegetable consumption for SNAP families. 

It is why we have developed recipes for SNAP families to figure 

out ways in which they can provide more nutritious, less empty-calorie meals. 

And it is a challenge. And frankly, it is something that you have 

mentioned that you are challenged. I had the same and continue 

to have the same challenge. 

I still remember the fact that my mother put a cartoon on the 

refrigerator at our house of a very, very overweight kid with a 

beanie cap, which was a way of telling me to stay out of the refrigerator. 

Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Secretary, before I run out of time, again, we 

have a standing invitation for you or Ms. Rowe to come to the 

Northern Marianas. 

And I would be remiss if I don’t mention the energized and new 

relationship we have, whether it is with your people in San Francisco, your Honolulu folks are very attentive to us, and even your 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

Guam people. I just want to mention that renewal of cooperation 

and I appreciate it. 

And thank you for your leadership. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Brat? 

Mr. BRAT. All right. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us 

here today. 

I have got a couple of questions. The ranking member made a 

comment. It is our job to provide nutritious meals. I think most of 

us agree with that statement in the short run, but I want to get 

your thoughts on what you would make of that in the long run, 

both on the economic front and on the ethics front. 

I think we have got a few issues coming up. The governor’s wife 

from Virginia came up and sat in your seat a few weeks ago. We 

have got $127 trillion in unfunded liability issues coming our way. 

And the impact of that, that is the entitlement programs plus interest, by 2032—I am on the Budget Committee and the CBO director has a nice graph—it is not a nice graph—by 2032, those four 

programs plus interest take up all federal revenues. So that is 

where we are heading. 

So if you look at a military crisis or education crisis, right now 

the Budget Committee has a third of the budget to deal with the 

discretionary funds. By 2032, we have zero in discretionary funds. 

So there is the economic backdrop. 

And then on the ethical backdrop, our job to provide nutritious 

meals. And that leads into a host of complexity. Do we provide 

breakfasts, lunches, dinners, backpacks going home for the weekend? 

If you refuse to do any of this, are you less than 100 percent compassionate? 

Along with this, health care, daycare, obesity programs. We have 

heard folks note this is a national defense, a national security 

issue. 

And then anything run at the federal level, we have bureaucratic 

costs added to all this. 

And so going forward, we have a crisis coming our way in economics if you incentivize the state, which is what I think we are 

doing through these programs, to care for kids. I get nervous about 

the caring and loving part, the more and more the federal role increases and the less and less the role of the parent decreases. 

I get the tension, we all want to take care of the kids. I don’t 

think there is any disagreement on that. We want to do the right 

thing. But education, and I taught in college for the last 18 years, 

education is precisely about educating kids and hopefully parents, 

and how this has not happened is part of the crisis, so they can 

live autonomous lives in the future and families can live intact. 

And so, I mean, one way to state, is there any upper bound, 

philosophically in your thought, on the role of the state in caring 

for our kids? And is this a short-run glide path toward the next 16 

years as we run into more and more economic headwinds? 

I think we want to solve this problem in a better way. I am willing to go along in the short run for the sake of the kids. But in 

the long run, I don’t want to be sitting here at the federal level 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

micromanaging all these micro issues that I think belong at the 

state and local and, optimally, at the parent level. 

So I just want to get your high-end thoughts on that. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, you have raised obviously 

some really important questions. And frankly, as you were asking 

your question, I was actually thinking back to my childhood where 

I started out life in an orphanage and I was adopted into a family 

where my mother suffered from alcoholism and prescription drug 

addiction. And she was, you know, she was a mean lady when she 

drank and she was a wonderful woman when she stopped. 

But during the time that she was drinking, she was not there, 

she was just flat-out not there. 

You know, I think there are unfortunately and tragically a lot of 

families that deal with those kinds of issues. And you know, somebody has got to be there, okay? Somebody has got to be there. 

You would hope that it would be a family member. You would 

hope. You would want it to be a family member. And you would 

want that family member not to feel overwhelmed. 

But maybe if you are dealing with two part-time jobs and you are 

trying to juggle a couple of kids and you are taking in your sister’s 

kids because she is having problems, I think it is overwhelming. So 

there has to be some way in which we provide some assistance. 

You know, we send our children to school. And obviously, you 

know, when they are in school this whole loco parent is notion, you 

would hope that the school district is taking care of them, protecting them, feeding them well, and teaching them well, so that 

at some point in time the light bulb turns on and the kid basically 

says, you know, I want a better life, I want a better way, I am 

going to work hard, I am going to do what I need to do. 

I mentioned I was in Baltimore yesterday. You know, I went to 

this library, saw wonderful, beautiful young kids who were there 

reading. I don’t know what their family circumstances were. But as 

our car pulled out of that library, there were three pop, pop, pops, 

and I thought it was, you know, a tire or something, you know. My 

security guy goes, sir, did you hear those gunshots? 

You know, somebody has got to be there. Somebody has got to 

be there. I would like it to be mom and dad, but sometimes that 

is just not possible. So somebody has got to be there. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Takano? 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for all the great work you have 

done on improving nutrition. I really commend this administration 

for being leaders in this area. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter in the record a 

statement from Rodney Taylor, the director of nutrition services at 

the Riverside Unified School District. It is a brief statement, I will 

just read it. ‘‘In considering the reauthorization of the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act, the question we must ask ourselves is, how 

much are the lives of our children worth? The Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act seeks to reinforce the recommendations made by the 

Institute of Medicine in aligning the school food program with scientific research.’’ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

‘‘While millions struggle with obesity and hunger, standards provide one structured approach. As a country, as parents, as people 

with moral consciences, we owe it to our children. The Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act gives all children the chance at living a 

healthy life. The cost to do nothing is far greater than the inconveniences in implementing what is already in place in most school 

districts.’’ 

