U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

88–866 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–088

TO REVIEW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S

INITIATIVES REGARDING CHILD NUTRITION

PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 3, 2003

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

ZELL MILLER, Georgia 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

HUNT SHIPMAN, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

LANCE KOTSCHWAR, Majortiy General Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

To Review the Federal Government’s Initiatives Regarding Child Nutrition 

Programs ............................................................................................................... 01

Thursday, April 3, 2003

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from Mississippi, Chairman, Committee 

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

Dayton, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota ........................................... 37

Leahy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Senator from Vermont ...................................... 29

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a U.S. Senator from Arkansas ........................................ 43

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., a U.S. Senator from Indiana ......................................... 25

WITNESSES 

Bost, Eric, Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, United 

States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ......................................... 02

Panel I 

Besharov, Douglas, Joseph J. and Violet Jacobs Scholar in Social Welfare 

Studies, American Enterprise Institute, and Professor, University of

Maryland School of Public Affairs, Washington, DC ........................................ 19

Weill, James, President, Food Research and Action Center, Washington, DC .. 14

Panel II 

Caplan, Karen, Frieda, Inc., Los Alamitos, California, on behalf of the United 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association .............................................................. 35

Curry, Anne, Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs, Food Marketing 

Institute, Washington, DC .................................................................................. 33

Hofstedt, Rod, Executive Director, Adult and Children’s Alliance, St. Paul, 

Minnesota, on behalf of the National Child and Adult Care Food Program 

Forum .................................................................................................................... 38

Leppert, Jill, President, National WIC Association, Bismark, North Dakota .... 31

Wambles, Don, President, National Association of Farmers Market Nutrition 

Programs, Montgomery, Alabama ...................................................................... 39

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 54

Besharov, Douglas ............................................................................................ 103

Bost, Eric ........................................................................................................... 61

Caplan, Karen ................................................................................................... 125

Curry, Anne ...................................................................................................... 121

Hofstedt, Rod .................................................................................................... 139

Leahy, Hon. Patrick ......................................................................................... 59

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued

Leppert, Jill ....................................................................................................... 112

Lugar, Hon. Richard ......................................................................................... 58

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie .................................................................................... 50

Wambles, Don ................................................................................................... 146

Weill, James ...................................................................................................... 78

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

American Dietetic Association ......................................................................... 242

Apple Processors Association, Paul S. Weller, Jr., President ....................... 229

Beckman, Rev. David, President, Bread for the World ................................. 152

Fallon, Sally, President, The Weston A. Price Foundation ........................... 215

Food Marketing Institute (FMI), News .......................................................... 166

Food Marketing Institute (FMI), Your Neighborhood Supermarkets .......... 169

Hauter, Wenonah, Director Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and 

Environment Program .................................................................................. 231

National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Susan Fallon, Staff 

Attorney ......................................................................................................... 225

National WIC Association–2003 WIC Reauthorization Agenda ................... 159

Society for Nutrition Education (SNE) ........................................................... 235

Society for Nutrition Education (SNE), Platform/Policy Statement on the 

Federal Child Nutrition Reauthorization of 2003 ...................................... 237

United–Child Nutrition Policy Recommendations ......................................... 211

United–Fresh Produce and Child Nutrition Programs ................................. 212

United–National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity .................................... 179

United–News Release ....................................................................................... 213

United–State of California Health and Human Services Agency ................. 195

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Harkin, Hon. Tom (no answers provided) ...................................................... 248

Leahy, Hon. Patrick (no answers provided) ................................................... 249

(1)

TO REVIEW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S 

INITIATIVES REGARDING CHILD NUTRITION 

PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room 

SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran, 

[Chairman of the Committee], presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Cochran, Lugar, 

Harkin, Leahy, Conrad, Lincoln, Stabenow, and Dayton. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MISSISSIPPI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Today, 

our Committee on Agriculture is having its second hearing on the 

re-authorization of the Child Nutrition Act and the National School 

Lunch Act. At our first hearing on March 4, we reviewed the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Today, we will 

hear from witnesses who will discuss the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the Summer 

Food Service Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, 

and the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. 

As we all know, good nutrition is very important to good health. 

These programs we are reviewing will help ensure that our nation’s 

children and others have access to a nutritious diet. 

The Federal Government supports over a dozen child nutrition 

programs and other activities which benefit more than 37 million 

children and almost two million lower-income pregnant and postpartum women. 

I am going to put the balance of my statement discussing these 

programs and the funding requests that we have received and level 

of funding for the program in the record so we can move right 

along to hear from our witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to hear from three panels of witnesses today. Senator Kohl, who has taken a special interest in 

these programs, had planned to be here today. We had scheduled 

this hearing for another day and then we had to change the date, 

and because of this late change, he was not able to rearrange his 

schedule and I regret that. 

2

Also, Senator Coleman wanted to be here to welcome Mr. 

Hofstedt from Minnesota, but he is chairing a Foreign Relations 

Committee hearing. 

We know there are some other things going on in the Senate 

today. On the floor, we have an appropriations bill, as you probably 

know, pending and under consideration by the Senate. We may 

have votes and I may have to go to the floor during the conduct 

of this hearing and I hope you will understand that it is not because we think anything else has a higher priority, but we have to 

do what we must, I guess. 

We are pleased to begin the hearing today with testimony from 

Mr. Eric Bost, who is Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at the Department of Agriculture. We have other 

witnesses, as I indicated, and I will introduce them at the appropriate time. 

Thank you all for your assistance and for the preparation of the 

statements that we have in advance. We will make all these statements a part of the record in full and we encourage you to make 

whatever summary comments you think would be helpful to our 

understanding of these programs. 

Mr. Bost, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC BOST, UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD,

NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BOST. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I am 

Eric Bost, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer 

Services at the United States Department of Agriculture. I am really happy and pleased to be here today to talk about the administration’s recommendations for the re-authorization of these programs. 

You have my written testimony, and so I just want to provide 

some highlights of the recommendations that we want to propose 

that we think will go a long way in terms of addressing the needs 

of children in this country. 

The opportunity to make a difference in children’s lives is evident 

and our responsibility, we believe, is clear. We also know that we 

can’t do it alone. That is why last spring, Deputy Under Secretary 

Suzanne Biermann and I conducted listening sessions around the 

country. We have listened to parents, providers, school administrators, students, WIC participants who came and told us what they 

think about our programs, what they like, and what they would 

change. Through this process, we have gained important insights 

to shape our proposal. 

We have established three guiding principles essential to the proposal we bring to you today. One, access to program benefits for all 

eligible children. Two, support for healthy school environments to 

address the epidemic of overweight and obesity among our children. Three, commitment to program integrity to ensure the best 

possible targeting of program benefits to eligible children. 

Let’s talk about the recommendations. Let’s talk about ensuring 

program access. In our commitment to ensure program access, we 

propose, first, to consolidate the school meals programs into one 

program, the School Nutrition Program. Streamlining operations 

would allow States to operate under one State administrative ofVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
3

fice, offer a full array of meals under one set of rules and provide 

meals to children 365 days a year. 

Second, increase the regular free and reduced-price breakfast 

rates to the severe need rate for all schools participating in the program. This rate increases supports and offers expansion for the 

critical yet under-utilized school breakfast program. 

Next, we propose to expand the 14-State pilot project, often referred to as the Lugar Pilot. This program increases participation 

in the summer feeding program by reducing administrative paperwork, which encourages schools and other agencies to support the 

program. 

Fourth, exclude the military housing allowance to improve access 

for those families who make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. 

Finally, streamline the application process for both families and 

schools by requiring a single application per household and providing for a year-long certification. 

One of the issues that we are really addressing in this country 

right now is the prevalence of overweight and obesity among America’s youth, which is an issue we believe that we must address. The 

percentage of young people who are overweight has doubled in the 

last 20 years for children ages six to 11 and almost tripled for adolescents age 12 to 19. Health problems associated with obesity cost 

America over $117 billion, directly related to significant medical 

issues, for example, Type II diabetes among children. 

We also know why we have this problem. The reasons are clear 

and, to some extent, uncomplicated, and something that my father 

used to tell me when I was a kid growing up. If you eat too much, 

and if you eat too much of the wrong thing, and if you get too little 

physical exercise, you will be overweight and you are at risk of 

being obese. It is something that is easy to talk about, but much 

more difficult and complex to address. 

We also know that there are significant environmental influences 

at work: The availability of sugary, high-fat foods, the movement 

away from sports and exercise toward TV and computer screen 

watching, the lack of strong programs of nutrition education and 

physical education in many schools. It is also real important to 

note, I believe, that we all bear responsibility for this problem and 

that we all have a very important role to play. 

For example, parents need to model eating behavior and physical 

behavior. Currently, six of ten adults are overweight, too. I am also 

reminded of the saying that my parents used to talk about, do 

what I say, not what I do, and that is what we have been talking 

about. Parents must guide the choices of their children when they 

are too young to make informed choices alone. Families and communities can make healthy eating and exercise shared activities. 

One of the programs that is going on in Denver is a prime example 

of that. 

Teachers can find ways to build nutrition and physical education 

into their curriculum, and school administrators can work toward 

a healthy school environment. The media can help by providing nutrition and physical activity promotion messages at times that 

reach children and their caregivers. 

Of course, why we are here today, the Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs also have a very essential role to play. 

4

Some things that we are currently doing as part of the President’s HealthierUS initiative, we promote the ‘‘Eat Smart, Play 

Hard’’ campaign to motivate healthy eating and more physical activity. We promote healthy eating right from the start through our 

breast feeding promotion and support activities as a part of our 

WIC program. We are expanding and improving program-based nutrition education and other services. We promote the eating of fresh 

fruits and vegetables, which I truly believe is very, very important. 

Also, we are working in concert with the Department of Health and 

Human Services and the Department of Education. 

We also believe that we must do more. As a part of the

re-authorization, we propose to support expanded funding for delivery of nutrition messages and materials; require schools to offer 

low-fat milk as a beverage option for school meals; seek authority 

to continue the fruit and vegetable pilots through the end of school 

year 2005, and finally, establish a healthy school environment that 

supports the President’s HealthierUS and Leave No Child Behind 

initiatives. 

Along those lines, and let me elaborate, the administration proposes a multi-departmental implementation of HealthierUS in 

schools through demonstration projects. School districts will be 

asked to volunteer for the demonstration projects and will be provided financial and other incentives to implement one or more of 

the keystones or principles of HealthierUS. One, eat a nutritious 

diet. Two, be physically active each day. Three, get preventive 

screenings. Four, make healthy choices. 

Incentives will be attached to each keystone or principle and a 

special HealthierUS designation will recognize those schools that 

are able to implement all four, but they don’t have to be all four. 

They can do one or a combination thereof. This is a coordinated effort between us and the Department of Education and Health and 

Human Services. 

It is also real important that there is an evaluation component 

to this so that we can make a determination if what we are proposing actually works. We are also hopeful that to earn a 

HealthierUS nutrition incentive, schools would serve program 

meals that meet the Federal nutrition standards; offer healthy food 

options in vending machines, school stores, and a la carte meals; 

promote the consumption of fruits and vegetables; and deliver nutrition education. 

It is a leadership role, a very supportive role, a proper role for 

government to give good nutrition a fighting chance by providing 

financial support to local schools that take action to promote children’s health. Our responsibility demands action. This action is 

real and is important and it supports local decisionmaking. It is 

outcome-driven and results-oriented. 

Through leadership and support in partnership with the school 

districts, local schools, teachers, administrators, and parents, we 

take a step to improve the school environment through these incentive-based demonstration projects that include an evaluation component that lets policy be guided by outcomes. 

Another issue that I believe is also very important is food safety. 

Food safety is an integral and essential part of a healthy school environment that this administration supports. We recommend reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
5

quiring school food authorities to employ HACCP, which is Hazard 

Analysis Critical Control Points, procedures in the preparation of 

school meals. 

The National Food Service Management Institute at the University of Mississippi is a key resource for food safety materials, education, and training for food service personnel in our nutrition programs. The Institute recently created a network of instructors to 

train these employees in the principles of HACCP, and they have 

also developed a manual and teleconferences as resource for food 

service managers responding to food recalls or emergency readiness. 

Hunger and obesity, most people wonder how can you talk about 

those in the same sentence? However, I want to be very clear that 

the epidemic of obesity does not mean that we have won the war 

on hunger in this country. In fact, although there has been talk 

about Federal nutrition assistance programs that are in some way 

responsible for obesity, we have seen no evidence to support this 

contention. 

Instead, we know that less than 5 percent of families are enrolled in all four of our major nutrition programs—that is food 

stamps, school lunch, school breakfast, and WIC. We know that 52 

percent participate in only one program. Research indicates that 

3.5 million households report that they didn’t have enough food for 

their family sometime during the year because they couldn’t afford 

it, and we know that obesity affects Americans of all income levels, 

all racial and ethnic groups, and all ages. In other words, we know 

that hunger and obesity coexist in this country. 

However, we do appreciate the focus of many on the prevalence 

of obesity, and it is something that is very important that we need 

to address. We also say we appreciate any data and research that 

is brought to our attention so that we can look at making informed 

decisions to address both of these issues. 

For these reasons and for the health and well-being of Americans, especially our children, we will continue our efforts to make 

a difference in the lives of Americans who suffer from both hunger 

and obesity. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about something that is very 

important, not only to the President but also to the Secretary and 

to me personally, and that is this issue of program integrity. We 

cannot really succeed in our efforts without ensuring effective and 

efficient management of our resources. It is important to us not 

only from a management perspective, but also in our role as public 

stewards. 

As you know, we have a problem with the accuracy of certification in the National School Lunch Program. While we do not 

know the exact scope of the problem, we do know that we have a 

problem and that the problem appears to be getting worse. This is 

important not only because improper certifications create a risk 

that nutritional assistance benefits are not getting to those who are 

eligible, but also because our school lunch certification data are 

used to distribute billions of other dollars in Federal, State, and 

local education aid. 

I also want to be very clear in terms of the two guiding principles 

that I established in terms of addressing this issue. First and foreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
6

most, that we would not do anything that we believe would result 

in eligible children being deterred or prevented from participating 

in our program and two, that would result in any undue administrative burden in our schools. Those were the two guiding principles that I have established. 

With that in mind, to address this issue, there are some recommendations that I would like to put forth. One, require direct 

certification for free meals through the food stamp program. This 

will increase access to eligible children, reduce the application burden for families and schools, and improve accuracy in the certification process. 

Two, enhance verification of the paper-based application process 

by drawing the samples earlier in the year and both increasing and 

expanding the sample of both random and error-prone applications. 

Three, minimize any barriers that may result from an enhanced 

verification process by requiring a more robust consistent followup 

for those who do not respond. 

