Date: 1984-07-27
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 5151. the Hunger Relief Act of 1984. In response to the short title of the bill. it has been asked. "Does hunger really exist in the United States today?" I wish the answer were different. but It is very clearly "Yes." While an improving economy has resulted in a reduced level of unemployment. there are many areas of the country and many groups of our citizens that have not benefited from this improvement. The Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing. Consumer Relations. and Nutrition of our committee. under the outstanding leadership of its chairman. LEON PANETTA. and BILL EMERSON. the ranking minority member. has held hearings over the length and breadth of this land. The hearings disclosed a tremendous need for food assistance on the part of those segments of our people whom economic recovery has simply passed by. Onsite visits. and testimony by representatives of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. State and local governments. operators of soup kitchens and food pantries. and others dramatically portrayed the increased demand for emergency food assistance in many parts of the country. The Presidents Task Force on Food Assistance also examined this problem. Their findings are perhaps best Illustrated by their lengthy list of recommendations for addressing the situation they found to exist. Many of those recommendations are implemented In H.R. 5151. Mr. Chairman. the Committee on Agriculture has worked diligently on this legislation. The bill. as reported. is quite different from H.R. 5151 as introduced. Provisions relating to the child nutrition and elderly feeding programs that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor have been deleted. And many other modifications were made. The result is a moderate but meaningful billone that goes far toward ensuring that the needy among us have access to a decent diet. The bill enjoys remarkably broad bipartisan support among members of the Agriculture Committee. There is a significant difference of opinion among our members as to only two provisions. There is. therefore. broad agreement among committee members as to steps that should be taken to ensure that the Food Stamp Program continues to be an effective and compassionate nationwide response to the food needs of the less fortunate in this land of plenty. I will summarize the recommendations of the Presidents Task Force to which the bill responds. The Task Force recoamended that benefits under the program be restored to a level that represents the full cost of the socalled Thifty Food Plan. a lowcost dietary plan developed by the Department of Agriculture. Under current law. through fiscal year 1985. program benefits represent only 99 percent of the cost of the plan. The bill would. for fiscal year 1985. put Into place the Task Force recommendation. For fiscal year 1986. it would increase the benefits to represent 101 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. For subsequent years. It would return the benefit level to 100 percent of the cost of the plan. But It would recomend a study of the basis for the program benefits. as now determined. to be completed so that the Congress may have its findings in hand for consideration in reauthorizing the program in 1985. The Presidents Task Force also recommended that households. all of whose members receive assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children or the Supplemental Security Income Programs. be made categorically eligible for food stamps. The bill accomplishes this objective. The Task Force further urged an Increase in work incentives for those who participate in food assistance programs. H.R. 5151 responds to this recommendation. It increases from 18 percent to 20 percent the amount of a households earned income that is deducted in calculating the households net income for pfogram purposes. Thus. the concept of work incentives is furthered. The Presidents Task Force also recommended updating the~assets or resources eligibility standards of the program. Consistent with Task force recommendations. the bill would. effective April 1. 1985. increase the assets eligibility standard for the elderly from $3.000 to $3.500. and for other households from $1.500 to $2.250. It also exempts from counting for program purposes property directly related to the maintenance or use of a vehicle that does not count as an asset for program purposes because it produces incomea taxi or truck. for exampleor is used to transport a handicapped person. This provision was included to eliminate confusion that has arisen in the past as to the appropriate treatment of property of this naturesuch as lots on which vehicles are parked and maintenance equipment for such vehiclesin calculating the value of household assets. Further. the bill would increase from $4.500 to $5.500 the threshold above which the value of "nonexempt" household vehicles used for continuing or obtaining employment. or for other household purposes. is counted in computing the amount of a househulds assets for program purposes. For example. if such a car is worth $6.000. $1.500 is now counted in this computation. The $4.500 threshold for counting vehicle value has not been increased since 1977. notwithstanding a better than 90percent increase in the cost of used cars over that period. I would add. however. that the modification in the vehicle value threshold was the subject of some disagreement within our committee. Some members believe that the present $4.500 threshold should be maintained. * With respect to other aspects of the program. the Presidents Task Force recommended that State agencies that operate the program implement procedures for staggering their issuance of stamps throughout the entire month. and keep food stamp offices open during evening and weekend hours to better serve recipients. particularly those who work. The bill also addresses these recommendations. And the Task Force recommended that the homeless not be excluded from participation in the program merely because they have no fixed address. While current provisions of law do not exclude the homeless from the program. H.R. 5151 contains provisions making it explicitly clear that the homeless are eligible to participate if they qualify under the regular eligibility standards of the program. Although the bill requires that State agencies insure that methods for certifying the homeless limit program participation to eligible households. it is not the committees Intent that State agencies analy to the homeless extraordinary certification measures not applicable to other households seeking to participate in the program. For example. the homeless should receive expedited service under the same circumstances that apply in the case of other applicants. In addition. the bill would make other modifications in the legislation governing the program. It wotild restore to the State agencies the option of using a variety of procedures for calculating household income for program purposes. Under present law. the State agencies are required to employ what is referred to as "retrospective budgeting." together with monthly reporting. for certain households. This procedure entails. for these households. a monthly report of their circumstances and a determination of their incomeand thus their program benefitson the basis of their reports. which reflect income in the preceding month. A majority of .he State agencies have strongly objected to this mandatory process because. among other reasons. it is said. first. to impose an undue burden upon participants to submit. and upon the State agencies to handle. a huge volume of reports on a monthly basis. and second. not to be costeffective. The provisions of the bill are designed to give State agencies a broad choice in fashioning the procedures to be used to determine household income. Under the bill. the State agencies may require households to report monthly or at less frequent intervals. But. in this regard. no change would be made in the statutory requirement that households not required to submit monthly or other periodic reports must report to the State agency any changes in household income or other circumstances necessary for accurate eligibility and benefit determination. The State agency would also be free to choose whether or to what extent it would utilized retrospective budgeting. In connection with this provision. I would note that the bill requires that the State agencies use "prospective accounting" for households upon their application for the program. This provision essentially reflects current regulations governing the program. It provides that when households enter the program. ordinarily because of a change in their household status. they will not. during their beginning period of program participation. experience the hardship that application of "retrospective budgeting" could well impose upon them. While the bill would give the States a great deal of flexibility in these program matters. it would. on the other hand. effective beginning with fiscal 1986. make the States liable to the Federal Government for the full value of all excess coupons issued during a fiscal year attributable to State administrative error rates exceeding 5 percent. This change would continue the 5 percent administrative error rate standard and that becomes effective under current law on October 1. 