Along those lines, I ask unanimous consent it being entered into 

the record. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 94925.021
51 

Chairman KLINE. I think you just did put it in the record, but 

of course, without objection. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

In California, our schools are required to meet higher standards 

for meals, about 5 years before the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 

was last reauthorized. 

For schools in my district, state law helped them to be ready for 

the federal standards and demonstrated that these kinds of 

changes can be implemented on a large scale. 

Can you point to other examples where schools or states led the 

way for improving nutrition for children? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there are probably examples of 

school districts in every single state where there was a concerned 

group of parents or a concerned superintendent or principal or a 

concerned group of teachers or a combination of school nutrition 

personnel that knew that they could do a better job and a better 

way. 

But there are many, many school districts that, for whatever reason, have transitioned to a sort of a central kitchen in order to save 

money. And now they would like to do a better job, which is why 

the school equipment program is so important. 

Some of the school districts that you have had the chance to see 

probably equip themselves, probably spent the resources, had access to the resources. Not every school district has that. That is 

why the school equipment grant is so important. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, thank you. I can just mention that my school 

district, the largest school district of which Mr. Taylor is the director for nutrition services, has been, we don’t have exceptional resources. He has been able to improvise and do what he needs to 

do. But he has been so inspirational to me. I have visited his facilities. 

He has used the buying power of the school district to support 

the local farmers in our area. The food is fresher and, therefore, 

more appealing to the young people. 

He has strategized in terms of where he puts the salad bar. And 

by the way, he has implemented salad bars in nearly all of the 

schools. And he puts the salad bar first so that the young people 

have a chance to make healthier choices first. And just that simple 

innovation of one, well, two innovations, the salad bar and where 

you put the salad bar. If all the students are filing past the salad 

bar first, they are going to make choices for healthier food first. 

Secretary Vilsack. Cornell School of Nutrition has put together a 

series of steps similar to what you have outlined in terms of placement. Even if you name the vegetable, we found with elementary 

school kids if you name carrots the x-ray vision carrots, that will 

encourage kids to basically try a carrot or two. So there are strategies. 

And in fact, we have put together 2,500 toolkits of the best practices and strategies to distribute to school districts that are trying 

to figure out how to do this. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel. 

There are a lot of school districts that have already figured this out 

and are happy to help. 

Mr. TAKANO. Yes. And Mr. Taylor, I know, has been traveling 

around the country helping other school districts. And I thank you 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

and your department for, you know, showing us the best practices. 

And he has definitely shown our community that this can all work. 

His own story is he grew up in a very, very poor environment. 

He knew what hunger was. And he has committed his life to making sure that none of our children today have to go through that. 

And he has been a real inspiration to our community. 

We thank you for the standards that you are trying to implement. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I can’t help but wonder if those kids are disappointed when they 

don’t get x-ray vision. 

Mr. Allen? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see you. Appreciate 

you coming over and talking about the lunch program. 

You know, in Georgia we fully embrace the dietary guidelines set 

by the Federal Government. And you know, it is a no-brainer that 

we want our kids to be healthy. And to do that, they need to be 

eating nutritious foods. 

Out of the 264 schools, Georgia has only five schools that have 

not met the 6 cents certification guidelines for healthier school 

meals. That speaks volumes about the dedication of Georgia school 

nutrition professionals to serving health meals while adhering to 

federal mandates. 

However, Nancy Rice, director of the School Nutrition Division of 

the Georgia Department of Education, says that Georgia continues 

to face challenges with federal mandates. Of particular concern are 

sodium requirements, explaining those mashed potatoes, and implementation of the USDA smart snacks and the paid lunch equity 

program. 

And the fact is I have been in the schools and I always go back 

to the kitchen and talk with the personnel who are preparing the 

foods. And you know, a lot of those folks just aren’t happy about 

what they are having to do. 

The sodium requirement is as low as the prescriptive low-sodium 

clinical diet. And of course, back when I played football they made 

us eat sodium tablets so, you know, it just, I guess, depends on how 

much exercise you get. 

But kids don’t typically eat this way at home, so when at school 

they think something is kind of wrong with the food. And that 

might explain why they don’t eat it in some cases. 

But the implementation of the USDA Smart Snacks has caused 

a significant loss in participation in revenue for Georgia schools. 

The revenue losses ranged from $79,000 to as much as $5 million 

for the 2015 school year. 

The school food directors are seriously concerned about their food 

service and operational finances. They say that staff is what will 

have to be cut first if things don’t change. 

As you state in your testimony, flexibility is important to comply 

with federal standards for child nutrition. And how can we work 

together to provide flexibility for the sodium requirements and the 

USDA smart snacks or the paid lunch equity? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I think on the sodium 

there are basically three targets that have to be met. And in fact, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

we have provided a 10-year phase-in on the sodium requirement 

and have provided that flexibility that we don’t move from target 

one to target two until the dietary guidelines basically establish 

that it is appropriate. 

So we have been working with the food processing companies to 

make those adjustments. And clearly, there will be an adjustment. 

But over time, we spent some time at the McCormick facility in 

Maryland where they showed me how you can use spices to replace 

salt. And the meal that they served me was extraordinary, within 

the calorie guidelines. So there are ways to do this. 

So there has been flexibility provided in the sodium, and there 

has also been flexibility provided in terms of the pay equity issue. 

You know, obviously, we want to make sure that we aren’t reimbursing or overcompensating school districts for paid meals, that 

they aren’t subsidizing their paid meals improperly. 

But if they have, you know, adequate reserves we give them 

some flexibility. So there has been flexibility put in those two 

areas. 

On the smart snack piece of it, again, I would be happy to get 

information from you in terms of the school districts and we could 

try to work with them to see if there is a reason why they are losing the resources that they are losing. Maybe we could help with 

that. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. We will do that and I appreciate your offer to 

do that. 

After the federal child nutrition standards were implemented in 

2012, we did see a drop in participation in school lunch programs. 

And clearly, these standards are having unintended effects. 