Four, provide funding for schools to support the new enhanced 

administrative efforts, and we should not, nor would I recommend 

that these expanded efforts be placed in the hands of already overburdened food service workers. 

Five—no, just four. I will save the fifth one just in case. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOST. Let’s talk about what these recommendations do. They 

include strong steps that we can take to begin to improve the process. I also believe they establish a plan to continue research and 

demonstration efforts so that the improvements can continue. They 

protect eligible children and ensure their ability to participate in 

the program. They streamline the application and certification 

process, and provide administrative funds to help schools get us 

there. 

Let’s talk about WIC for just a few minutes. I would be remiss 

if I didn’t talk about this program that we believe is very important. WIC is also up for re-authorization. The President has been 

very clear regarding his commitment to this vital program by requesting unprecedented levels of funding for WIC. Currently, over 

7.6 million at risk, low-income women and their young children are 

served in this program every month. 

As part of the administration’s re-authorization package, we propose increased budget authority for WIC management information 

systems development and support, expanded availability of breast 

feeding counselors, and establishment of a pilot project to determine how WIC can help prevent childhood obesity. 

I believe I have talked long enough. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 

the commitment and longstanding support of you and other members of this committee. The administration supports other improvements in the Child Nutrition Program if funding is available in accordance with the President’s 2004 budget. These improvements 

would focus on the themes that I have outlined today. 

I truly look forward to working with you and all of the committee 

members to address the issues that we face, and again, thank you 

so very much for all the work that you have done in this area and 

I also thank you for this opportunity to present the administraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
7

tion’s proposals. I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have of me at this time. Thank you so very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bost can be found in the appendix on page 61.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your presentation 

and for your statement of proposals that you submit. I am pleased 

that you have made some specific proposals to improve the efficiency of our school food programs and to make them even better 

than they are today and to be sure that we reach all children who 

are eligible. I noticed that that was one of the highest priorities of 

the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Office of the Department of Agriculture. You particularly pointed out on page four, ‘‘We 

are interested in expanding access to the other programs that we 

administer with a special focus on the summer food service program,’’ and you mention that as one of your top priorities, as well. 

Tell me how you expect to make these improvements and expand 

the benefits that are available to those who are eligible without increasing the costs of the program. 

Mr. BOST. There are a couple of ways, Mr. Chairman. Let’s start 

with the recommendations that I made regarding direct certification. We believe if we will implement the process of direct certification, that essentially it will add eligible children that will be a 

part of the National School Lunch Program and not preclude any 

children from participating. 

In addition to that, we have received some very positive feedback 

regarding the pilots that are a part of the Lugar Pilot that streamlines our programs, and with the implementation of the recommendation that we have made to implement that countrywide, 

we will go a long way toward streamlining our processes, making 

it easier for sponsors to come into the program and their ability to 

add children to receive services. 

In addition to that and most specifically regarding our summer 

eating program, we have done a great deal of work with our advocacy partners in terms of working in concert with them to, one, get 

the word out, two, to recruit additional sponsors, and to ensure 

that we increase the number of children that are participating in 

our summer eating program. 

It is not just us. I believe that there is a concerted effort with 

us, our advocacy partners, faith-based institutions, and schools to 

increase the number of children participating in our summer eating 

program, and so those are some of the steps that we are recommending. They also speak to some of the things that we have done 

in the past to address this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. When the hearing began, there was one Senator 

who had even gotten here before I did, the Senator from Michigan. 

I am going to recognize Ms. Stabenow for any questions you have 

or statement you would like to make, Senator. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, 

I do have a full statement I would just ask be submitted for the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Stabenow can be found in 

the appendix on page 50.] 

Senator STABENOW. I want to welcome all of the folks who will 

be testifying today as witnesses. I appreciate your work and your 

8

dedication to these issues and I do notice that we also have Jill 

Leppert, President of the National WIC Association. We are 

pleased to have her, and also Karen Caplan who is here on behalf 

of the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. I am really 

pleased to have you here representing a very important part of this 

discussion. 

Speaking of fresh fruits and vegetables for a moment, Mr. Bost, 

if I might, I know that you recently hosted a conference in Indianapolis—— Mr. BOST. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW [continuing]. I was pleased to be a part of 

that through a video greeting. I know that you brought together 

people to talk about the fruit and vegetable pilot projects that are 

very, very successful in Michigan. We are getting a lot of wonderful 

feedback. 

I wonder if you might speak a little bit about the fruit and vegetable pilot program and what you heard from people at your conference. 

Mr. BOST. Senator Stabenow, it was one of the happiest conferences I have had the opportunity of attending. Everybody was 

so happy. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. It is because they are eating so many good 

fruits and vegetables. 

Mr. BOST. Well, maybe. I don’t know. They were just really 

happy. 

We have received so much positive feedback regarding the pilot 

that is in four States, an Indian reservation, and 100 schools. We 

received positive feedback from students, from teachers, from administrators about how much the kids are really enjoying it, and 

that is why we are proposing that, one, that we be able to—that 

we get the authority to continue it, because there are still funds 

currently available, and that we look at extending that pilot into 

a couple of additional States, I believe into 2005 and 2006. 

In addition to that, the research branch in USDA will be doing 

an evaluation of that pilot and we should receive some information 

from them, I believe, in May. Before that, the anecdotal information that we receive from the participants that were at the conference and all of the very positive press that we have received and 

feedback that we receive from students has just been overwhelming, and that is why we believe that we should continue it. 

The last thing that I would say, too, as we address this issue of 

our children dealing with being overweight and obese, one of the 

things that I always talk about is that one of the most important 

components of being able to address that issue is increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. Because of that, I believe 

it is very important and very critical as we look at putting all of 

the things that we want to do into a package of addressing this 

issue, that that be a very important component of it. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. If I might ask one other question, Mr. Chairman, in looking at your streamlined school meal 

program, I am impressed with your proposals to do that, that 

would allow schools to provide meals 365 days a year without having to manage three or four different programs. I am wondering 

9

about the other programs. You talked about the summer program, 

which is very important. 

Mr. BOST. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. What about the summer food programs, the 

other child care programs and so on that are administered by 

groups other than schools? Does your proposal include them? 

Mr. BOST. Well, Senator Stabenow, maybe and maybe not. We 

wanted to look at starting with streamlining all of our programs 

that are essentially operated by the schools, and in some instances, 

there are going to be opportunities for private providers and/or 

faith-based organizations to be a part of this. We wanted to start 

with the school because essentially that is where most of our children are receiving services. 

I want to say that there are going to be some limited opportunities for us to look at expanding that to other providers. It wasn’t 

first on my list. I thought I needed to look at being strategic in 

terms of getting the best bang for my dollar in terms of being able 

to meet the needs of the highest number of kids and then we will 

look at that as a second possibility. 

Senator STABENOW. We also know that when schools are providing food in the park rather than the cafeteria, there are increased costs related to that that I hope that you will look at as 

we look at reimbursement. 

I would just thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank my colleagues 

for including in the budget resolution a statement on behalf of all 

of us that we don’t want to see these programs cut. I know we 

didn’t ask the question about what would happen if the House proposals passed, we know that we would not be here talking about 

the possibility of increasing programs, so I appreciate my colleagues making that statement in our budget resolution and I am 

looking forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. 

Mr. BOST. I wanted to thank you, Senator Stabenow, too. During 

my confirmation hearing, you had asked me about asparagus, I 

hope! 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOST [continuing]. I wanted to tell you that I do talk about 

asparagus. 

Senator STABENOW. Good. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. Michigan asparagus, I hope. 

Mr. BOST. I didn’t say I ate them, but I do talk about it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. Well, we actually have guacamole now made 

out of asparagus. I am going to send you some. 

Mr. BOST. No, I have had some, Senator Stabenow. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOST. I do want you to know, because during my confirmation hearing, you specifically asked me about asparagus—— Senator STABENOW. I did—— Mr. BOST [continuing]. I wanted to give you some feedback because I haven’t really seen you since then, that we do talk about 

it as part of a healthy, balanced meal and having good choices. 

10

Senator STABENOW. Good. 

Mr. BOST. For some people. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. I should say that we want children to try 

this wonderful vegetable, and they may like it if they try it. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Harkin. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

will just ask that my full statement be made a part of the record 

in its entirety. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you. 

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

appendix on page 54.] 

Senator HARKIN. Welcome again, Mr. Bost, to this committee. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Senator Harkin. 

Senator HARKIN. I am sorry I am a little late getting here. 

Just two things. I want to followup a little bit on the fruits and 

vegetables, but first, the proposal that you are making for integrating all of these school-based programs into one kind of a program is intriguing. I don’t know that I feel positive or negative one 

way or the other. I want to see some of the details. Do you have 

any idea when you will have some of those details for us? 

Mr. BOST. Senator, if I can, we are currently working on it, but 

it is one of the things that we heard from a significant number of 

school people as we traveled the country in terms of getting ready 

to put our programs together, and essentially will make it easier 

to operate our programs, and we are always looking for something 

that is going to address and reduce the administrative and paperwork burden on our schools, and this is one of the things that we 

feel really good about. We are working on the details, but we feel 

that this is a home run in terms of us being able to work with the 

schools of addressing concerns that they have brought to us since 

I have been Under Secretary about all of the paperwork and the 

burdens that they have to deal with. 

Senator HARKIN. Please allay my fears. This is not an attempt 

to do a block grant, is it? 

Mr. BOST. No, not at all. 

Senator HARKIN. All right. I just wanted to make sure we got 

that on the record. 

Mr. BOST. Sure. 

Senator HARKIN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bost. 

Mr. BOST. You are welcome. 

Senator HARKIN. Now, let us get to the fresh fruits and vegetables. Four States now have it, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. 

Senator Stabenow is correct and you are, too. All of the feedback 

that we have from this has just been extremely positive. In fact, 

what I am hearing back, and I don’t have much information from 

the Indian tribe, it is in New Mexico. I don’t have much—— Mr. BOST. The Zuni Tribe, yes. They love it, too. 

Senator HARKIN. Is that right? 

Mr. BOST. Yes, sir. 

Senator HARKIN. That is the one thing that I haven’t gotten information on. 

11

Mr. BOST. We have received very positive feedback from them, 

also, so much that they personally talked with me about being able 

to extend the program, too. 

Senator HARKIN. That is the biggest question I get, is will we 

have this next year, since it is only a 1-year program. 

Mr. BOST. Well, Senator Harkin, the first thing that I would ask is that it was $6 million appropriated to do it for 1 year and it ends 

June 30. 

Senator HARKIN. Right. 

Mr. BOST. The schools have not expended all of the money, so the 

first thing is—— Senator HARKIN. Because a lot of them didn’t start until late in 

November or something. 

Mr. BOST. Right. The first question on the table is providing us 

with the authority to continue it. That is the first thing, because 

we don’t have the authority to do that because it ends June 30 unless we get the additional authority. That is the first thing. 

The second part of that is that I am proposing the opportunity 

to continue it for a couple more years and to expand it into a couple 

of additional States. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, that is my question. I like that idea, but 

are you going to ask for some more money to do this or are you 

going to try to pull it out of that $6 million pool? 

Mr. BOST. No. We believe that in terms of some efficiencies that 

we are putting in place in the operation of the entire program, that 

we will have some money available to run it without taking money 

away from the—taking money out of the $6 million or asking for 

additional funds to do it. 

Senator HARKIN. I would like to know the secret of how you 

make that kind of money. That is interesting. You are not going 

to ask for any more money? 

Mr. BOST. No. 

Senator HARKIN. You are not going to take anything away from 

the States that already have it? 

Mr. BOST. No. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HARKIN. Magic man. 

Mr. BOST. Well, Senator Harkin, I thought that would make you 

happy. 

Senator HARKIN. That is great. If you can expand it and do that, 

more power to you. 

Mr. BOST. Well, I mean, we can’t expand it to all 50 States, of 

course——

Senator HARKIN. No, I understand that, but——

Mr. BOST [continuing]. We were looking at expanding it to——

Senator HARKIN. A couple of States? 

Mr. BOST. About three, two or three more States and to some 

schools in that for a couple more years. 

Senator HARKIN. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Mr. Bost. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Senator Harkin. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Conrad. 

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I want to commend, too, my colleagues who are 

12

here. I want to thank Senator Harkin for his leadership in fresh 

fruit and vegetables program. I would very much welcome the program being extended to my State. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CONRAD. Mississippi would be a good State, and 

then—— [Laughter.] 

Senator CONRAD. North Dakota would be a good State. Could we 

reach agreement on that this morning, Mr. Under Secretary? 

Mr. BOST. Senator, interestingly enough, I thought about how we 

would go about choosing the States, given the fact that we would 

only be selecting a couple, and I put on the table for my staff to 

give consideration to a report released every year by several magazines that lists the chubbiest States, and I thought maybe that 

would be a good start, but my staff said they didn’t think that was 

fair and so they came up with some competitive process that States 

would actually compete, and so to make it fair. 

Senator CONRAD. Could we just declare the competition over? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOST. Well, that——

Senator CONRAD. Put Mississippi and North Dakota on your list? 

Mr. BOST. If that is something that the Chairman could include 

in the legislation, of course, we would abide by that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CONRAD. That is an awfully good idea, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CONRAD. I am glad that you had it. 

Let me say, I have been looking over your proposals, and I find 

some of them have the potential to be really good ideas. Obviously, 

it depends on how it is implemented, but requiring a single application per household, providing for year-long certification—— Mr. BOST. Yes. 

Senator CONRAD [continuing]. The current certification method, 

which requires that eligibility must be re-determined whenever a 

household reports a change in income, is overly burdensome. 

I also want to commend you for proposing demonstration projects 

to identify better certification methods. These ideas have the potential to improve the school lunch program. 

Also, I am very pleased that Jill Leppert, who is from Bismark, 

North Dakota, and is the President of the National WIC Association, is with us. She will be on a later panel. I am delighted she 

is here. She is very highly respected in our State, and by the fact 

that she holds this national position indicates that she is respected 

across the country, as well. 

The child nutrition programs are so vitally important because 

many of our families are now in households where both parents 

work. When both parents work, providing good nutritious meals to 

kids becomes even more of a challenge. As I look at children’s 

health statistics, especially the increases in the obesity rate, I am 

alarmed. 

When both parents are working, meals are caught on the fly. 

This pushes people toward fast food and away from the way we ate 

when we were growing up, which was families around the dining 

room table together, at breakfast and at lunch. When I was growVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
13

ing up, I was home every day for lunch, and ate fresh fruit and 

vegetables. We ate in a very nutritious way. 