1984. but it would impose. beginning in fiscal year 1986. more stringent sanctions than exist under current law for States that fail to meet the 5percent standard. The provision of the bill giving the States an option on "monthly reporting/retrospective budgeting" was the subject of some disagreement within the committee. Some members believe that the monthly reporting requirements that are a customary element of retrospective accounting instill a useful discipline into the program. However. the view of most of the committee. a view With which I concur. is that available information does not establish the efficacy of these requirements and that the combination of State option on these procedures. together with more stringent sanctions for State agency error. is most likely to achieve the desired error rate reduction. Further. the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to take certain steps to enhance the effectiveness of measures designed to ascertain the nutritional status of lowincome households. It requifes the Department of Agriculture to include in its food consumption surveys a representative sample of lowincome households and requires. to the extent practicable. that it collect information on food and other household expenditures. It also authorizes additional funds that would be used by the cooperative extension services in the States in expanding their programs for providing food. consumer. and nutrition education to lowincome households. Other features of the bill include revising the definition of "disabled" to include several categories of persons whose disabilities are equivalent to those of the disabled now included in the act. This would make available to similarly situated disabled persons certain special considerations under the program. H.R. 5151 would also increase the current ceiling on the combined deduction for dependent care and excess shelter expenses in a manner that would more adequately recognize the heavy expense borne by many food stamp households. particularly in connection with child care costs incurred by those who work. and to a degree relieve the "heat or eat" dilemma faced by many lowincome individuals. The bill would also implement measures to insure that the program is effectively carried out on an emergency basis in areas suffering from disasters by requiring the Secretary to dispatch members of his "Disaster Task Force" to affected areas. The objective here is to be sure that State and local food stamp offices are familiar with the programs special provisions for emergency situations. *H.R. 5151 would require that State agencies use improved tools for verifying household income that have been made available under provisions of law recently enacted by Congress involving access to tax return Information on unearned income. And it would strengthen the job search program carried out by State agencies under which certain program participants who are required to register for work are also required to participate in certain job search activities. State agencies would have the latitude to shape their job search programs in what they believe is the most effective manner. H.R. 5151 would allow them to exempt from the program categories of household members whose participation would be impracticable. and to exempt individual household membersor to suspend application of program requirements to such membersbecause personal circumstances make their participation impracticable. Thus. the bill contemplates that State agencies will target their job search activities on that segment of the caseload required to register for work that will most likely benefit from such activities. In related matters. the bill establishes a 4year pilot food assistance program for the rural areas of Alaska where. because of unique characteristics of remoteness of small populations and other factors. operation of the food stamp program is not practicable. The bill gives the State and the Secretary a great deal of fledibility in fashioning a program to meet the truly extraordinary conditions present in Alaskas rural areas. The provisions of the bill establishing a pilot food assistance program for the rural areas of Alaska include a requirement that the basis for the funding for the program for the fiscal year 1986 is the amount that would have been expended to carry out the regular food stamp program in such areas during that fiscal year. While this base is subject to adjustment. as provided in the bill. I wish to make very clear that this base is to reflect the value of the enhanced program benefits for rural Alaska that were required by Public Law 9798. approved on December 22. 1981. H.R. 5151. as originally introduced. contained a directive requiring the Secretary forthwith to issue regulations implementing the statutory provision enacted in 1981. Before committee maikup of the bill was completed. the Secretary finally issued such regulations. Therefore. the committee deleted this directive during its consideration of the bill. In view of these developments. the committee. in prescribing the basic funding level for the pilot food assistance program for rural Alaska for fiscal year 1986. understood that the level will. of necessity. reflect the special allotment levels that the Secretarys new regulations belatedly have put into effect. Even though I believe the legislative language requires this result. I emphasize the point to eliminate any possible misunderstanding as to what the bill contemplates. The bill would also prohibit banks and other financial Institutions from assessing fees or charges for redeeming coupons for food stores that participate in the program if those stores present those coupons generally in a manner that confonis with the requireient s placed upon financial institut ions in presenting coupons to the Federal Reserve banks. And it would expand the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. under which food assistance is now provided to certain women. infants. and children. to permit program operators to include the elderly among program beneficiaries. so long as doing so will not diminish assistance to women. infants. and children. Mr. Chairman. the provisions of H.R. 5151 do not provide the degree of additional assistance that some believe should be made available to our needy. However. the bill does adopt realistic measures to target its enhanced benefits in a manner recommended by many who are concerned with problems of the hungry. including the Presidents Task Force on Food Assistance. It recognizes the budgetary realities with which we are faced and. in my judgment. represents a judicious and balanced approach. given the various competing influences under which we must legislate. I would add that the costs associated with the bill. as modified by our committee. fall within the spending target of the budget resolution passed by the House. For these reasons. the great majority of the provisions of the bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Committee on Agriculture. I ask Members to give H.R. 5151 the enthusiastic support I believe it merits. Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California .