Am I hearing that we are doing better now? Or do we have plans 

to significantly decrease this decline in the school lunch participation? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, you know, we may have some disagreement about the extent of the decline. 

As I mentioned earlier, of the over 99,000 schools in the country 

today, only 58 have dropped out. And some of those who have 

dropped out are coming back in. There is an article in the Houston 

Chronicle that I mentioned earlier that outlined several of those 

coming back in. 

We know that there are multiple reasons why an individual student may not participate. It may very well be some of the concerns 

that have been expressed here. But it may also be we have seen 

a rather dramatic increase in free and reduced lunch. It may be a 

situation where folks at home feel that they will do better for less. 

And we saw actually this trend occurring before the guidelines occurred. 

So the challenge here, I think, for us is to continue to focus on 

best practices, continue to look for ways in which we can make 

these meals as pleasing as possible and to work with schools that 

are struggling. That is why we created the Team Up for Success. 

We started it in the deep south with a number of school districts. 

We took them down to the University of Mississippi where they 

worked for a day-and-a-half with them, looked at procurement, 

looked at financing, looked at meal menus. We have received good, 

positive feedback, so we have extended that program, so by the end 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

of this year we will have touched all regions of the country with 

this effort to try to team up succeeding schools with struggling 

schools. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

Let me just say that I think that what we spend on feeding kids 

in this country is a great value, especially since we spend about $3 

million per hour on war that we have never authorized. 

Mr. Secretary, non-profit organizations and schools have to operate after-school meal programs and the summer meal program separately. These programs serve the same kids, the same meals at 

the same location, just at different times of the year. 

Now, they have different sets of paperwork and often operate 

under different state agencies. It is a huge burden of paperwork. 

Is there any opportunity to streamline these programs and make 

them easier to operate? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, the answer, obviously, we should look for 

ways in which we can streamline the programs. And yesterday in 

Baltimore we sort of committed ourselves to a demonstration 

project in the city of Baltimore to see if we could work on creating 

a process. 

Apparently, we have a rule that says you can’t serve three meals 

at the same location. And so we are going to have a demonstration 

project to take a look at whether or not we can do that and what 

the concerns might be. 

So there are obviously ways in which we would look for streamlining. And if you have suggestions, we would be more than open 

to them. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Congressman Fortenberry and I introduced a bipartisan Farm to 

School Act of 2015. And the cornerstone of that act is to provide 

flexibility to local schools and communities to include preschools in 

the USDA Farm-to-School program. 

Can you speak to the benefits of Farm-to-School for children and 

why you would support this additional flexibility in the program for 

early childcare settings? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, the Farm-to-School program has been 

extraordinarily successful. We have done 221 grants and we have 

recently surveyed school districts and we have found that there is 

about, of the school districts that have been surveyed, about $350 

million of economic benefit associated with Farm-to-School. 

So one of the benefits is basically keeping resources that are generated in a community in the community, instead of sending your 

resources for meals a thousand miles away and benefiting some 

other community, if you will. 

So there is an economic benefit. There is obviously a freshness 

benefit. People like the idea that they are helping their local producers and they like the idea that kids can learn about what is 

being grown and raised in their vicinity. 

We know that there is a multiple-billion-dollar opportunity here. 

It is particularly helpful to small- and medium-sized producers. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

And kids get access to fruits and vegetables that they might not 

otherwise consume. So you know, to use a trite phrase, it is a winwin situation. 

And frankly, school districts are learning that they can do this 

in a way that doesn’t break the bank and that it is quite popular. 

You know, we have done quite a bit of good with a relatively small amount of money. The program has $5 to $6 million in 

grants. And what we do with those resources is we acquaint people 

with what is grown in their vicinity and their district within a 150- 

, 200-mile radius. We help them with procurement, so they know 

how to contract. And then we basically steer them potentially to 

food hubs and other facilities that can provide sufficient quantity 

to satisfy them. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me ask just one last question and it is about summer meals. 

We have had a number of hearings where both sides testified that 

summer meals are significantly important to young people. 

But in the state of Ohio, only about 10 percent of low-income 

children are getting summer meals, where the national average is 

about 16 percent, both still low. 

But what solutions should this committee consider to ensure that 

programs like summer meals are flexible enough to serve kids in 

need? 

I look at just my largest city, which is the city of Cleveland; 54 

percent of all the kids there live in poverty. So the need is there, 

how do we address it? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is a partnership that requires 

local engagement and involvement from local political leaders. 

Mayors, governors have to be engaged, and if they are we have 

seen dramatic increases. 

I would say one thing that we need to do is to figure out ways 

in which we can go to where the kids are as opposed to having the 

kids go to where the meals are. 

We know and I suspect you know in your city you know where 

kids will congregate during the summer. And we need to figure out 

ways in which we can be flexible enough to be able to ensure that 

meals go to them, if it is a playground, if it is a swimming pool, 

if it is wherever they congregate. 

In my town where our kids grew up, it was the little league diamond is where kids basically congregated during the summer 

months. 

So ways in which we can go to the where the kids are. Right 

now, our process is that kids have to go to a central location. And 

sometimes they know where that central location is and we are trying to make it easy for parents to understand where that is, but 

it is oftentimes difficult to get there. 

We are trying to make it nonthreatening. That is why libraries 

are important, that is why schools, the seamless program are important. Any way in which we can continue to promote flexibility 

and access we would be certainly looking forward to working with 

you on. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Curbelo? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to 

working with you, the subcommittee chairmen, and all of my colleagues on this important issue. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your presence here today and 

your testimony. 

My first question is prompted by some frustrations in the state 

of Florida with regards to transportation. As you know, all current 

USDA food commodities ordered for the state of Florida must be 

placed on a truck of all like material. 

Would it make more sense to create mixed-product loads to decrease costs to smaller school districts or to use smaller trucks to 

offset some of the costs incurred by ordering these large truckload 

quantities? 

Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, it seems like a reasonable proposal and suggestion. I would be more than happy to take that 

back to the office and see if there is a possibility for us working. 