I see fewer healthy habits now. In fact, I am around young people, and their eating habits really stun me. They are appallingly 

bad, and it is part of this fast-moving society. To the extent that 

we can have healthy programs in the schools, we are going to help 

a lot of people lead healthier lives. That should be the focus of effort and energy. 

We are in the middle of the budget debate. I was at the conference committee yesterday, and I am very concerned about the 

House budget proposal. It includes about a 5-percent cut of $6 billion to the child nutrition program. In my State, that would translate into a $14 million cut. Fourteen-million dollars in North Dakota is a lot of money. That is a huge amount of money. 

I wanted to know, Mr. Under Secretary, what is the position of 

the administration on the House proposal? Do you oppose these 

cuts? Do you support the cuts? What is the position of the administration on the House budget proposal? 

Mr. BOST. Senator Conrad, very clearly, I am in absolute support 

of the President’s budget presented to the House, I believe, about 

2 weeks ago that essentially would serve up to 7.8 million persons 

in our WIC program every month. That is a $43 million increase 

over fiscal year 2003. That includes a $150 million contingency 

fund. That includes $20 million for breast feeding and $5 million 

to look at preventing childhood obesity. In our food stamp programs, there is a contingency fund of $2 billion, which is about $1.4 

billion over last year. In the Child Nutrition Programs as a part 

of the President’s budget request, we would be able to serve a million more children per year during lunch and also a million more 

children per year during breakfast. 

The issue for me is that is something that Congress is addressing 

and dealing with. I am in support of the President’s budget. I truly 

believe that it will go a long way toward addressing the needs, the 

nutritional needs, of children and families in this country. 

In addition to that, it is premature for me to speculate, because 

I am sure after you all, the House and the Senate, do what you are 

going to do, then you are going to come to me and then talk about 

what you think my recommendations are based on what you give 

me. Right now, the issue for me here today is to tell you that I am 

in absolute support of the President’s budget because it will go a 

long way toward addressing what I believe our issues are right 

now. 

Senator CONRAD. I take from that, although you have not used 

the words, that you oppose the cuts included in the House bill because they were not included in the President’s budget. 

Mr. BOST. What I would say——

Senator CONRAD. Would that be a correct interpretation? 

Mr. BOST. Well, what would be a better interpretation, Senator 

Conrad, is that I am in support of the President’s budget. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CONRAD. How about the Senate budget? 

Mr. BOST. I don’t even know if I have seen the Senate—I don’t 

think I have seen it. I don’t think I’ve seen the Senate budget. I 

can’t respond, because I don’t think I have seen it all. 

14

Senator CONRAD. OK. Well, I would urge you to take a look at 

the Senate’s budget. It does not include the cuts proposed by the 

House. I really think the House has made a bad mistake with respect to what they have proposed. It is very important that the 

cuts are restored in the conference committee, and I hope that the 

Administration will send that signal. You have sent it here today. 

I hope others who might be listening will send that signal, as well. 

Let me just conclude there, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

One thing about this budget to remember is that it is a process 

that is strictly under the purview of the Congress, and you are correct in the way you have responded to that issue. The President 

has an obligation under law to submit a budget request to Congress each year. He has done that. Then separate and apart from 

the President’s budget, Congress has an opportunity to express its 

views on what the budget ought to be, and we do that through a 

separate process. 

I don’t remember ever Congress agreeing with the President on 

the budget—[Laughter.] —and vice versa. It is a political experience for all of us, or it 

has come to be more political than policy, more politics than policy 

in the budget process. That is not a fault of our current committee 

members, who have important roles in that budget process. 

Thank you for being here. You have started off the hearing 

today, in fine style, giving us your views about how these programs 

can be improved and even expanded and operated more efficiently. 

We appreciate your leadership. Thank you for coming before the 

committee. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you 

and also members of the committee, and I really look forward to 

working with you as we continue on this road. Thank you so very 

much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next panel will consist of two distinguished 

gentlemen who will be witnesses expressing views on the programs 

under consideration by the committee today. Mr. James Weill is 

President of the Food Research and Action Center here in Washington, DC, and Mr. Douglas Besharov, who is a Scholar in Social 

Welfare Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs. 

Welcome, gentlemen. We appreciate your accepting our invitation 

to appear as witnesses at this hearing. We have the statements 

that you have submitted to the committee, which we thank you for, 

and we would ask you to make summary comments, if you would, 

and that will give us an opportunity to ask you questions about 

your testimony and your thoughts about these programs and how 

they may be improved. 

Mr. Weill, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES WEILL, PRESIDENT, FOOD RESEARCH 

AND ACTION CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. WEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank you and the 

committee for giving us the opportunity to testify today. 

The Food Research and Action Center is a nonprofit research, 

public education, and policy organization that focuses on nutrition 

15

programs. We also co-chair the Child Nutrition Forum, which is a 

large coalition of health, education, child care, anti-hunger, business, labor, and nutrition groups. 

This committee has a long history of effective bipartisan work on 

the child nutrition and food stamp programs. You, Mr. Chairman, 

and Senators Harkin, Lugar, Leahy, Stabenow, and other members 

of this committee, have provided leadership to protect and 

strengthen those programs. We look forward to working with you 

to produce the best possible re-authorization bill. We also look forward to continuing to work with Under Secretary Bost and his 

team, who have done good work to boost participation in the summer food, food stamp, and other programs. 

Good nutrition is essential to the physical, emotional, developmental, and educational well-being of children, but it is also critical 

to the strength and economic well-being of families, communities, 

and the nation. Indeed, in 1946, Congress passed the 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.’’

A well-conceived re-authorization bill will help the Nation reach 

many important goals, not just reducing childhood hunger, but improving child health, enhancing the development of very young 

children, improving the quality of child care, strengthening rural 

communities, improving the achievement of children in school, and 

providing safe havens for them in out-of-school time, and providing 

critical help to the working poor. 

We also are hearing and seeing more and more reports in the 

last few weeks of families of those reservists who are being called 

up turning to the school lunch program, food stamps, and other nutrition programs to get them through the period of lower incomes 

that they are suffering. Strong nutrition programs help these families, too. 

That is why we are so distressed that the House budget resolution cuts child nutrition programs and food stamps by more than 

$18 billion. As has been said here today, such cuts would cause 

great harm, and we are very pleased that the Senate passed a resolution opposing those cuts. 

Even very strong programs as these are must always be adapted 

to new realities. One such reality is the growing number of low-income parents who are working longer hours or non-traditional 

shifts, often evening and night shifts. The need for the communitybased programs that I am going to be talking about—care for preschoolers, before-school care in the morning, after-school care that 

runs into the evening, and summer activities—has become far 

greater, and so has the need to improve the nutrition programs to 

better feed children in those hours. 

Similarly, the growing incidence of childhood obesity needs to be 

addressed in this re-authorization. Helping programs obtain more 

fruit and vegetables is one solution. Getting more children access 

to the nutrition programs is another. A range of studies show that 

when children participate in the federally funded programs, in 

school breakfast, in lunch, in child care food and WIC, they eat 

more healthfully than children who do not. They eat better than 

16

children who bring food from home in brown bags, or eat at home 

or don’t eat at all. 

Now, some have suggested that the nutrition programs provide 

too much food and contribute to obesity in that way. All the actual 

evidence is to the contrary. Certainly, the food choices that some 

schools and programs make could be improved, but most school 

meals meet nutrient goals. Schools have successfully reduced fat 

content substantially over the last decade. The number of calories 

provided by schools falls well within accepted nutrition guidelines. 

Kids who eat school meals have better diets than those who don’t, 

and meals in the nutrition programs are just about the only examples we have today of proper portion sizes that are encountered by 

children. 

Obesity is not a result of poor families or schools or community 

programs having too many resources for too much food. Indeed, 

emerging evidence suggests that for many poor people, hunger and 

food insecurity, the lack of adequate resources, combine with obesity and are tied together. Obesity can be an adaptive response to 

hunger, for example, when poor people are unable to consistently 

get enough food to eat throughout the month, so they eat more 

than they normally would during the periods that food is available. 

Moreover, poor families often face limited food choices and considerably higher prices in their neighborhoods. For low-income people, resource constraints, not too much in resources, are contributing to obesity. 

Congress could help by increasing program resources to make it 

more feasible to purchase better foods, as well as by limiting the 

availability in schools of less-healthy food from other sources, food 

that competes with the better nutrition available in the Federal 

programs. Providing more resources for nutrition counseling would 

also help. 

After-school and summer food dollars, by their very existence, 

contribute to reducing obesity by helping to expand and improve 

programs which keep children active and engaged in out-of-school 

hours, rather than sitting at home in front of the television. Nineteen out of every 20 summer food programs are connected to some 

recreational or other activity. 

I also want to discuss very briefly Under Secretary Bost’s testimony on over-certification. We appreciate that he wants to adopt 

positive strategies, such as direct certification, although we believe 

that direct certification could be broadened further than he has 

proposed, and we appreciate that he has indicated that the actual 

extent of any over-certification problem is unknown, that early estimates that were tossed around in the press were way off the mark. 

Since we know that past verification efforts have kept two to 

three eligible children out of the lunch program for every ineligible 

child, the greatest possible caution is called for. We appreciate that 

Secretary Bost plans to followup aggressively with non-responders, 

people who don’t respond initially to new verification initiatives. 

The bottom line is that the expansion of verification poses some 

risks to eligible children. Those risks are serious, precisely because 

so many non-responders turn out to be eligible or get lost in the 

paper shuffle. 

17

The best strategy here is to adopt some good pilots, some scientifically based pilots, rather than new national rules and to test both 

the extent of the problem and new strategies. 

I want to turn briefly now to those changes that we are urging 

Congress to make to improve access to the programs. Our written 

testimony goes into considerable detail on these proposals and I 

won’t go into that detail, but I want to touch very briefly here on 

our six highest priorities. 

First is making the summer food rule, the so-called Lugar Summer Food Rule, apply nationwide to all sponsors. The pilot program 

that was initially, proposed by Senator Lugar to improve the summer food program by simplifying cost accounting requirements for 

the public sponsors of that program has worked. In the first year 

of the pilot 2001, participation increased by almost 9 percent in the 

13 States involved in the pilot, while it decreased in the rest of the 

nation. 

Senators Lugar and Harkin’s proposal to make the rule national 

was in the Senate’s fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill. It was 

dropped in conference, and one of the reasons it was dropped then, 

was to address it in re-authorization. Now is the time to do that 

and to make the pilot permanent, to make it national, applicable 

in all States, and to make it applicable to all sponsors, public and 

private nonprofit. 

Our second recommendation is to improve the area eligibility 

test. In the community-based programs that I am focusing on eligibility often depends on the level of school lunch eligibility in the 

geographic area. If more than 50 percent of the children in the 

local school are eligible for free and reduced price school lunch, 

then coverage is available for food for children in the summer and 

after-school programs and in family child care homes in the area. 

This type of area eligibility is a great approach because it avoids 

a lot of unnecessary red tape and burden on community sponsors, 

many of them small and many faith-based. 

The 50 percent test is too high, especially for rural areas where 

poverty is more spread out. The test used to be 33-and-a-third percent in summer food. Last year, Congress made 40 percent the test 

in the Title I education programs and in the 21st Century Community Learning Center After-School Program. It should be 40 percent 

in the child nutrition programs, as well, both to reach more lowincome areas and children and to ease administrative problems by 

making rules congruent across these after-school and other programs. 

Our third recommendation is to make school breakfasts available 

to more children. A multitude of studies has shown the benefits of 

school breakfasts, and more recently, those studies have shown 

that breakfast, when it is offered free of charge to all children in 

the school rather than just to the low-income children, improves 

achievement, behavior, and attendance. For one thing, more low-income kids participate when the program is not stigmatized and 

seen as being just for poor kids. 

We urge this committee to act on this research by taking the 

next step. We realize that money is not available to make universal 

school breakfasts available on a widespread basis, but we urge that 

it be done in a targeted set of schools, those that already have high 

18

percentages of children receiving free and reduced-price lunches, 

especially at the high school level, where the stigma problem is 

greatest. We also urge the committee to provide some funds for 

breakfast expansion and startup efforts. 

Our fourth recommendation is making suppers available at afterschool programs in low-income areas. As the 1996 welfare law and 

changes in the economy result in much longer hours of work for 

low-income parents and often work in non-traditional shift and 

hours, after-school programs more and more have to operate into 

the early evening. Because of pilot projects that Congress established a couple of years ago, nonprofits in seven States—Delaware, 

Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania—can currently use Federal nutrition funds to pay for suppers for the children in those after-school programs that run into 

the early evening and that are in low-income areas. The pilot has 

been wonderfully successful and it should be extended to all States 

and to school-based as well as community-based sponsors. 

I would also note in the context of what Senator Conrad was saying and Mr. Bost and I have said about the role of these programs 

in combatting obesity, that for many children whose parents work 

late, the alternative to giving them supper in after-school programs 

with healthy balanced foods is that they feed themselves at home 

or on the way home and, needless to say, they often feed themselves less than optimal food. 

Our fifth recommendation is increasing access to the child and 

adult care food program for preschoolers. The Child and Adult Care 

Food Program (CACFP) is a key support for quality and affordable 

care. It provides not just reimbursements for meals and snacks, but 

it provides nutrition standards and training and education. Because of the 1996 law’s creation of a two-tiered reimbursement system, family child care homes and CACFP sponsors who support nutrition in those homes have been hit hard, fiscally harder than 

Congress anticipated. They need more help for their quality improvement and nutrition education efforts. 

Also, the rule providing that for-profit child care centers can participate in the program if 25 percent or more of the children they 

serve are low-income should be made permanent. This for-profit 

rule, has been done on a year-to-year basis, which has made planning hard and would be particularly helpful in Southern States, 

where there is more for-profit child care, if it were made permanent. 

Sixth: the rule for children in homeless shelters that provides 

funds for feeding them up to age 12 ought to be changed to up to 

age 19. 

In conclusion, these are key modest improvements that need to 

be made to improve access to these programs for low-income children and for community providers in low-income areas. We look 

forward to working with the committee on these and other important re-authorization issues, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Weill, for your statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weill can be found in the appendix on page 78.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Besharov, you may proceed. 

19

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS BESHAROV, JOSEPH J. AND VIOLET 

JACOBS SCHOLAR IN SOCIAL WELFARE STUDIES, AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, AND PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF 

MARYLAND SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BESHAROV. Thank you very much, Chairman Cochran and 

members of the committee. My name is Doug Besharov and I work 

at the American Enterprise Institute and teach at the University 

of Maryland School of Public Affairs. I teach welfare policy, family 

policy, and evaluation there. 

I have the thankless task of being the someone who Jim just 

mentioned who said that ‘‘some’’ have suggested that Federal food 

programs help contribute to the obesity problem in this country. I 

plead guilty to that. I didn’t say how much because I don’t know 

how much. Obesity is a very serious problem in this country. I am 

going to go through a few numbers today. 

My position and my view is not necessarily that you should cut 

programs or cut spending. My point, my overriding point which I 

hope to leave you with today is: As of today, and even with the increases in the obesity programming that we planned, the Federal 

Government is not part of the solution. 

Whether the solution is fresh food, less food on the plate, certainly less fat, those are programmatic details. The point is, and 

I want to go through the numbers here, we have a public health 

crisis on our hands, and to think and to spend most of our time 

only talking about expansions of the program to give people more 

food misses what is the more telling and more pressing policy problem today. 

Now, notice I am walking into this with my eyes open. Not only 

do I understand the membership of the committee, but I know how 

this can easily become, spend more money on food programs for 

fresh fruit and so forth. Fine. To me, the issue here is to address 

forthrightly the problem that Americans, particularly low-income 

Americans, are getting fatter by the year and our food programs 

don’t address that directly and they ought to. Let me try to be the 

someone with that thankless task. 

Senator LEAHY. Don’t think it is a thankless task. You have a lot 

of heads shaking ‘‘yes’’ up here at these other tables. 

Mr. BESHAROV. Well, if you could see right down here, you know 

I am part of the problem. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BESHAROV. I started in this business in 1967 when I was in 

Mississippi and I was part of the group that tried to get food—it 

was the Commodity Food Program then—to low-income Americans, 

mainly African Americans, who were starving. I understand the 

issues of access and I understand the issues of having a safety net 

that provides food and money so that low-income families can eat 

and survive. 

That was 35 years ago. Today, as many as 70 percent of low-income adults are overweight, and that is about 10 percent more 

than the non-poor. As I say in my testimony, racial disparities are 

even greater. Eighty percent of African American women are determined to be oversight. That is a third more than white women. 

If you look at my Table 1, you can see that these are changes 

that took place between the 1960’s and about the year 2000. Men, 

20

on the first column there, 50 percent overweight, 11 percent obese 

in the early 1960’s, 67 percent overweight today. As I mentioned, 

for blacks and Hispanics, the numbers are larger. 

The worrisome point is children. You have been talking about 

school meals. Please draw your attention to children six to 11. This 

is all government data. I haven’t made it up. Four percent overweight in the 1960’s, 12 percent overweight today. Black children, 

boys, 2 percent overweight in the 1960’s, 17 percent overweight 

today. 

Now, there are a lot of reasons for the increase in overweight, 

lack of access, more affluence, and so forth, and we can talk about 

that. My point is only this is a tremendously important question. 

Now, the other side of this that is always brought up is, but 

there is hunger and starvation in this country. There is hunger, 

but my next table, Table 2, again, straight from government data, 

no fiddling, no weighting, no changing of the numbers, suggests 

that when we talk about hunger, we often confuse it with food insecurity, an appropriate measure to ask people’s financial condition 

when they have to buy food. In terms of actual hunger, the same 

surveys that are used by food advocates to show that people are 

food insecure, which means they might not have food or be worried 

about food at least once a year, show very low levels of actual hunger, especially for children. 

If you look in the first row, all households with children under 

18, the food insecurity with actual hunger is less than 1 percent. 

I am not saying, therefore, we don’t need a food stamp program. 

I am not saying we don’t need a welfare program. The reason this 

number is so low is because we have a food stamp program, is because we have a welfare program, perhaps because we have a 

school lunch program and WIC. 

My issue here is not that if you take away those programs, these 

numbers will stay the same. It does say that we have largely beaten the problem of childhood hunger, and that ought to open another flank, or another front in our efforts here, which is to fight 

obesity and overweightness. 

I don’t want to spend too much time on these numbers, but I feel 

the issue here is really convincing you about the nature of these 

issues, so look at Table 3 for a moment and then I will close. 

This is mean caloric intake, and what you see at these numbers 

is—and the earliest numbers I was able to find was in the 1970’s 

compared to 1988 to 1994, and what you will see is that all Americans, middle-class and poor, are eating more, on the average, about 

200 calories more a day. If you are curious about that, and it is 

quite a frightening thought, 100 calories a day more is a pound a 

year, and you can do the math. I do it every time I say no to dessert. 

These numbers about caloric intake suggest that we have won 

the battle on caloric intake. Now, we have to change the mix of 

what people are eating, and, in fact, these numbers are actually 

higher than they should be given the reduction in physical activity 

taking place among all Americans. 

One of the members of the panel a moment ago said that he used 

to walk to school. Many fewer children walk to school. Both because of budget cutbacks and because of the No Child Left Behind 

21

program, there is much less recess. There is much less physical activity in school. 

There are many causes for this growing obesity, and I don’t want 

you to have the impression that I am saying the whole cause is 

school lunch programs, although I have eaten them, and let me tell 

you, in the schools I have been in, they are a big part of the problem. I don’t want you to hear me saying the problem is food 

stamps. There are multiple problems. America, in general, is getting heavy, but the poor are getting heavy faster than the rest of 

us and whether or not food programs are a part of the problem, 

they are certainly not part of the solution. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Besharov. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Besharov can be found in the appendix on page 103.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed in your testimony you also proposed 

that the WIC program ought to include a program of nutrition 

counseling. Is there any specific recommendation of how we accomplish that? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I don’t think it 

is an exaggeration to say that the current WIC food basket is almost a Third-World food basket. It is very heavy on high-caloric, 

high-fat foods, which may have been essential when WIC was 

planned in the early 1970’s and we had much less affluence even 

among the poor. 

That has changed, and we could shift the mixture of what we do 

in WIC. Right now, WIC counselors are limited to about a 15-

minute session with clients every 3 months, and that is a busy 15 

minutes. Among other things in that 15 minutes, Mr. Chairman, 

is a discussion of motor-voter. By Congressional mandate, part of 

that nutrition counseling is, don’t forget to register to vote and vote 

when you can. 

That we could reconsider whether 50 to 55 percent of all newborn 

children in this country should be receiving WIC—50 to 55 percent 

of new infants should be receiving WIC benefits. We could cap it. 

We don’t have to cut it. Stop the growth of the program to that 

many kids. Use the money that is coming in from the rebate program, from other expansions, to beef up State counseling efforts. 

The National WIC Association, I believe—their representative is 

here, so they can tell me if I have it wrong, but they would very 

much like to see a few experiments or waivers where the States are 

allowed to modify the food package, modify how much time they 

spend in counseling, spend less time on other activities, and do 

that within current budget practices. It seems to me we want to see 

what the tens of thousands of dedicated WIC workers and directors 

could do to change that counseling. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Weill, you mentioned that you recommend 

streamlining some of these programs. You and Secretary Bost both 

suggest that we should streamline the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. How would you go about 

doing that if you were Under Secretary of Agriculture? 

Mr. WEILL. Well, I would first agree with what Senator Harkin 

said, that we are not talking about a block grant here. We would 

adamantly oppose any effort to block grant the program. 

22

The ways to streamline these programs include such examples as 

letting families use one application for all programs rather than 

having a family have to make out separate applications for school 

lunch, summer food, after-school food. We also need to streamline 

the programs by letting local programs have one application. An 

after-school and summer community site in a church, in a boys’ and girls’ club, in the school, shouldn’t have to file a separate application for after-school food during the school year and summer food 

during the summer. 

Indeed, we have recommended in our written testimony that programs that receive Federal funds, particularly 21st Century Community Learning Center funds, to operate the underlying afterschool programs, ought to be automatically waived into the afterschool and summer food programs. Having been certified for Federal funds to hire the staff, they ought to automatically get the food 

benefits, as well. There are a variety of ways of reducing red tape 

and pulling the programs together. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Harkin. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you both for your long work in this area, both Mr. Weill and 

Mr. Besharov. 

Mr. Weill, first, I just wanted to clear up a couple of things here 

on the school lunch program. I am going to get into this whole area 

of obesity, too, because it is something I have focused on a long 

time, too. 

We are going to be discussing sometime this year, and the Department, I know, is also, this whole food pyramid, and I wonder 

if FRAC has looked at the food pyramid and its impact—and I am 

going to ask Mr. Besharov the same question—and its impact on 

what is being done to design the kind of school lunches and school 

breakfasts that kids eat. Has FRAC done any looking at that? 

Mr. WEILL. Well, we have done some looking at it, but we haven’t 

gotten too far in it. USDA is relooking at the food pyramid and the 

Food and Nutrition Board is going to be making new nutrition recommendations. 

The WIC food package has also been referred by USDA to the 

National Academy of Sciences Food and Nutrition Board to look at 

whether there are ways to improve the WIC food package. There 

are a variety of nutritional and other authorities that are starting 

to look at the pyramid. 

The important thing, while it is certainly possible the pyramid 

could be improved, is that if families and programs adhere to the 

current pyramid, nutrition would be better than it is now. The pyramid may have its flaws, but all the pyramids that are out there 

all provide a better mix of foods for people. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, the ones that are being proposed that I 

have seen pretty much change a lot of what were assumptions 

right now under the old food pyramid. 

Mr. WEILL. That is right, so part of the issue is making the pyramid better, but part of the issue is getting everybody to follow 

whatever pyramid there is, and my point was only that so many 

people are ignoring the current pyramid that that is where a lot 

of the problem lies, too. 

23

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Besharov, again, I want to thank you for 

being provocative and getting people to think. 

Mr. BESHAROV. Thank you. 

Senator HARKIN. A lot of what you are talking about, I have been 

wondering about myself for years. I tried back in the 1996 Farm 

bill to get vending machines out of schools, and obviously, I was 

spectacularly successful. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HARKIN. Or at least get them to shut them off after the 

last lunch period. I have also proposed that we ought to put more 

emphasis on the breakfast programs, because if a kid eats breakfast, then they don’t get hungry later on. 

Have you looked at the fresh fruit and vegetables pilot program 

that is going on that we have——

Mr. BESHAROV. Only a little. 

Senator HARKIN. A little bit? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Senator, just a little, yes. 

Senator HARKIN. Because some of the anecdotal, at least, evidence that we are getting back from these is that kids are coming 

to school—the fruits and vegetables are available not just at lunch 

period, but all day long. They come to school, they can have an 

apple, orange, banana—bananas are allowed, things like that—and 

they don’t get hungry and so they don’t go to the vending machines 

or they don’t try to snack and eat other stuff. In fact, we had testimony from one guy that was before us here that they actually, because the sales of the vending machines had gone down, they actually took a vending machine out of the school. 

I would hope you would maybe take a look at that as part of your 

thinking and how you are looking at this——

Mr. BESHAROV. I surely will, Senator. 

Senator HARKIN [continuing]. Getting those fruits and vegetables 

there. 

Most of the pyramids that we see—have you looked at the food 

pyramid, Mr. Besharov? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Yes, sir. 

Senator HARKIN. You must have looked at it, right? What do you 

think about it? 

Mr. BESHAROV. It reminds me of my mother-in-law. She says she 

has two kinds of friends——

Senator LEAHY. Be very, very careful. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. She may read this transcript. 

Senator HARKIN. This guy may be more provocative than I imagined. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BESHAROV. She said she had two kinds of friends at cocktail 

parties. One kind of friend dieted by eating just the cracker and 

one kind of friend dieted by just eating the cheese, which is to say 

we are in a rip-roaring fight about these food pyramids, and I am 

enough of a political scientist to think that there is more at stake 

here than healthy eating, which is to say there are going to be 

some winners and some losers if we change the shape of this food 

pyramid. 

24

I don’t think the government has the slightest idea what to do 

about recommending food eating patterns for us. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, I don’t know if the government does, but 

there are experts in the nutritional field out there that have been 

examining this for the last 30 years at Harvard, Stanford, other 

places have looked at this, and they have looked at eating patterns 

and they have basically concluded that the basis of the pyramid is 

wrong and that we need more fruits, vegetables, things like that 

as the base of the pyramid and less of the breads and pastas and 

things like that, more grains, for example, things like that that 

should be in. 

The base, the base of the pyramid, of what most of the people 

are talking about, the base of the new pyramid is something no one 

talks about. At the very base, it is called exercise. See, what in 

your stage, reading much like we did 20, 30 years ago, but we are 

not doing any exercise. A study, and again, one of these wonderful 

government studies came out, showed that less than 80 percent, 80 

percent of elementary school kids in this country get less than 1 

hour of exercise a week in school. They don’t have recess anymore. 

They don’t do the things that we used to do when we were kids. 

They eat this fat food and they don’t exercise and they don’t burn 

it up. I wonder if you would look at that. 

Mr. WEILL. Senator, can I just say one thing about that? 

Senator HARKIN. Yes, Mr. Weill. 

Mr. WEILL. That is crucially important. We will all agree that 

obesity is a tremendous problem for kids, but we don’t know everything about what is causing obesity. We ought to be clear about 

what we know and what we don’t know. 

What we know is that kids have less physical activity. We know 

schools have fewer physical activity programs than they used to 

and those programs ought to be restored. We know kids have less 

opportunity after school to engage in activity than they used to and 

they need more programs that do that. 

We know that school meals have been getting better. Certainly, 

they could get even better, but we know that they have been getting better while the entire rest of the eating environment around 

children has been getting worse for the last ten or 15 years. 

What we need to do is work from the evidence that we actually 

have rather than speculation and half-truths, and think about how 

to improve these programs to reach more kids and fight obesity. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, how do you feel about the a la carte lines? 

I want to ask you both about that. How do you feel about a la carte 

lines that we have in schools today? 

Mr. WEILL. We would be in favor of giving the Secretary much 

broader authority to reduce competitive foods in the schools. 

Senator HARKIN. How do you feel about those, Mr. Besharov? 

Mr. BESHAROV. If the school meal can’t compete with an a la 

carte line and can’t compete with fast foods down the street, we 

should worry about what we are serving in school and try to let 

them compete better. I would be in favor of letting the a la carte 

lines continue. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, it is the a la carte lines that have all the 

fat food in them, Mr. Besharov. Ask any of your school food service 

people. 

25

Mr. BESHAROV. If you can trust the USDA numbers, we start 

with the fact that the combined caloric intake of the school breakfast and the school lunch program is 56 percent of a child’s daily 

needs. That is on the average child. For younger children, for girls 

and so forth, it is higher than that. 

It may be that the a la carte line is worse, but it is not that the 

school lunch line is all that good, and if we want children to eat 

that food, let us make it better. Let us not take away their choices. 

I don’t see what the problem there is. 