You know, we are very focused at USDA on process improvement 

and this sounds like it would be an improvement. So I would be 

happy to look into it. 

Mr. CURBELO. I would appreciate it. Because for large districts 

like Miami-Dade County this is not a major challenge, but for some 

of our rural districts it certainly has posed challenges. 

My second question is a little broader. And I served on the 

Miami-Dade County School Board. And oftentimes, I would think, 

you know, it is great that we are making this effort to try to help 

kids have a healthier diet while they are in our schools. But if they 

go back home and continue their poor eating habits, maybe we are 

just spinning our wheels. 

Do you have any ideas as we look ahead at this reauthorization 

as to what we can do, if anything, to empower parents to really 

take ownership over their children’s diets, and understand that 

while the schools can help this is really primarily the responsibility 

of parents and families? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, one thing, I think we have seen a remarkable increase in parental involvement and interest when kids 

basically establish a school garden and are able to produce food 

that they then consume or invite parents to the school so that the 

parents can go through the salad line and have the tomato or the 

carrot or the cucumber that a child actually produced through their 

efforts. 

Basically, creating those kinds of opportunities where kids get 

excited about fruits and vegetables that they have produced and 

then are able to proudly display them to mom or dad or working 

with local grocery stores where, again, they are willing to have a 

display of a locally produced school. 

You know, I know that whatever kids are involved in and whatever they are proud about parents take notice. And one way to do 

that is potentially creating an opportunity within schools for more 

community gardens and schools gardens that kids could then bring 

mom and dad into as a suggestion. 

But I will think about your question. That is the best I can do 

right now. But if I come up with a better answer I will be glad to 

convey it. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

Mr. CURBELO. I appreciate it. I just think it is important because 

we are making significant investments. And we all know what a 

tough time a lot of the school districts are having complying. 

And this is all important. I don’t mean to diminish it, because 

it does make a difference. But the problem of child nutrition and 

childhood obesity I don’t think will ever be solved until families in 

this country take ownership for their children’s health and diet and 

do the best they can to promote healthy lifestyles at home. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is true. I mean, it isn’t just what 

they consume, it is also how active they are. And that is something 

parents clearly have an opportunity to promote, which is physical 

activity, getting kids outdoors, having them participate in some 

kind of activity that gets them moving, as the first lady’s Let’s 

Move initiative is focused on. 

And certainly, school districts are looking for creative ways to get 

kids recess time. So there are ways I think in which parents can 

be engaged in a positive way on this. 

Mr. CURBELO. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you to you and Ranking Member Scott for holding this hearing. 

And thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being here today, for your 

department’s dedication and for your very passionate and personal 

response about the need for these programs. 

I spent many years working in a legal aid office and you quickly 

discover that people don’t struggle by choice. It is unfortunate circumstances, typically lost a job, health care bills they couldn’t pay, 

et cetera. So appreciate your meaningful answer there. 

And you know, like other committee members, I have visited a 

lot of schools and had lunch with many students. I try to avoid 

sticking my head into the garbage can, but I have looked in there. 

We have great salad bars out in Oregon in our schools. The 

school gardens which you mentioned, Mr. Secretary, are great programs, that nutrition education that kids take home with them and 

talk to their families about. 

And I agree with Subcommittee Chairman Rokita. I learn a lot 

from talking to students. I was actually in our state legislature 

when we got the junk food out of the vending machines in schools. 

And the most passionate, compelling testimony came from students 

who talked about how they would be in a nutrition class learning 

about health and then go out in the hallway and see vending machines full of junk food and that sent inconsistent messages. The 

students were very persuasive there. 

So I am really hopeful that this committee will work together to 

successfully reauthorize the child nutrition programs and build on 

the success of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. 

I appreciate hearing the concerns from my colleagues. 

So I wanted to talk a little bit about something that doesn’t get 

as much attention, and I am really pleased to be partnering with 

our committee colleague from New York, Representative Stefanik, 

on legislation that will strengthen the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

I appreciate Representative Stefanik’s interest in this program 

and I look forward to working together to put CACFP on stable 

footing for the millions of children it serves each day, children in 

preschool, in daycare. The CACFP also provides after-school programs and emergency shelters. 

So I wanted to begin with asking you about the department’s 

process for preparing new meal standards. Why are the new meal 

guidelines important? 

And then I also want to ask, following up on Representative 

Fudge’s issue about streamlining. The USDA is working with some 

of the large sponsors in the CACFP program to simplify their interactions with state agencies and help those sponsors avoid needing 

to submit similar paperwork for multiple states. 

So can you talk both about preparing the meal standards and 

guidelines, and then also simplifying the paperwork for multi-state 

sponsors? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are over 178,000 participating locations in the program that you have asked for. And obviously, it 

is important for us to make sure that in all of those locations, to 

the extent they involve children, that we are sending a consistent 

message right through the entire process, consistent message with 

WIC, consistent message with SNAP and SNAP–Ed, consistent 

message at the school, consistent message with summer feeding. 

So it is important that we ensure that the messages that we are 

sending are consistent. 

So obviously, we rely on the experts to give us a sense of what 

ought to be served to these youngsters and how it will be consistent 

with what they are likely to be served in the future at school and 

summer feeding and down the line. 

You know, it is important, I think, that we recognize that the reimbursement rates are relatively the same. They don’t get the benefit of the 6 cents increase, but in terms of the reimbursement 

rates relatively the same. So you know, I think it is trying to remain consistent. 

Now, the issue of process, we are engaged at USDA, as I mentioned earlier, in a process improvement effort. And if there are 

ways in which we can reduce duplication of paperwork I am all for 

it. And that is why I think we are pushing community eligibility, 

why we are pushing direct certification. 

These are all ways of producing better product, greater access, 

less cost, less administrative hassle and fewer errors. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And before my time runs out, I also want to ask, 

we want to make sure that the CACFP works well for small providers. Can you talk a little bit about the importance of keeping the 

small providers connected, especially in rural areas? How can the 

department work together to encourage CACFP participation? 