Now, I have spoken to school lunch preparers, not the union people and so forth and so on, and there is a challenge in the kinds 

of things we ask them to cook, and what it reminds me of is the 

first time I ate in the Clinton White House mess. It was quite difficult to enjoy the food because it fit under the guidelines we were 

trying to apply to school lunches. 

There is a way to cook healthy. There is a way to make food appetizing. It may not be a hot meal with a hot vegetable. It could 

be a great sandwich and a great salad. That kind of flexibility 

ought to be built in if we trusted the school systems to do what was 

best for kids within a broad set of guidelines. I am not talking 

block grant. It is much more difficult to provide a hot meal within 

the school structure than a nutritious, balanced, calorically appropriate cold meal. We could experiment with that, and many schools 

do that. We could just think about these things and not be caught 

up in what is in the end, a political argument. 

What is happening is, not just for the poor, not just children and 

school lunches, but America is getting heavy and it is a health hazard of immense proportion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lugar. 

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

INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Essentially, as you 

have noted, and Secretary Bost has, this hearing comes at a time 

that the Senate budget for all we are talking about is flat and the 

House has cut 5 percent, and so it is in conference. Therefore, the 

problems of doing additional things are compounded by the fact we 

are about to pass a budget, and the constraints are obvious and 

may be severe. 

Having said that, it seems to me that what we need from both 

of you and the witnesses today is some specific legislative language. Often, these hearings get into the philosophy of what we 

ought to be doing, and that is helpful in terms of a public airing. 

For example, this is a concrete problem that Senator Harkin 

brings up. We have heard testimony year after year, all of us, 

about the vending machines in the schools, and the reason the 

vending machines are there largely is because the principals not 

only permit it, but they support it. They like the revenue. The 

thought comes back to us that we would be depriving the school of 

a certain quality of experience if those revenues were not available. 

Now, we begin to argue nutrition, and then we get into a Libertarian argument that, after all, every American, regardless of age, 

26

size, and so forth, ought to have any choice that he or she wants. 

That is nonsense if we are really worried about obesity or worried 

about nutrition. 

Clearly, the problem, as some of you pointed out, is that the 

foods made available to these school lunches frequently are not the 

most nutritious because those might be expensive. 

Now, Secretary Bost, at least, has come along and said we ought 

to have a vegetable and fruit program. Wherever the pyramid 

comes out, most nutritionists in the country do believe most Americans would do better off if we had more fruits and vegetables in 

our diets. This seems to be almost a no-brainer, but it is expensive, 

and the problem of substituting whatever we have there in the 

school lunch with more fruits and vegetables involves expense. 

How we come to grips with this is a legislative process, and I am 

searching. Now, I want to look at what Secretary Bost offers in 

terms of legislation, but at least it is a proposal. 

Likewise, with regard to vending machines, whether Senator 

Harkin’s idea of closing them certain hours or at least cutting down 

the dull roar of competition, at least that is a possibility. 

If we go into this, then we bring all of American society in, as 

you suggested, Mr. Besharov, into a political issue. Should we have 

freedom of choice quite apart from nutrition or obesity and so 

forth? It is a reasonable argument. 

This committee, by and large, is for nutrition, for children growing up strong, and so at least I want to stay on that course. I would 

tend to be against the vending machines if I had to make a choice 

between the two. I would choose the fruits and vegetables as opposed to a lot of what we have there now, and that was going to 

probably cost money. 

I am certain expansion of the summer program will cost money. 

The reason for having summer programs is that the committee has 

discovered, as many of you have, that a lot of children who have 

school lunches during the year, it simply drops off at the summertime. A continuation of this, I think is important. 

We can make an argument how many children in America, what 

percentage, are undernourished either during the school year or 

during the summer, but having at least come to some idea of what 

the number is we ought to be serving, the consistency of the program is important and that requires some improvisation, given the 

numbers of sponsors that have to be substituted. 

I commend Secretary Bost for wanting to expand that issue. I 

would hope so, too. That has a budgetary figure attached to it that 

has to be recognized, too, and hopefully will be in our process here. 

Finally, it just seems to me that with regard to all of these 

standards, we have probably not come to grips with why some children get breakfast, why some don’t. The standards of education 

seem to be better if everybody gets breakfast. This then leads to 

an issue that floats through this. How do you rigorously determine 

who ought to be getting this, who is deserving from an income 

standpoint? 

Many people have suggested new audits, new screenings. You 

have suggested, Mr. Weill, this has some dangers because in most 

of these affairs, many poor children who do not have advocates for 

them, including their parents, are likely to get left by the wayside, 

27

and that seems to be anecdotally what is occurring in these past 

screenings, and that is important, because if there are poor children that are not receiving food, they are probably in this group 

that got screened out in the process. 

I would want to proceed very cautiously. Most of you do, too. Certainly, Secretary Bost gave that indication in his testimony and I 

just underline it, because I am afraid the rhetoric of school lunches 

usually is that, somehow, there are a lot of free lunches going to 

affluent children, and we have worked from then on to make sure 

that there are no malefactors, even if we screen out people who are 

in genuine need. 

I have finally come down, and I would ask your comment finally 

on this, that most of the arguments in favor of food banks in the 

county still suggest in a time of affluence, 10 percent of the population is challenged. That doesn’t mean hungry every day, but from 

time to time have nutritional needs. This, even of the total calorie 

variety, not of the obesity situation. Is that overstated? Is this a 

figment of the imagination? The U.S. Conference of Mayors, others 

seem to have done some work in this area for a while. This is the 

basis on which many of us support trying to help the food banks 

out a great deal more. 

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

appendix on page 58.] 

Senator LUGAR. Let me just ask that question. What is the incidence of hunger in America? Even anecdotally, what rigorous analysis, and you have given some of this, Mr. Besharov, and I give 

credit for your stating those statistics, but it doesn’t altogether 

solve my problem that I just see, at least, at the local level. A good 

number of children look to me to be in need of somebody taking 

care of them. We can say parents should have, or some other adult 

supervision, all the way along, but they don’t. Finally, the schools 

do, and I am glad they do because it makes it possible for these 

children to learn, likewise, maybe to have some health. What is the 

incidence, as you see it, of the hunger situation in America? 

Mr. WEILL. According to the scientific studies, from the Census 

Bureau and USDA through a process vetted through academics, 

there are 33 million Americans who live in households that suffer 

from either hunger or food insecurity. Not all those households, not 

all those people suffer from hunger, in large part because of these 

nutrition programs. The number of households, I believe, in which 

there is outright hunger, is three and one half million households 

with nine million people in which there is actual hunger. People 

depend on food banks and on emergency services of other kinds, 

from cities, and others to stave off hunger. 

I just would add, Senator, I agree with everything you said about 

program integrity and the vending machines. That one other strategy here that a lot of schools are using is to put fruits and vegetables, low-fat milk, and other healthy choices in vending machines 

rather than throw out the vending machines, and some schools 

have found that they make just as much money off the machines 

that way. 

These issues also go to how complicated the lives of poor kids 

and the institutions that serve them are. I heard a story a month 

ago that in the Philadelphia schools, kids drink soda from the 

28

vending machines in part because all the water fountains are shut 

down in the low-income schools, either because they are broken or 

because there is lead in the water. When we talk about these 

issues, we have to recognize the realities of the lives surrounding 

low-income kids. 

Mr. BESHAROV. I certainly agree with what Jim just said, but I 

just passed to him the USDA numbers that he was mentioning. 

They are on page four of my testimony. What they show is that 

only when you use the phrase ‘‘food insecurity’’ do you get anywhere near the 10-percent number. 

Look, there are young people in this country who are today severely malnourished because they are not getting two squares, let 

alone three, and it is clearly the case that for older people, this is 

a serious problem, no doubt about it. The analogy is what we are 

seeing on TV in the war on Iraq. We see areas of severe firefights, 

and there are other areas that are peaceful. There are pockets of 

people who are in deep trouble and we should be addressing their 

needs, whether it is in a food program at school or some social 

service assistance. 

The larger picture is one of victory through 30 years of expanding food programs. It is not impossible to say, on the one hand, we 

had a great success here, and on the other, we should not cut back 

the programs. The success comes from the programs. 

If I might, Senator, to answer your question about what do you 

do in a time of limited need, I would take a page out of part of the 

welfare reform story. We here in Washington pontificated for 20 

years—40 years if you go back to the Kennedy administration—

about how to reform welfare. It turned out, forgetting about the 

block grant part of it, it turned out that the States had loads of 

ideas and we had never really asked them. Instead, we tried one 

idea from Federal Government officials and think tanks—I plead 

guilty—after another. 

It wouldn’t be so awful to give in the WIC program some flexibility to a few States, let them experiment. It would not cause the 

end of the world to give some States flexibility in the school meals 

program to see what they came up with, not getting to a block 

grant, but just asking where the good ideas are. They are not just 

all here in Washington, and it is almost a dead end to say, do we 

have all the answers? Let us propose the answers. An overriding 

answer is, let us see what the States would come up with if, in a 

constrained, limited way, we asked them for new options on how 

to deliver nutritious quality food to kids. 

Mr. WEILL. If I may, Senator, I would just note that there is 

more flexibility, perhaps, than Mr. Besharov is aware of. He was 

talking earlier about the lunch program requiring hot meals to be 

served. That is actually not true. 

Mr. BESHAROV. Actually, I didn’t say that. I didn’t mean to say 

that. 

Mr. WEILL. Schools could serve the cold meals with more fruits 

and vegetables that he is talking about. The problem is, it is more 

costly. Again, the resources are the constraint here on better food, 

much more than the lack of flexibility. 

29

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. Still, if you would have legislative 

language on any of these things, that would be tremendously helpful. 

Mr. WEILL. We will be delighted to provide it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Leahy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this hearing. I and Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin have 

worked on these issues for forever. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. I know the three of us had hair back when we 

started. I actually had some. It shows how long it has been going 

on. 

I would ask that my full statement be placed in the record, if I 

might, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator LEAHY. I listened carefully, as we all have, to this. I 

grew up at a time when we didn’t have a school lunch program. 

I walked home for lunch. My kids, when I say anything about this, 

they say, ‘‘Yeah, yeah, Dad, we know, snow up to your waist and 

it was uphill both ways, going and coming.’’

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. I had the advantage of not living far from the 

school and having an Italian-American mother and lunch was probably a heck of a lot better than it would ever be in a school lunch 

program. 

That is not the reality today. It is not the reality of my children 

going to school. I can’t help but think what a wonderful opportunity we have for real education as well as nutrition in the school 

lunch program. Every teacher will tell you a well-fed, nutritionally 

fed child, not one who has the surge of the ups and downs from 

a sugar high and a sugar crash, things like that, they are going to 

learn better. There are a lot of other aspects going through the 

course, but it is one. 

We seem to grapple with this all the time. I go to some schools 

and there are really good lunch programs and the kids love it. You 

go in others and it is a question, do you have the green glop or the 

gray glop today? Yet, I have to assume that basically you are working on some of the same parameters, at least, when it comes to 

funding. 

Now, Mr. Besharov, you said all these statistics about growing 

rates of obesity among Americans, and they are well documented. 

I was at a medical forum in Vermont, very, very good people across 

the State back here a few months ago. Basically, we were talking 

about Medicare and things like that, but it quickly went down to 

how much money we would save in this country if we just tackled 

that one question of obesity and some of the things that come out, 

problems, everything from aggravation of a diabetes case to heart 

to on and on and on. That one thing would lower in our own State 

very dramatically the costs of medical care if we could somehow get 

hold of that. 

30

Actually, everybody has touched on that, but in terms of child 

nutrition programs, if you have sodas and candy and other foods 

in competition, does that not add to this child overweight and obesity problem? Mr. Besharov. 

Mr. BESHAROV. The answer, of course, is all other things being 

equal, sure. Now, the question is, are all other things always equal 

and is that the shortest distance from here to there? 

First of all, let me make it very clear that that the obesity problem in this country goes far beyond school meals, goes far beyond 

Federal aid to nutrition programs. You can’t look at the growing 

girth of Americans in general without thinking that there are 

forces much broader than what is happening in schools and so 

forth. It is happening all over in various ways—larger portion sizes 

at home, in restaurants, fast food, less exercise. 

My point is, and the committee and the Congress may decide to 

prohibit these things, and I have no brief one way or the other. My 

fear, Senator, is as follows. That may just be the most obvious 

band-aid to a much larger problem, which is the quality—the 

tastefulness of the food, the willingness of young people to eat the 

food that is served to them. I don’t think it is just that these young 

people want the pizza or want the candy bar. It is that what they 

are being offered on the line doesn’t attract them. 

Senator LEAHY. The green glop and the gray glop? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Yes. As I say, I have this lucky situation. I don’t 

even know who runs the vending machines. I don’t run a sports 

team. I have no interest one way or the other in this one. I worry 

that if you do only that and don’t address the question of why they 

are turning to those machines, they will find some other way to eat 

that stuff. 

Senator LEAHY. The reason I ask, any suggestions people have 

to make, you are going to have a welcome audience here. This committee on nutrition matters has never been a partisan committee. 

We have had—I remember back when I was first on here, Senator 

Dole, Senator McGovern, Senator Hubert Humphrey joined together on these matters. Senator Dole and Senator McGovern, and 

I have a proposal now which actually Senator Lugar, we see it in 

the Foreign Relations Committee and we see it in Appropriations, 

the schools program in parts of the Third World, in Africa and elsewhere, where, as a result, maybe girls will be able to go to school 

as well as boys. Now, that is not going to change things the first 

year or the second year or the third year, but over time, think what 

that will change in just the structure of some of these places. 

My last question, and I will put the rest in the record, but Mr. 

Weill, you know my State of Vermont is very rural and we have 

a difficult time setting up summer feeding programs. I get very 

frustrated by it because I have helped get money for summer 

feedings programs. We don’t use it as much as I would like to see 

it. 

You have mentioned the change in the area eligibility rate from 

50 percent to 40 percent would help rural areas expand access to 

the summer programs, and I agree with that. What do you do, 

though, and how do you get the kids there? Again, this is not like 

where I grew up in Montpelier, Vermont, and I could walk home 

to school. I mean, these rural areas are scattered all over. NeighVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
31

bors might be a mile, two miles, three miles apart and the school 

might be another eight or ten miles. How do you do that? 

Mr. WEILL. That is right. There used to be some grant funds in 

the summer food program that helped cover special transportation 

and startup costs and, money permitting, we would be all in favor 

of restoring those grants. The 50 to 40 is one strategy. Making the 

Lugar summer pilots nationwide is another. 

In some States, summer food providers have used some very 

novel strategies, like running the summer food program off a bus 

and taking the food to the kids——

Senator LEAHY. That is an idea. 