Secretary Vilsack. Working through our state partners, we want 

to make sure that just because a youngster is raised in a small 

town doesn’t necessarily mean that they should get inadequate 

service or no service or improper service. 

My kids were in a very small daycare facility in a small town. 

So I am very sensitive to the needs for kids in rural areas to have 

access. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. And my time is about to expire. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

I understand that the secretary has a hard-stop time near 12:00. 

We have so much member interest here that I am going to have 

to take the draconian step of limiting members from here out to 3 

minutes. And I will be fairly militant in cutting off the time. 

Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I am 

here for you. 

Chairman KLINE. You are very generous. We are still going to 

limit to 3 minutes because I am respectful of your time. 

[Laughter.] 

I am afraid. I am doing the math here and we could go until 

well-past 12 if we don’t limit the time. 

So with those new guidelines in place, Mr. Guthrie 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just did school visits, I know a lot of us have talked about 

school visits at elementary, junior high, and high school, and 

learned a lot. And I think it is beneficial. 

And I sat down in roundtables with the people in the dietary 

world who do this and sat with them. And I said this when we 

started out, I said, look, this probably isn’t going to go away. Anything that we want to do has got to be signed by the President. So 

what kind of things do you think would make it better, that you 

could work with to make it more flexible where the kids would eat 

more? 

And they came up with some pretty good ideas. And some of the 

things that we saw when we did the visit, there was one particular. 

When you do these, you get particular instances that it is hard to 

even explain. 

There was a hamburger, which I actually thought tasted okay 

with the whole-grain bun, but you can only get three pickles, so 

there was a person there guarding the pickle jar to make sure kids 

didn’t get four pickles. And I remember the reporter going, well, 

what is wrong with pickles, there is no calories in them? Well, it 

is sodium. 

So it has gotten to where, you know, you had the lady there with 

the potatoes putting them in a little tray and she had to put four 

in because if a kid got five, instead of having the glove, reaching 

and putting them on the tray, the kid might get five, so that was 

a sodium issue as well. 

And so you do see these things with throwing fruit in there. The 

stuff that you hear, I actually saw. One kid at Davis County Middle School said it is the healthiest trash can in town probably. That 

was a quote from that young person. 

But they came, and so, how do we make it work given that we 

want this to work? And everybody at the table was in the school 

lunch program. And so they wanted kids to eat healthy, too. And 

they were saying if they could have flexibility on whole-grain, some 

flexibility. The whole-grain pasta just sticks together and becomes 

gooey, they said. No further decrease in sodium. 

And one parent suggested they can’t have Thanksgiving dinner 

because there is too much either sodium or calories. If they do 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

Thanksgiving dinner on Wednesday, they can’t eat the rest of the 

week because it goes beyond. And a parent says, why don’t we have 

one day a month or some number to have flex days that doesn’t 

count? So I would say everything in moderation. 

And so when we sat down to say, how do we make the program 

that is in place work better, those are some suggestions. 

Do you have any comments on it? They sound reasonable to me 

from people in the system. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, certainly, the whole-grain pasta issue 

was one that we recognized a concern about and provided flexibility. And that was extended to whole-grain generally. 

The sodium issue, we also recognized. 

We also made some adjustments on the protein and portion size 

issues so long as things fit within the overall guidelines for the 

week. 

So I think there is flexibility that we have provided. And I think 

there are creative ways to deal with that flexibility to provide 

wholesome meals. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. But within the authorization that is coming up, 

that, you know, might need to be included instead of just waivers 

and flexibility. 

But the thing of just the flex day where there could be, if it is 

PE day or field day, they could have pizza. I mean, it is just because if they do that—I understand it is during the week, but if 

they have a Thanksgiving meal they said it blows the whole week. 

Secretary Vilsack. Just, I mean, in terms of flexibility, we gave 

that opportunity, 1,900 school districts out of 15,000 were granted 

the flexibility. So I mean, 2,300 requested it so it was a relatively 

small percentage of overall school districts and obviously a relatively small percentage of schools. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. They actually mentioned that— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for sharing your personal story which I think really is compelling and reminds us there 

are many, many families that aren’t able to take all the advice in 

the world that we would love to give them. And I appreciate that. 

I wanted to focus quickly, though, on California’s historic drought 

right now because this has really exacerbated food insecurity for 

many, many of our families who are in areas where this really does 

matter. It means job losses. It is an accumulation of a host of 

issues. 

And I know you are familiar, obviously, with the electronic benefit transfer program and the fact that many of the families who 

would benefit from school meals during the year aren’t able to do 

that. They don’t have a facility, they don’t have a place where they 

can go. And so expanding that program in these drought-stricken 

areas would be helpful in California. 

I know that, you know, I would love to see that. I would love to 

see that nationally. I think that this makes sense. The pilot programs have shown that it makes a difference. 

I think that young people who are not really able to get the nutrition they need in the summertime, they are going to lose out by 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

not being in school to begin with and this exacerbates that problem. 

But what about those drought-stricken communities in California? I don’t actually live in one as much as many of the communities, but I am concerned because this would be a good place to 

focus. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, we agree and we are encouraging folks 

to consider in the appropriations process an expansion of the program because we know it works, we know it results in more fruits 

and vegetable consumption and healthier choices being developed 

for kids during the summer. 

And it does deal with the issue of a lack of access if you don’t 

have a congregant site, someplace in your rural area or it is too far 

away, you don’t have transportation or it is too dangerous to get 

to. 

So we are very much inclined to want to see an expansion of that 

program. And of course, it is really about dollars and cents. If the 

appropriators give us the resources, we will be glad to extend it. 

And if we extend it, we will obviously look at ways in which we 

can help people that are in distress. 

I have got a much more fuller-extent answer to the drought issue 

which we will be able to provide your staff. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Right. And I think that there certainly are issues. 