Mr. WEILL. There are a number of ways to make the program 

easier to run—not easy to run, but easier to run in rural areas and 

we would be glad to talk to you further about that. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for doing this. You and 

Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin have really been giants in this 

area of school lunch and school nutrition. I have to go back to Judiciary. I would much rather stay here. This is a lot more fun because there tends to be a lot more agreement here. Maybe when 

you start alphabetically, with Agriculture, by the time you get all 

the way up to the ‘‘J’’s, the committee breaks down, or maybe it 

is the issues. I don’t know. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. 

Thank you both for being here today and giving us the benefit 

of your thoughts and observation and experience in these programs. 

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

Mr. BESHAROV. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next panel consists of five individuals representing different organizations or associations. Ms. Jill Leppert is 

President of the National WIC Association. Ms. Anne Curry is Vice 

President of the Food Marketing Institute. Ms. Karen Caplan is 

Chairman of the Board of United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. Mr. Rod Hofstedt is here representing the National Child 

and Adult Care Feeding Program Forum. Mr. Don Wambles, who 

is President of the WIC Farmers Market Association. 

I hope that you will all be able to limit your presentation to recognize the fact that we are almost at the noon hour. We don’t want 

anyone to go hungry because of this hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We don’t want to cut you short, either. I have a 

device here that signals when 5 minutes is up, and I am reluctant 

to use that, but I would encourage you to try to keep your opening 

statements within 5 minutes and that will give us all an opportunity to ask you questions if you are able to do that. 

Thank you all for being here. We have copies of the written 

statements that you have submitted. They will be made a part of 

the record in full, and so I will ask Ms. Leppert to please proceed. 

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

appendix on page 59.] 

32

STATEMENT OF JILL LEPPERT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WIC 

ASSOCIATION, BISMARK, NORTH DAKOTA 

Ms. LEPPERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for your invitation to present the National WIC Association’s views on re-authorization of WIC. Our members work to improve the quality of life for over 7.5 million participants monthly. 

At the onset, I would like to compliment you, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee, for your commitment to WIC, as well 

as President Bush and Secretary Veneman for their support. NWA 

is proud of the strong bipartisan commitment WIC has had since 

its inception. 

WIC has an extraordinarily nearly 30-year record of preventing 

child health problems and improving their health and growth and 

development. WIC children enter school ready to learn. 

In its December 2001 report to Congress, GAO identified six 

challenges facing WIC. With your permission, I would like to highlight our proposed responses. 

As local public health departments are reducing or eliminating 

health care services, WIC has become the single greatest entry 

point of health care for many WIC families. To eliminate unnecessary clinic visits and allow for better coordination with health care 

services, providing more nutrition counseling time, and streamlining paperwork, NWA recommends giving States the option to extend certification periods for up to 1 year for children and 

breastfeeding women. 

WIC resources are being stretched in amazing ways. Currently, 

WIC staff provide participants with information on a wide variety 

of subjects, some of which relate to WIC’s mission and some that 

do not. Each minute of an unfunded mandate results in the loss of 

over 125,000 hours of nutrition education intervention annually. 

The GAO has identified at least 90 program requirements that 

have been added to WIC since 1988. 

WIC is proud of the role we play in our public health system. 

However, expecting so much of the WIC program while providing 

no additional resources as we assume more responsibilities challenges WIC’s infrastructure, staff, and the families that WIC 

serves. 

WIC’s population, like the general population, has experienced 

dramatic experiences in the prevalence of obesity and related 

health issues. In addition, there have been dramatic increases in 

the ethnic diversity of the WIC population. 

NWA would like to recommend, first, while WIC programs have 

been actively engaged in obesity prevention efforts, the program’s 

definition of nutrition education is self-limiting. NWA recommends 

expanding the definition of nutrition education to allow for anticipatory guidance related to physical activity, feeding relationships, 

and child development. 

Second, the current WIC food package is now nearly 30 years old 

and is no longer consistent with current dietary guidelines or 

science. WIC agencies have independently taken steps to combat 

the nation’s obesity epidemic by modifying the WIC food package 

when necessary. Agencies often provide low-fat milk and low-fat 

cheeses, thus reducing the total caloric, cholesterol, and fat intake 

of the food package. Simply put, the WIC food package is not a 

33

cause of obesity. Contrary to Mr. Besharov’s assertion, it is not 

about more food, but it is about better food. More can be done. 

In 2002, SWA recommended changes to the WIC food package to 

reflect current nutrition science. While Under Secretary Bost and 

his FNS teams are to be commended for their efforts to publish a 

proposed rule of the WIC food package and applauded for referring 

an evaluation of the food package to the Institute of Medicine, the 

time has passed for WIC to provide a healthier food package. NWA 

recommends USDA report to Congress within 6 months of re-authorization on the status of efforts to adopt a new food package and 

that USDA publish within 6 months of that report a proposal to revise the WIC food package. 

Third, in the interim period, NWA asks Congress to direct USDA 

and FNS to allow States to implement pilot or demonstration 

projects that would allow for food substitutions, including fresh, 

frozen, or canned fruits and vegetables and food items responsive 

to the needs of WIC’s diverse cultural population. 

Fourth, NWA recommends that the Institute of Medicine reevaluate the WIC food package at least every 10 years, recommending changes to reflect current and national nutrition science 

and concerns. 

Fifth, the competitive bidding process requirement for infant formula has resulted in significant savings for the WIC program, allowing WIC to serve roughly one in five participants. Efforts to 

weaken this program would have unintended consequences. NWA 

urges Congress to ensure that this program element is protected. 

The current funding formula does not allow States sufficient 

NSA funds to support funded participation levels, maintain, protect, and improve client services and program integrity. NWA recommends that States have the option to convert unspent food funds 

to NSA and to apply a portion of the rebate dollars received to NSA 

in accordance with the proportional administrator food split. 

Technology provides a critical foundation for quality WIC services and program integrity. Funding WIC technology from existing 

resources compromises WIC’s ability to deliver services and to develop responsive MIS systems. To develop and maintain MIS and 

electronic delivery systems and to link other health data systems, 

NWA supports USDA’s efforts in this area, but recommends that 

Congress provide $122 million annually outside the regular NSA 

grant to upgrade and maintain WIC technology systems. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, NWA 

looks forward to working with you in this re-authorization process. 

I remain ready to answer any questions or to provide additional information that you may request. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Leppert. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leppert can be found in the appendix on page 112.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Curry, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE CURRY, VICE PRESIDENT, LEGISLATIVE 

AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS, FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. CURRY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regardVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
34

ing the re-authorization of the Special Supplemental Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children on behalf of the 26,000 retail food 

stores represented by the Food Marketing Institute. 

Retail food stores are proud to partner with both Federal and 

State programs to ensure that recipients of our nation’s food assistance, particularly pregnant women and their young children, are 

able to access these benefits without difficulty in our stores. FMI 

is in full agreement with the important mission of the WIC program and supports its goals 100 percent. 

In preparation for the re-authorization of the WIC program, we 

reconvened a WIC task force to compile recommendations for consideration by Congress. It was composed of 15 grocery companies 

and seven State grocer associations. We identified areas for improvement for both the customer and the retailer experience. 

Today, the administrative process in the WIC program from the 

initial authorization of a store to customer check out and retailer 

reimbursement is incredibly complex and needs to be more userfriendly and efficient. It is also important to note that our recommendations will not cost money, and certainly in a tight budget 

year, this should prove to be important to a committee chairman 

who is also an appropriator. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CURRY. Additionally, we proposed that these recommendations should actually achieve savings and certainly efficiencies and 

improved customer service. 

The WIC task force identified six areas that need to be addressed 

from a grocer’s perspective: Retailer authorization, retail operations, reimbursement issues, penalties, EBT, (electronic benefits 

transfer), and infant formula theft. Certainly, each of these recommendations, if implemented, would positively impact the recipients, as well. 

The complete FMI WIC task force report has been submitted for 

the record, and I believe you all received a copy of this. From this 

comprehensive report, we developed a top-ten list of priority items, 

and it is those items that I would like to highlight today. 

One, the notification of a store owner or manager when a compliance violation should occur. 

Two, an interim WIC license should be available on a short-term 

basis after a change in store ownership while the new owner’s application is being reviewed by the Department of Agriculture. 

Three, WIC retail advisory panels should be authorized and required in every State to address operational issues on an ongoing 

basis. 

Four, private label or store brands should also receive approval 

in the WIC program, provided these items maintain the nutritional 

integrity of the current WIC products. 

Five, the WIC program needs to be more flexible with minimum 

inventory, particularly, for example, with some of the special infant 

formula products. 

Six, prescriptions need to be more attuned to the manufacturers 

changes in their packaging of products. For example, the WIC prescriptive might be a 46-ounce can, where the most popular size of 

a juice that you would purchase would be in a 64-ounce plastic bottle. Therefore, inventory is not always able to keep up with that 

35

and it could be more expensive because it is a non-traditional size. 

We recommend that those issues be addressed. 

No. 7, line-item rejection for vouchers should be permitted rather 

than throwing out the entire voucher when a single item is not eligible for reimbursement. 

Eight, WIC EBT cost should be neutual to authorized retailers 

and follow the path of the food stamp program as they move from 

WIC coupons to EBT cards. 

No. 9, retailers are very supportive of a national WIC UPC data 

base and feel that it is a necessity that would dramatically decrease the potential for human error, particularly in some States 

that are moving to EBT. 

Finally, No. 10, infant formula theft in the stores is a real problem for retailers. In fact, it is one of the ten most stolen items from 

a grocery store and a potential health risk for young babies. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide further input and look 

forward to working with you and your committee staffs in the coming months. FMI stands fully committed to the goals and mission 

of the WIC program, ensuring that our customers are able to access 

their benefits in the most efficient and compassionate way in our 

stores. 

Thank you again for allowing us to testify and we would appreciate any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Curry can be found in the appendix on page 121.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Caplan, you are welcome to proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN CAPLAN, FRIEDA’S, INC., LOS 

ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED FRESH 

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. CAPLAN. Thank you. I was hoping to start by saying good 

morning, but as I look at the clock, I see that I will change that 

to say, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Karen Caplan. I am the President and CEO of 

Frieda, Incorporated, the nation’s leading marketer and distributor 

of exotic fruits and vegetables, based in Los Angeles, California. 

I come before you today as Chairman of the Board of the United 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, the fresh produce industry’s 

national trade organization. I am joined here today by our Association President, Tom Stenzel, and our Vice President for Public Policy, Robert Guenther. 

I am also a mother of two school-aged children, so my interest 

in child nutrition is very personal as well as professional. 

I don’t need to repeat the facts about today’s crisis in childhood 

obesity and poor nutrition, which is leading to a future legacy of 

disease and staggering health care costs. Now is the time that all 

of us must work together in a bipartisan fashion to put in place actual solutions to these challenges, not excuses for failing to act. 

As you approach this difficult task, we have to be honest with 

ourselves. Despite the best efforts of many in this room, the nutritional health of our nation’s children has in far too many cases 

come second to other considerations. We tell food service managers 

to offer healthy meals, but low reimbursement rates encourage 

36

them to use inexpensive ten-pound cans of string beans and mushy 

fruit instead of offering fresh fruits and vegetables that kids might 

like and they might eat. 

We tell school officials to create healthy school environments, 

then look the other way when kids turn to competitive foods on a 

la carte lines or vending machines down the hall. 

We tell kids and parents how important it is to eat five to nine 

servings of fruits and vegetables every day as the key to good 

health. Then we can’t find room in the WIC program for even a 

modest amount of fresh fruits and vegetables because of opposition 

from entrenched commodities. 

It is clear that something has to change, and change dramatically. Mr. Chairman, we submit that Congress must develop legislation to make healthfulness and quality equal components of 

school breakfasts and lunches, to build a healthier school environment that truly teaches lifelong wise food choices, and to launch a 

smarter start for WIC recipients that could be incorporated into 

healthy diets long after they leave the program. 

How can we do that? As you review all the testimony before the 

committee, you will find one common goal among every interest 

group. We need to increase the availability of quality fresh fruits 

and vegetables to kids, whether it is through school breakfast, 

lunch, or the WIC program. 

The single most important thing I want to talk to you today is 

about USDA’s new fresh fruit and vegetable pilot program 

launched in the Farm bill last year. On behalf of the 106 schools 

in the pilot program, I bring you unqualified and enthusiastic support from the teachers, the parents, the school food service officials, 

principals, school nurses, and, yes, even the children, for continuing and expanding the fresh fruit and vegetable pilot program. 

Under Secretary Bost referred to the administration’s support for 

this program during his earlier testimony, and I want to reinforce 

and magnify his comments. At the conference hosted last week in 

Indianapolis, officials from Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and the 

Zuni Nation in New Mexico shared success stories greater than 

anyone could have imagined. 

Teachers reported more attentive students and focused classrooms. School nurses reported fewer trips to the nurse and fewer 

absences. Food service managers reported more healthy meals 

served and more fruits and vegetables being chosen in the cafeteria. Principals reported fewer behavior problems. Parents reported kids asking them to buy new produce items at home. The 

kids reported trying new fruits and vegetables and increasing their 

consumption by at least one full serving a day. 

After decades of working to teach school kids to make healthy 

food choices, we finally learned the secret to increasing their consumption. Put appealing, good tasting fresh fruits and vegetables 

in front of them and they will love you for it. All this, just because 

the government spent a modest amount to give them a healthy 

fruit and vegetable snack at school. That single lesson may help 

launch the most effective program in truly transforming the school 

food environment and increasing actual consumption of fruits and 

vegetables to meet U.S. dietary guidelines. 

37

As a produce mom who sometimes takes new and unusual fruits 

and vegetables to my kids’ classes, I had the opportunity to learn 

firsthand how this powerful form of experience-based learning can 

be, because my daughter is in Brownies and it was my turn to do 

the Brownie triad. The kids in our troop tried, and I brought this 

so no one will go hungry today, Mr. Chairman, Asian pears, and 

we brought some blood oranges—I don’t know if any of you have 

ever tried those, sugar snap peas, and jicama. 

The CHAIRMAN. What was the last one? 

Ms. CAPLAN. Jicama. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CAPLAN. I knew I would stump you with one of them. Oh, 

I don’t want to forget the most important fruit here, since my 

mother actually introduced it to America, the kiwi fruit. A lot of 

kids had never tried that. 

The interesting thing was the Brownie meeting was at three 

o’clock in the afternoon. All of the parents had assured me that 

their kids would never try this weird stuff. I was amazed the next 

morning to get e-mails and phone calls from almost every single 

mother that their kids now were talking about packing five a day 

in their school lunch, they were looking to see if they were drinking 

100 percent fruit juice, and they were looking forward to going 

shopping in the produce department. 