We know other countries have done a far better job with this. But 

for the time being, while we wait for that and a host of other remedies that are out there, this is a problem. 

So is there anything else that we can do to, I think, make the 

case that these EBT pilot programs really have demonstrated for 

us the fact that they work and they keep kids from losing what 

they could otherwise?. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is basically responding to the 

fact that this is a program that reduces hunger, that responds to 

folks who are in severe distress, that expands access to fruits and 

vegetables, and at the end of the day expands reach. This program, 

at a minimum, gets to 30 percent of the kids versus the national 

average of 16. So you make a case you are getting more help to 

more kids. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Dr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. And thank 

you for your service to our country. 

And I am going to talk as fast as a Southerner can. So I have 

got to get mine in. 

I talked to one of our school directors in rural Appalachia where 

I live, 14,000 students, 67 percent free and reduced lunch. He says 

the kids are not eating, many of them are throwing the food away, 

kids are leaving there hungry. And I said, what do you do when 

they are hungry? He feeds them. 

And what Mr. Guthrie was talking about basically the food police 

deciding how many pickles you get on a hamburger, where we are 

from, the view we have is ridiculous; so when you limit the portions, the size, and I have eaten many school lunches. I like to go 

and talk to kids, so I do that a lot. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

I am not asking you to comment. I am just saying one school director passed this along and lost $877,000 on the program. That is 

what it cost in a poor county where I live. So they are having trouble financing this. 

I want to get something else. And what Mr. Curbelo said was 

correct. CDC just released a report that said 35 percent of the 

adults in the country over 20 are obese, 69 percent over 20 are 

overweight, and the average woman today weighs what the average 

male did in 1960. So we have gotten larger as a country, there is 

no question. 

And I wrote you a letter a year-and-a-half ago, a little over a 

year ago, about the USDA would release a comprehensive report 

based on how SNAP benefits are used. And to date, in spite of numerous follow ups, we haven’t heard anything. 

And basically, what we heard was you wrote a letter in July and 

again in November and it was supposed to be out in March and it 

still isn’t out. And the reason for that is because that is a huge program. And I think unless you affect that program about how foods 

are bought and prepared there in a more healthy way, you are 

never going to fix the school lunch because the kids are going home 

to their parents. 

And when is that report coming out? Can you tell me? 

Secretary Vilsack. I can check. I don’t know the answer to that 

question, congressman. 

Mr. ROE. Well, I don’t want to interrupt you, but I have a very 

little bit of time. 

I used the WIC program for years as an OB/GYN doctor. It 

worked. WIC works; and when you put healthy food out there for 

people to eat. And we spent between $2 and $4 billion estimated 

last year on soft drinks. And I know that isn’t good news to the 

soft drink industry, but that isn’t food. And we should be looking 

at this massive program if we could get the data, because I can tell 

you, when I go into Harris Teeter, which I have an apartment 

there, they know exactly what I am buying. 

So we should be able, the USDA should be able to tell us what 

those recipients are buying and we need to narrow those food 

choices so they are eating healthier. I want to help you work with 

that because the CDC data I just presented are real and it is a nationwide problem. And I am here to try to work with you. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I can tell you that what SNAP folks are 

buying is not much different than what the rest of the country is 

buying. 

Mr. ROE. But they are buying it with tax dollars— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Clark? 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here today, Mr. Secretary. And I, too, 

really appreciate your personal story and the empathy that you 

bring to these issues. 

And I also appreciate the concerns that some of my colleagues 

have raised with the difficulty that a small percentage of schools 

are having providing healthier school meals. And I am really grateful for your open-ended approach and flexibility, whether it is let’s 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

look at flavored milks, let’s look at trucking and how we can do better by rural communities. 

But what really strikes me is that in the richest country in the 

world, nearly 16 million children struggle with food insecurity. 

That is one in five American children. And we know this brings 

lower academic success, increased health factors, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and increased health care costs. 

So in 3 minutes, I would like to know our best strategy for solving childhood hunger. And I really would like to have your opinion 

on where do we need to focus. Is it expanding eligibility for nutrition assistance programs like WIC? Is it expanding accessibility to 

proposals similar to adjunctive and community eligibility? Or is it 

simply time to increase SNAP benefits so these kids can also eat 

when they get home? 

Secretary Vilsack. Boy, I think it is an all-of-the-above, in a 

sense. I would say that this administration has started that process 

of improving and expanding and doing it in a way that is focused 

on integrity. We have reduced the integrity concerns on the SNAP 

program, we are addressing them in WIC, and now we have an aggressive effort that we are under way in terms of the school programs. 

So part of it is making sure that we spend the dollars that we 

have wisely. Part of it is creating ways in which access to programs 

is simpler. That is why we are looking at an online application for 

the school lunch program. That is why we are encouraging community eligibility. That is why we are encouraging direct certification. 

So continued looking at ways in which there are barriers and trying to figure them out. If Title I is a barrier for school districts to 

embrace community eligibility that would provide for greater access and fewer errors, then we ought to be working with the Department of Education to figure out a way to get through that barrier. 

So just knocking these barriers down. 

Ms. CLARK. Great, thank you. We did it. 

And thank you, I really appreciate your testimony today and the 

work that you are doing. And we look forward to working with you. 

Secretary Vilsack. Thank you. 

Ms. CLARK. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Grothman: 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. 

I also have toured a lot in my local schools and get the same 

thing we have heard around here. The federal requirements are 

causing the costs to go up that they have to charge the kids who 

are not low-income. Kids are throwing away their food. If they have 

an open campus, the kids are fleeing the school lunchroom to go 

to the McDonald’s or whatever across the street because they don’t 

want the federally-mandated food. 

The question I have for you, you know, and I think it is just odd 

that here on a federal level we are telling people, school districts 

what they can serve for lunch, because I always thought most of 

us were taught what a nutritious lunch is when we were probably 

in elementary school. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

And therefore, I wonder about just giving them the money and 

not worrying about the paperwork. 