We urge the committee to expand—I want to say that again—we 

urge the committee to expand the fruit and vegetable pilot program 

to all 50 States at a pilot level next year so we can continue to collect the data and results that will determine how this program can 

be implemented most effectively. 

In addition to this pilot program, my written testimony, which I 

won’t go over in detail, includes 31 specific legislative recommendations covering seven key issue areas in child nutrition. I ask you 

to examine all of these areas for cost-effective and successful strategies for increasing fresh fruits and vegetables through child nutrition programs. 

Thank you so much for letting the produce industry speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Caplan. 

Ms. CAPLAN. You are welcome to enjoy this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Don’t run off. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Caplan can be found in the appendix on page 125.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next panel member is from the State of Minnesota, and Senator Dayton has asked for the privilege of introducing you. Senator Dayton. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK DAYTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MINNESOTA 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. Does 

this mean they are going to change the name of the Brownies to 

the ‘‘Kiwis’’ then? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DAYTON. I speak, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague, Senator Coleman, who is also a member of this committee 

and wanted to be here. He is chairing a Foreign Relations SubVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
38

committee meeting right now, a hearing, so unfortunately, he can’t 

join us, but he joins with me in thanking you for introducing with 

great pride, of Minnesota, Rod Hofstedt, who has been a leading 

advocate for food and nutrition advances for Minnesota’s children 

and adults for the last—well, more than 23 years. 

Twenty-three years ago, he founded and since then has directed 

one of the largest family and child and adult nutrition alliances 

and family and child program throughout the country and has been 

recognized now, as before, for his leadership in this regard by being 

the President-elect of his national association. 

It is with great pride that I introduce Mr. Hofstedt, and again, 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for including this Minnesotan on your 

panel. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. 

Mr. Hofstedt, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROD HOFSTEDT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ADULT AND CHILDREN’S ALLIANCE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, 

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CHILD AND ADULT CARE 

FOOD PROGRAM FORUM 

Mr. HOFSTEDT. That was very nice. I would like to thank you on 

behalf of the National Child and Adult Care Food Program Forum 

for allowing us to share our views with you today. 

The Forum represents local primarily nonprofit sponsoring organizations that administer the Child and Adult Care Food Program 

to family child care providers across the United States. Family 

child care providers provide child care in their own homes. 

Based on our experience and numerous research studies, we believe that the Child and Adult Care Food Program, CACFP, is one 

of the key building blocks for good nutrition in quality affordable 

child care. CACFP serves 2.7 million children daily, over 900,000 

in family child care homes and 1.7 million in child care centers. 

Today, I am going to focus on the family child care portion of 

CACFP. The program provides reimbursement for food and meal 

preparation costs, ongoing training in the nutritional needs of children, and onsite technical assistance through a minimum of three 

in-home visits each year. 

Nutrition problems start at a young age. A recent review of the 

research on the nutritional status of preschool children revealed 

some disturbing trends relating to an increase in obesity and overweight as well as other problems. Research has shown that homes 

participating in the CACFP serve more nutritious meals and 

snacks. Parents can rely on child care providers participating in 

the CACFP to be good partners in helping their children develop 

positive nutrition habits early. Since many habits learned in child 

care will last a lifetime, we must make certain that CACFP is 

available to help make sure these nutrition habits are desirable 

and healthy. 

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer children in family child care are 

able to participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program. 

Many more children could be served if Congress would reduce unnecessary red tape, provide support for continuing nutrition education, and restore some of the reimbursements that were cut so 

drastically as a part of the 1996 welfare reform law. 

39

Since the 1996 cuts, which were made as part of implementing 

a means test, CACFP and family child care has gone from being 

one of USDA’s fastest-growing programs to a program that serves 

fewer and fewer children each year. There has been a 14 percent 

drop in the number of homes participating and a 7-percent drop in 

the number of children and meals served through the family child 

care portion of the program. In fact, in comparison to USDA growth 

projects, CACFP and family child care now serves a quarter of a 

billion less meals and snacks than was expected without the means 

test. 

In the interest of time, I will only cover several key recommendations for improving access. These recommendations are based on 

surveys of sponsoring organizations, providers focus group, and an 

analysis of participation data. 

More low-income families would participate in the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program if Congress would reduce the red tape 

involving qualifying for low-income reimbursement rates by reducing CACFP area eligibility from 50 percent to 40 percent. The final 

reimbursement rates adopted for families with incomes over 185 

percent of the poverty level were considerably lower than those initially proposed. The means test system with these reduced rates 

has had the unintended consequence of driving providers off the 

program. For example, these providers only receive 14 cents for 

serving a nutritious snack. Congress needs to raise these reimbursement rates to a reasonable level in order to compensate providers for a greater part of the cost of meeting the CACFP meals 

service standards. 

Child and Adult Care Food Program sponsors need the resources 

to focus on the important nutrition education support services that 

have now been pushed aside by the avalanche of paperwork generated by the means test. CACFP sponsoring organizations’ per 

home administrative rates need to be increased to allow the program’s tradition of excellent nutrition education to continue. 

The need for affordable quality child care is growing and the 

need for good nutritious meals and healthy eating habits have 

never been greater. Congress needs to make the necessary improvements so the number of children participating in the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program can once again grow to meet these needs. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for their attention to this important program and the Forum looks forward to 

working with you in any way it can. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hofstedt. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hofstedt can be found in the appendix on page 139.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Our final member of this panel is Mr. Don Wambles, who is President of the WIC Farmers Market Association. Mr. 

Wambles, welcome. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DON WAMBLES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF FARMERS MARKET NUTRITION

PROGRAMS, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 

Mr. WAMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today. Our national 

association represents 37 States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and five InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Aug 27, 2003 Jkt 088866 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88866.TXT SAG1 PsN: TOSH
40

dian Tribal organizations that operate the WIC Farmers Market 

Nutrition Program, as well as 36 State agencies that operate the 

Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Program. 

The Farmers Market Nutrition Programs meet two very important objectives. One, they provide fresh, locally grown fresh fruits 

and vegetables to low-income women, children, and seniors, and we 

do this by giving them coupons that they can spend only at local 

farmers’ markets with the actual producers that grow those fruits 

and vegetables. 

Then, second, it provides additional income for those small fruit 

and vegetable growers, and in the down economic times that we 

have right now, this is extremely important for those small producers. 

Last year, we served more than 2.7 million WIC clients and seniors with these programs, allowing them to receive fresh, wholesome fresh fruits and vegetables, and approximately 14,500 small 

farmers across America benefited from additional income through 

these programs. 

The Farmers Market Nutrition Program creates a direct link between production agriculture and thousands of low-income women 

and children. The Farmers Market Nutrition Program educates the 

WIC clients about the importance of fresh fruits and vegetables in 

their diets. It changes eating habits, and it increases sales to small 

farmers. 

Last year, through the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program alone, farmers received almost $22 million in coupon sales. We 

have not even added in the additional impact where they spend 

cash dollars whenever they come there. That is just through the 

coupon sales alone. 

The Farmers Market Nutrition Programs are the only programs 

that provide direct benefits to small farmers and low-income families with a minimal amount of effort. We deliver nutritious fruits 

and vegetables to needy women, children, and seniors, and additional income is provided to farmers with the added benefit of exposing young mothers to the stable family environment provided by 

small family farmers in visiting the farmers’ markets. 

This program is more than just giving recipients $20 and turning 

them loose and allowing them to go spend it. We provide nutrition 

education. We also provide them with assistance in shopping at the 

farmers’ market. We assist them in learning how to shop, what 

products to buy and teach them how to prepare that product once 

they get home. We have an education component built in with it. 

This is extremely different than buying something ready to eat 

and taking it home or stopping by somewhere and purchasing 

something and eating it. This effort of teaching them how to shop 

and how to prepare it takes time. It is not something that can be 

done quickly. For those of us that have the knowledge of how to 

do this, we must take the time and the energies that is necessary 

to teach those who do not know how, especially our young mothers 

that do not know, because they can become contributing portions 

of our society. The Farmers Market Nutrition Program is a win-win 

for all of society. 

The WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program requires a 30 percent State match on the part of the States to receive the Federal 

41

dollars associated with it. As State budgets have tightened, it has 

become increasingly more difficult to find the necessary dollars to 

provide those State match funds. I sincerely believe that States 

need to have a stake or provide part of the money associated with 

these programs, but during the current economic conditions, it is 

very tough for States to accomplish that. We have even had some 

States that have had very successful programs have to drop out of 

the program last year simply because they did not have State 

match moneys available to draw down the Federal funds. 

It is extremely hard to explain to a farmer why you had a program 1 year and you don’t the next, but it is even more difficult 

to look into the face of a child and explain to that child, you got 

this program last year but we don’t have it this year. There is 

nothing more heart wrenching than to see that. 

It is even more frustrating to us to work to establish a program, 

to build interest and enthusiasm in it, and then to see that program die because of State budget crisis. 

Therefore, our association is asking that you give serious consideration to changing the State match requirements to allow us to 

continue to operate this very important program. The State match 

requirement of 30 percent of the total Federal grant—we are having to match the total Federal grant at 30 percent—has been and 

continues to be an obstacle to expanding the program or to growing 

the program within States or to growing the program and increasing it in additional States. 

We are asking that we only have to match the administrative 

portion of the Federal dollars, just like all other nutrition programs, not to match the food portion of the Federal dollars. 

Second, the Federal benefit per recipient has been capped at $20 

since the inception of this program, and this is the only program 

that I know of that you can look at for a period of ten or 12 years 

that has not had an increase in the benefit level. Everything else 

that is associated with the program, the farmers’ input cost and the 

cost of food, has gone up during this period of time; and yet, here 

we are, we are still capping the Federal benefit that we are giving 

these young mothers and children at $20 and we expect them to 

receive the same amount of food. It can’t happen. We sincerely ask 

that you look seriously at increasing the Federal benefit level to a 

maximum of $30. 

It is extremely important that these programs continue to 

strengthen local markets. That is one of the goals that they were 

intended for. We also need the flexibility back at the States’ level 

to address local situations where farmers’ markets are neither 

abundant or available. 

While this hearing is focused on re-authorization of the 

WICFMNP, I would be remiss if I didn’t speak real briefly about 

the Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Program. It is a sister program to the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. FNS has 

done a tremendous job of implementing this program in the two 

short years that it has been out. It is an example of the out-of-thebox thinking that OMB advocates. The seniors’ program has been 

so successful that it has far exceeded the $15 million allocated 

through the Farm bill. We had a little over $28 million in requests 

42

from States this year, so there are a lot of programs that have gone 

unfunded. 

In closing, I would like to just share with you two experiences 

to maybe put a face on the Farmers Market Nutrition Programs. 

At one of our markets this year, I was there and I observed a 

young WIC mother making a purchase of fruits and vegetables 

with a little boy about three or 4 years old, wasn’t much taller than 

this table, and whenever his mother made that purchase with 

those coupons, you could see the excitement on that child’s face, almost to the extent that he couldn’t have been any happier had 

Santa Claus been standing there. It was unreal. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WAMBLES. I could not imagine seeing what I was seeing in 

Montgomery, Alabama. When she handed him that basket of 

produce that she had just purchased, he just literally glowed and 

he looked up at his mama and he said, ‘‘Mama, are we going to 

have something good to eat tonight?’’ Those words just struck at 

my heart. I could not imagine that we had people, children right 

there at home, that had to even ask that question. This program 

is meeting a tremendous need. 

Finally, a similar situation, an elderly gentleman was at one of 

our markets. I was drawn to him because of the cap that he was 

wearing. On his cap, it said, ‘‘I am a World War II Veteran.’’ With 

the situation that is going on right now, I could not help but speak 

to him, and he told me that the seniors’ program was extremely 

beneficial to him. He said, ‘‘Without the program, I wouldn’t have 

moneys to come and shop at the farmers’ market.’’

As we continued talking, the glow in his eyes as he told me about 

his military service and how proud he was to have served us, it 

saddened to me to think that he qualified for the program. His face 

and his words or what his service has provided you and me. He is 

one example of the many veterans being served by the seniors’ program. 

In summary, the Farmers Market Nutrition Programs are providing at-risk children, young mothers, seniors, and small family 

farmers benefits through the WIC and Seniors Farmers Market 

Nutrition Programs. Lifestyles are changed. Bonds are formed between recipients and small farmers every day. Small fruit and vegetable growers receive direct income in these difficult economic 

times. 

Mr. Chairman, our association stands ready to work with you 

and Members of Congress and USDA to continue to strengthen 

these programs, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wambles, for your 

testimony and your participation in this panel. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wambles can be found in the appendix on page 146.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lincoln, you have been here a while 

today and haven’t had a chance to say a word. I feel bad about 

that. You may proceed making a statement or ask questions, as 

you wish. 

43

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask for unanimous consent, if I may, to put my entire statement in the record. 

I don’t want to take too much time from anybody. 

I first want to start by thanking the chairman for his leadership 

in this issue and his willingness to—not only his patience today but 

his willingness to devote the kind of time from this committee to 

an issue that is so very important. I appreciate his very strong 

commitment to nutrition, both he and the ranking member provide 

us in this committee. I do want to thank each and every one of you 

all for being here today. You are somewhat preaching to the choir 

with me, as a matter of fact. 

I just want to mention a couple of things. I, too, as a mother of 

school-age children recognize the importance of what we can do in 

not just providing food to individuals, to children, to the elderly, 

but the lifestyle changes we can provide and the other ways that 

we can really affect people’s lives. 

I was late today, Mr. Chairman, because I was in the Finance 

Committee at a hearing on Medicare, so I went from the elderly to 

the young people in many ways when you talk about nutrition programs. One of the things we talked about was coordination of care 

and looking at nutrition as an enormous part of our elderly people’s 

lives, and we teach a lot of those lessons in these types of programs 

when we are dealing with children, both in providing them good 

choices, but in some instances, just simply providing them the kind 

of nutrition and means that they need on a daily basis. 

Two years ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program issued a report that ranked 

Arkansas as one of the bottom five States for food security and 

hunger. Now, Mr. Chairman, jicama has made its way to Arkansas 

and Mississippi, but not in great numbers. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. For States like ours, and particularly mine in 

Arkansas, with the sizable agricultural sector that we have, almost 

5 percent of our households in Arkansas do not always have adequate food. That is really inexcusable in this day and age, at a time 

when we are the greatest force, the greatest nation on this globe, 

to think that there are hungry children. 

I have an older sister that taught in the public schools in Arkansas, and when she quit, I asked her, I said, what made you quit 

teaching? She said, ‘‘Well, there were several things,’’ she said, ‘‘but 

unfortunately, it was bus duty.’’ I said, bus duty? That couldn’t 

have been that hard. She said, ‘‘Well, once a month, I was at bus 

duty and,’’ she said, ‘‘it was incredible.’’ She said, ‘‘There were kids 

that were clinging to my leg that didn’t want to go home. They 

were hungry, they were sick, and they were frightened.’’

Well, we can’t do everything about all of those problems, but we 

can provide children a nutritious meal at least once, if not twice, 

a day in our school systems, and it is absolutely critical in that 

overall component of trying to do more on behalf of our children, 

who are truly the future leaders of this great country. 

The nutrition programs are key in eliminating hunger and ensuring the health and well-being of our young people. Unfortunately, 

44

under current economic circumstances, we are finding that people 

who never dreamed they would be having to access these programs 

are looking to these programs. We want to make the process as 

seamless. We don’t want them to be a process of lots of paperwork 

and embarrassment and humiliation in order to get parents, to 

allow them to get their children into these programs or to go to 

farmers’ markets. We don’t want these programs to be something 

that are a challenge or that are difficult for them to access. If they 

need them, we want to provide them, and there is great opportunity for us to be able to do that. There are so many programs 

that have been very, very productive. 

The immediately and long-term benefits of the WIC program has 

proven it to be one of our most successful. There is no doubt that 

we can improve on that and we should be looking on ways to do 

that. 

I am amazed that stolen formula is the most—the largest, is that 

right, Ms. Curry? 

Ms. CURRY. One of the ten largest. 

Senator LINCOLN. One of ten. That is amazing to me. With twin 

boys, I can remember buying formula in bulk, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. It was amazing. To think of those individuals 

who find themselves in a circumstance where they can’t provide, it 

is unbelievable. 

We have seen, particularly since its inception, the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program, over the last decade, participation in 

this particular program has risen 73 percent in Arkansas. 

Clearly, there is a need. The WIC Farmers Market and the WIC 

program, summer feeding program, some of our adult feeding programs, all of these are serving a critical need in this nation and 

it is so important. 

The last thing I will address is that many of our colleagues sat 

around this very table when we discussed the Farm bill and we 

talked about the programs. We talked about authorization and implementation. We addressed the need to provide appropriate levels 

for funding for these programs, and I just want to take this opportunity to echo that concern, as well. We need to make sure that—

at least I hope we won’t leave the committee without saying that 

we must preserve the investment in their entirety in the budget 

that we approach as we go through this budget process because if 

there is anything that is elemental, it is making sure that people 

have at least something to eat, even if it is not enough, and that 

is so true in this time of economic recession. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for addressing what is a very important issue today among our families, our schools, our elderly, and 

I hope that our distinguished witnesses here today, both in this 

panel and in others, will continue to work with us on the committee, because we do have our work cut out for us and we have 

a lot to do. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dayton. 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief because, as you say, the hour is getting late and the M&M peanuts 

45

down in the vending machine are out by about one o’clock, so I 

have to get down there. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DAYTON. I would like to go back, Mr. Hofstedt, to your 

point about putting another layer of reporting requirement on providers and on parents and families. I don’t understand, Mr. Chairman. I have these credit cards. I can go anywhere, as we all can, 

in the country, thousands and thousands of vendors and I don’t 

have to fill out a form every time. If I did, I wouldn’t be a consumer. Electronically, it can establish my identity and qualifications. It can establish a limit of expenditure and the like. Even at 

the government level, I have a driver’s license. I can go and it establishes my identity and my driving record, unfortunately, but 

anywhere in Minnesota and in many other States. 

I don’t see why, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, if we are adding the 

desire to be fiscally responsible, as we should, that we are also responsible to the spirit and the intent of the programs and that we 

provide—we take on and instruct the USDA to take on, at least the 

Federal Government to take on, if we want these additional safeguards, if we want the information, if we want to set limits and 

the like, that we take it on ourselves to do that and to do so in 

a way that brings the eligibility for all these different programs 

ideally under one roof and one card so that we put that on ourselves rather than on the providers and on the recipients. I just 

think it is getting way out of hand. 

Mr. Hofstedt, you said this reporting requirement has really reduced the participation in these programs, so we are contradicting 

our own intentions by doing so. 

Mr. HOFSTEDT. Absolutely. For providers and parents that have 

to deal with all the income eligibility forms, and especially if you 

are talking for a provider who is getting 14 cents for a snack, they 

just say, forget about it, because what can you serve for 14 cents? 

They are required to serve a nutritious meal. What is happening 

is they are dropping out of the program and going back to serving 

Kool-Aid. It is cheaper. 

Senator DAYTON. That is just pointless. Mr. Chairman, I just had 

the opportunity and I brought them into the hearing room to witness, I have three experts on the school lunch program in Minnesota, three high school students from Minnesota, and I asked 

them about the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables and they 

said, well, sometimes they have a salad bar, but the salad is iceberg lettuce and usually nothing else and it is often turning brown, 

which is not exactly desirable. Then one said that they wish they 

had applesauce every day, but they don’t. I said, well, do they ever 

buy just fresh apples? They said, well, sometimes, but those are 

just the red ones and they are bitter. 

You would think we could at least—I don’t think we even have 

to have master chefs in these programs, but we ought to be able 

to provide fresh produce that is edible and appealing. I mean, it 

just seems that some of the basics here, Mr. Chairman, and I 

agree, we want to be nutritious, we have to serve a lot, a lot of students, but there are ways in which we can keep this simple and 

yet make it possible for kids to actually enjoy things we want them 

to eat. Otherwise, they are going to go find the M&Ms. 

46

I might say that we as adults, as someone said earlier, we don’t 

model necessarily the behavior we want our children to follow. If 

anybody wants to comment on that, I would welcome it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Let me thank all of you for being here and members of this panel 

and providing us your observations and thoughts about how we can 

improve these programs and some of the essential things that we 

should consider as we proceed to reauthorize the Child Nutrition 

Act. 

I was interested in Ms. Leppert’s comment in the statement that 

WIC vendors should be food stamp authorized, as well. Would this 

be good for participants, or what is the reason for that suggestion? 

Ms. LEPPERT. The reason for that suggestion is in terms of program integrity. It is just easier that they are food stamp authorized. The food stamp program has the better ability to check on the 

programs than WIC does. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Curry, you raised a troubling point about infant formula theft and the relabeling and redating issue in the food 

stores. It occurred to me, what do we need to do about that in the 

re-authorization bill? Is there a step we can take or something that 

we could do in the legislation that would help improve that situation? 

Ms. CURRY. The grocers who participate in the WIC program feel 

that the Department of Agriculture should require the State to 

come up with a contractual agreement with their distributors who 

make the infant formula and possibly even develop an audit trail 

from manufacturers to retailers so that infant formula could only 

be purchased from authorized distributors that would be designated by the State. When we have the ‘‘black market’’ infant formula, it ends up in places where there is absolutely no way of 

knowing where it came from, what the expiration date is , or even 

if the product is actually what it says it is. The Department could 

come up with a more stringent definition for authorized distributors. Formula could only be purchased from authorized distributors. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very troubling situation. I know counterfeiting of not only food stuffs but drugs, things that are over-thecounter drugs, we had an instance where Senator Kohl, who is a 

member of our Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and 

we have worked closely together on some of these issues, we had 

representatives from the Food and Drug Administration and HHS 

giving us a presentation on how widespread counterfeiting is in our 

stores and retail establishments these days, and I am sure your industry is very aware of this, as well, so I appreciate your bringing 

that to our attention and reminding us that we can play a role in 

helping to deal with that. 

Ms. LEPPERT. If I may make a comment, WIC is also very concerned about counterfeiting of formula, and anything that can be 

done to prevent that counterfeiting and any time that we could 

work with FMI to come up with a rule or regulation that would 

help prevent that, we would be in favor of. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Caplan, we appreciate your 

being here and the basket you brought along. I hope you are going 

to leave that. 

47

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CAPLAN. If you don’t ask me any questions. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You point out something that was interesting to 

me. In your testimony, you state that our commodity distribution 

program sometimes looks like a free-for-all among commodity 

groups to fight for sales, et cetera. I was thinking, this week, we 

had the soybean farmers of America were up here, the American 

Soybean Association, and one of the things they were pointing out 

was the fact that a lot of emphasis is being placed on soy products 

now and how these are nutritionally beneficial and, in some cases, 

more healthy as choices for food stuffs than some of our traditional 

products are. 

You don’t want to keep or prevent the distribution of some of 

these food stuffs even though they are still not as widely used or 

as known if they are truly good. They are not all bad just because 

they are distributed as choices by the Department of Agriculture. 

Would you agree with that, or how do we let some of these products 

get exposed to a potential user group? 

Ms. CAPLAN. Well, what was meant by that in my testimony was 

that there are some organizations that have huge marketing budgets and huge lobbying budgets, as I understand it, that have incredible influence here, and consequently, sometimes their influence is felt more strongly than those of us, maybe fresh soybean, 

like tofu and vegetarian products or fresh fruits and vegetables 

that don’t have huge marketing and lobbying budgets and can’t be 

as influential. That is what was meant by it. 

The opportunity that could be given to other foods, which I was 

looking at the exotic produce. The kids were a lot more interested 

in trying Asian pears than they would be those red mealy apples 

that Senator Dayton was talking about because they were given a 

choice of something that probably their parents had never tried 

and they may never have tried at home. It would be wonderful if 

this committee would find a way to give the opportunity for different foods that are fairly priced to be included in these programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hofstedt, you mentioned for-profit child care 

centers and their difficulty of participating in some of these programs. I mentioned Senator Kohl’s name a while ago. He and I included a provision in the agriculture appropriations bill that permitted reimbursement to these child care centers for providing food 

to the children under their care. Do you have a position on the 

value of a provision like that? Would you support that? 

Mr. HOFSTEDT. Absolutely. Our position with the Forum is very 

simple: Feed children. If we can get good food into kids, that is 

wonderful, and any way we can expand the program, that is fine. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wambles, you mentioned the difficulty of 

coming up with matching funds at the State level to permit the operation of the Farmers Market Program. I wonder if you know how 

many States have actually stopped participating in the program because of the matching fund requirement. 

Mr. WAMBLES. To my knowledge, we had one that had to drop 

out of the program last year, and I am not sure about the 2003. 

I do not think we have as many States in the program this year 

as we did last year. 

48

The CHAIRMAN. We ought to, as you do, encourage participation 

in that program and if we have the matching requirement set too 

high or if any amount is too high, we ought to take that into careful account as we go through the re-authorization of this program. 

I appreciate very much everybody’s attendance at the hearing 

today. We have had a good hearing. We have some excellent ideas 

to consider as we proceed to try to improve this program and make 

sure it reaches those who need assistance, government assistance 

to help meet dietary requirements and health requirements. We 

want a well-fed but well-nourished, at the same time, citizenry, 

and that Congress has demonstrated its willingness to take a lead 

in that. 

This building we are in is named for Richard Russell, who was 

given credit for the school lunch program. It was his legislation 

that began that program. There have been other leaders of Congress who have improved it and expanded it and made it better, 

and our committee is going to be committed to carrying on that tradition, and we appreciate your assistance in identifying ways we 

can make it better and do a better job. 

Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X

APRIL 3, 2003

50


88866.001
51


88866.002
52


88866.003
53


88866.004
54


88866.005
55


88866.006
56


88866.007
57


88866.008
58


88866.009
59


88866.010
60


88866.011
61


88866.012
62


88866.013
63


88866.014
64


88866.015
65


88866.016
66


88866.017
67


88866.018
68


88866.019
69


88866.020
70


88866.021
71


88866.022
72


88866.023
73


88866.024
74


88866.025
75


88866.026
76


88866.027
77


88866.028
78


88866.029
79


88866.030
80


88866.031
81


88866.032
82


88866.033
83


88866.034
84


88866.035
85


88866.036
86


88866.037
87


88866.038
88


88866.039
89


88866.040
90


88866.041
91


88866.042
92


88866.043
93


88866.044
94


88866.045
95


88866.046
96


88866.047
97


88866.048
98


88866.049
99


88866.050
100


88866.051
101


88866.052
102


88866.053
103


88866.054
104


88866.055
105


88866.056
106


88866.057
107


88866.058
108


88866.059
109


88866.060
110


88866.061
111


88866.062
112


88866.063
113


88866.064
114


88866.065
115


88866.066
116


88866.067
117


88866.068
118


88866.069
119


88866.070
120


88866.071
121


88866.072
122


88866.073
123


88866.074
124


88866.075
125


88866.076
126


88866.077
127


88866.078
128


88866.079
129


88866.080
130


88866.081
131


88866.082
132


88866.083
133


88866.084
134


88866.085
135


88866.086
136


88866.087
137


88866.088
138


88866.089
139


88866.090
140


88866.091
141


88866.092
142


88866.093
143


88866.094
144


88866.095
145


88866.096
146


88866.097
147


88866.098
148


88866.099
149


88866.100
(151)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

APRIL 3, 2003

152


88866.101
153


88866.102
154


88866.103
155


88866.104
156


88866.105
157


88866.106
158


88866.107
159


88866.108
160


88866.109
161


88866.110
162


88866.111
163


88866.112
164


88866.113
165


88866.114
166


88866.115
167


88866.116
168


88866.117
169


88866.118
170


88866.119
171


88866.120
172


88866.121
173


88866.122
174


88866.123
175


88866.124
176


88866.125
177


88866.126
178


88866.127
179


88866.128
180


88866.129
181


88866.130
182


88866.131
183


88866.132
184


88866.133
185


88866.134
186


88866.135
187


88866.136
188


88866.137
189


88866.138
190


88866.139
191


88866.140
192


88866.141
193


88866.142
194


88866.143
195


88866.144
196


88866.145
197


88866.146
198


88866.147
199


88866.148
200


88866.149
201


88866.150
202


88866.151
203


88866.152
204


88866.153
205


88866.154
206


88866.155
207


88866.156
208


88866.157
209


88866.158
210


88866.159
211


88866.160
212


88866.161
213


88866.162
214


88866.163
215


88866.164
216


88866.165
217


88866.166
218


88866.167
219


88866.168
220


88866.169
221


88866.170
222


88866.171
223


88866.172
224


88866.173
225


88866.174
226


88866.175
227


88866.176
228


88866.177
229


88866.178
230


88866.179
231


88866.180
232


88866.181
233


88866.182
234


88866.183
235


88866.184
236


88866.185
237


88866.186
238


88866.187
239


88866.188
240


88866.189
241


88866.190
242


88866.191
243


88866.192
244


88866.193
245


88866.194
(247)

QUESTION AND ANSWER

APRIL 3, 2003

248


88866.195
249


88866.196
250


88866.197
251

Æ


88866.198