How many people do you have and how much cost goes into paying for these programs? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, the school lunch program is roughly 

$12–1/2 billion. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I mean, the administration, not how much is the 

checks that we send out. 

Secretary Vilsack. I don’t know that the administration is—I 

don’t know specifically the answer to that, but I will tell you this. 

The chairman mentioned the number of employees working at 

USDA. 

And Mr. Chairman, it is no longer 100,000, it is now closer to 

85,000 people work for USDA. So we have seen a significant reduction in administrative expense associated with all our programs. So 

we are operating on an operating budget that is less than it was 

when I became secretary. 

So I can assure you that we are looking for every administrative 

efficiency. We have addressed and identified over $1.4 billion of efficiencies as part of our blueprint for stronger service. 

So I don’t think administration is the issue here. And frankly, it 

is not that we tell specifically what needs to be served, but we give 

people guidelines and standards and then they have freedom to figure out ways, creative ways to meet those standards. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. It should not be that difficult to make a healthy 

lunch. Right now we couldn’t be doing worse. People are throwing 

away the food. And if you have open campus, the kids are leaving 

the campus and looking for somewhere else to eat. 

Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, with due respect, studies show 

that there isn’t more food waste than there was before the program. And in fact, food waste is an issue that transcends the school 

lunch program. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. The question I would like to know when I talk 

to my local school districts who frequently always want more 

money, they wonder how much we are spending here to administer 

a program that is kind of based on the idea that the local people 

don’t know how to make a decent lunch. 

How many employees do you have and how much does it cost to 

administer this program? 

Secretary Vilsack. I will be happy to provide you that answer. 

But I would also say that those very same people may be living in 

a state where they haven’t spent all the money that we have provided to them. 

And my question to them would be, why aren’t you spending 

those resources if you are strapped? There is $24 million on the 

table that hasn’t been spent. Why is that the case? 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Adams. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you also, Mr. Secretary. 

I have some serious issues with food insecurity in North Carolina. We have got a high rate, 26 percent. In the 12th District that 

I represent, food insecurity is over 30 percent. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

So I launched a hunger initiative last month in the district, and 

I heard some very disturbing things from some of the people who 

actually came and had a discussion with me. 

I heard a troubling story about a child who was 20 to 30 feet 

from the approved site of the bus stop where the food was being 

served. And the mother mentioned that she was very concerned because the child couldn’t actually take the food on the front porch 

which was right in front of the stop, because of the current regulations. And she felt that her child was being treated like an animal, 

forced to eat in the dirt. 

So I know that is not the intent of the law, but just wanted to 

ask you what changes you thought we needed to make to ensure 

that we aren’t discouraging participation in the program and making children feel less than they ought to feel. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would say two. One is that we discussed briefly the need to extend the EBT program that has been 

successful in embracing and encouraging access and flexibility. 

And then secondly, continue to work on ways in which we can 

provide greater flexibility in the site locations for where kids are 

as opposed to forcing kids to go to a site. 

You know, it is somewhat up to the local folks who basically are 

the sponsors of this program how strict they are about all of this. 

But I would say those would be two suggestions. 

Ms. ADAMS. Just one other thing. We have about 600,000 children who qualify for free and reduced lunch and only 14 percent 

are accessing. I think you have addressed some of those problems. 

But what type of discretion would the USDA have to do to waive 

some of the current regulations that will prevent students who are 

eligible for free lunch and not taking advantage of it? 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think that the first suggestion would 

be to make sure if a school district is taking full advantage of the 

programs that exist, the Community Eligibility Program, it may 

very well be that they qualify for that program, which would significantly reduce the administrative concerns. That will allow them 

basically to treat all the kids the same and still be reimbursed at 

a reasonable rate. 

So we would be happy to work with you to identify the school 

district that you are concerned about to see whether they might be 

able to take advantage of CEP. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

I yield. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. Appreciate your 

testimony. 

Mr. Secretary, the WIC program, we have had a little discussion 

about it today. There is a legislative mandate to rebate infant formula and for the allowance to do that for other foods. 

I have had discussions with folks in my district and there is concerns that have been raised that the rebates limit parental choice 

for both the WIC participants and the non-participants. And I am 

wondering if you might be able to offer up some solutions to the 

committee today to promote what was intended by those rebates 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

with cost containment as well as trying to find a way to do it without limiting parental choice. 

And also, I would like some input from you as to who you view 

should be able to choose the products they see as best for the kids. 

Secretary Vilsack. Well, we obviously are mindful of the need for 

the balance between a healthy package and a reasonable cost to 

taxpayers. Food inflation has, I think, increased by 12 percent 

since the time I have been secretary. The WIC costs have increased 

by 1 percent. So the package concept, I think, is trying to maintain 

reasonable costs. 

The issue of flexibility, I know that we have provided some degree of flexibility on formula. Part of the challenge is that some of 

the folks and the choices that people want to make are much more 

expensive. That gets into a whole cost issue. 

You know, I thought you were going to be asking about the notion that some of the formula makers are concerned about too 

many people taking advantage of the WIC program because of the 

way in which states administer the Medicaid program. 

And I think the key there is to make sure that the data that they 

have, the industry has, and the data that we have match, because 

today that is not the case. There is significant delta between what 

they claim folks who are ineligible for WIC and we claim. So there 

is a set of issues there that I think we need to be addressing. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Jeffries? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for your testimony here today 

as well as for your leadership on these very important issues. 

In the limited time that I have I was hoping that we could just 

drill down some on the childhood obesity problem that we have got 

in America. 

Now, more than one-third of children in the United States are 

considered overweight or obese. Is that correct? 

Secretary Vilsack. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And is it fair to say that this level of obesity is a 

national epidemic? 

Secretary Vilsack. It is obviously a serious concern. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so obesity places children at greater risk of 

heart disease. Is that correct? 

Secretary Vilsack. That and other chronic diseases. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. A greater risk of respiratory illness, is that correct? 

Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure about that, but certainly diabetes, hypertension. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Greater risk of liver disease? 

Secretary Vilsack. May very well be. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Stroke? 

Secretary Vilsack. Greater risk of illness. I am not a doctor, so 

I don’t want to go and I did raise my hand to tell the truth and 

nothing but the truth. So I want to make sure— 

Chairman KLINE. In fairness, he did. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Is it fair to say that childhood obesity increases 

the likelihood of bullying in school? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

Secretary Vilsack. In my personal experience, I would say that 

is probably true. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Does it increase the likelihood of social isolation? 

Secretary Vilsack. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Is it fair to say that childhood obesity increases 

the likelihood of severe emotional distress? 

Secretary Vilsack. I wouldn’t be surprised if that weren’t true. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, the health care costs of obesity per year in the United States is as high as $147 billion, is that correct? 

Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure what the number is, but I know 

that there is a significantly high rate associated with obesity. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Alright. So in your view, if you could just speak 

to some of the efforts that the Department of Agriculture has undertaken to address this epidemic of childhood obesity and the severe financial, health, emotional costs connected to it. 

Secretary Vilsack. Improving the WIC program to focus on fruits 

and vegetables that kids might not otherwise consume. Working 

with the SNAP families to allow them access to fruits and vegetables at farmers’ markets and the EBT, 5,200 farmers’ markets. 

Working on the expansion of the summer feeding program, 23 million more meals than when I became secretary. 

Focusing on improved school lunches and school breakfasts in 

terms of the standards and the calories to make sure the kids are 

getting nutrition, but not something that is unhealthy for them. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And last question. In your view, has the implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 effectively 

addressed the problem of childhood obesity? 

Secretary Vilsack. I think it is a component, Congressman. I 

think that the issue of exercise and physical activity is an equally 

important component to all of this. They are balanced. You have 

to have both of them. It isn’t just calories in, it is also calories out. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Messer? 

Mr. MESSER. Mr. Secretary, appreciate you being here. Appreciate your stamina. 

I have had the opportunity to meet with your wife, Christie, in 

her role as the senior adviser for international education at 

USAID. And I can tell you that I know we share one thing in common in life, and that is that we both overachieved in marriage, because she is a dynamic professional and somebody that I very much 

appreciated her insights. 

Secretary Vilsack. Thank you. 

Mr. MESSER. I represent a mostly rural area of Indiana, 19 counties, ag- and manufacturing-based economy. A lot of folks, frankly, 

that when you go to their schools, visit the schools, they are on free 

and reduced lunch. 

And I wanted to ask you just a little bit to expand upon the challenges with the Summer Food Service Program. As you know, this 

program has existed for 40 years. 

This Monday, the Indiana Department of Education announced 

its 2015 summer food service sites. And unfortunately in Indiana, 

only about 14 percent of folks who are on free and reduced lunch 

are going to have access to those kinds of programs in the summer. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

And we have our disagreements on these programs. I think we 

all agree that no kid in America should go hungry. 

You know, I know, obviously, the first answer is always more 

money. But beyond that, what can we do to try to make sure that 

more kids in America won’t be going hungry this summer? 

Secretary Vilsack. I think encouraging the seamless summer program, schools that our kids are comfortable going to and would be 

allowed to continue servicing food and better utilization of our 

school properties. 

I think working with mayors and governors to sort of put the 

spotlight on this and encourage greater community participation. 

And certainly at the local level, as a former mayor myself, I 

know that the park and recreation department could be a critically 

important component to expanding access. 

And then, frankly, more flexibility in our programs in terms of 

where kids have to go or how the meals can get to them. 

Mr. MESSER. And that is the biggest challenge right? Transportation. I mean, the challenge that kids have to try to get to where 

these sites would be. 

Secretary Vilsack. It is a huge challenge in rural areas, which is 

why we ought to be focusing on more mobility in terms of how the 

meals can get to where the kids are as opposed to kids coming to 

where the meals are. 

Mr. MESSER. Great. Thank you. 

No further questions. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. 

We have had an opportunity for everybody to have a discussion 

with the secretary. We are pretty doggone close to 12:00. We are 

going to wrap up here momentarily. 

I am going to yield to Mr. Scott for any closing remarks he has. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the secretary for your hard work and for visiting 

Virginia and working with our first lady, Dorothy McAuliffe, on 

child nutrition issues. 

Thank you for your testimony and reinforcing the importance of 

good nutrition from a national security point of view, readiness of 

our potential military personnel and budgetary concerns, the future 

health care costs that are associated with obesity. 

And then in response to the questions from the gentleman from 

New York, the behavior associated with obesity can have budgetary 

impacts. 

We have made progress over the last few years, particularly in 

terms of the standards with virtually all, 95 percent as I understand it, school systems reporting compliance with the upgraded 

standards, and the community eligibility which means more people 

can participate. So we need to continue making that progress. 

And I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. 

Chairman KLINE. I, too, want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. You 

have been a great witness. You have got a heck of a big job. And 

we are going to try to do the very best we can when we look at 

reauthorizing this to address concerns. You have heard a number 

of them here today. 

Sometimes we are listening perhaps or looking at some different 

statistics, but all of us, I believe it is fair to say, all of us up here 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

want these kids to have a healthy lunch. I think that many of us 

have talked to, listened to, eaten with and all of those things, gone 

to schools and see that there still are some real concerns about cost 

and flexibility. So we will be looking at that. 

But I very much appreciate your testimony today. I want to 

thank you for being here. 

And there being no further business, we are adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 94925.022
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 94925.023
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 94925.024
73 

[Secretary Vilsack’s response to questions submitted for the 

record] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 94925.025
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 94925.026
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 94925.027
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 94925.028
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 94925.029
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 94925.030
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 94925.031
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 94925.032
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 94925.033
83 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER