This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http : //books . google . com/
MICKEY LELAND OHPHOOD
HUNGER REUEF ACT
(Secretary Mike Espy)
Y 4,M?/f:/03H/ STANFORD
liBRARlES
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 529
P59-71
APRIL 28, 1993
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
E (KIKA) DE LA QARZA, Texas, Chairman
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jit, California,
Vice ChcUmum
CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina
GLENN ENGUSH, Oklahoma
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
TIMOTHY J. PENNY, Minnesota
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
BILL SARPALIUS, Texas
JILL L. LONG, Indiana
GARY A. CONDIT, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
EVA M CLAYTON, North Carolina
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
JAY INSLEE, Washington
THOMAS J. BARLOW HI, Kentucky
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TIM HOLDEN, Pennqrhrania
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jit, Georgia
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas,
Ranking Minority Member
BILL EMERSON, Missouri
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
TOM LEWIS, Florida
ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon
LARRY COMBEST, Texas
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
JOHN T. DOOUTTLE, California
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
BOB GOODLATTE, ^^rginia
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
Pbofessional Staff
DiANNE Powell, Staff Director
Vernie Hubert, Chief Counael and Legislative Director
Gary R. MrrcBBiL, Minority Stojff Director
James A. Davis, Press Secretary
(ID
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
Paige
H.R 529, a bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to respond to the
himger emergency afiOicting American families and children, to attack the
causes of hunger among all Americans, to ensure an adequate diet for
low-income people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness because
of the shortage of afifordable housing, to promote self-sufficiency amon^
food stamp recipients, to assist families afifected by adverse economic condi-
tions, to simpbfy food assistance programs' admmistration, and for other
purposes 22
Canaay. Hon. Charles T., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Flonaa, prepared statement 20
Clavton^ Hon. Eva M., a Representative in Congress frx>m the State of North
Carolma, prepared statement 12
de la Garza, Hon. E (Kika), a Representative in Congress frx>m the State
of Texas, opening statement 1
Preparea stat^ent 4
Lewis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress frx>m the State of Florida,
prepared statement 18
McKinney, Hon. Cynthia A^, a Representative in Congress frx>m the State
of Geoma, prepared statement 16
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress frx>m the State of Kansas,
opening statement 41
Prepared statement 43
Witness
Espy. Mike, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 49
Prepared statement 67
(HI)
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
MICKEY LELAND CHILDHOOD HUNGER
RELIEF ACT
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28» 1993
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, piirsuant to notice, at 1:35 p.m., in room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. E (Kika) de la Garza
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives English, Stenholm, Volkmer, Penny,
Long, Peterson, Dooley, Clayton, Hilliard, Barlow, Pomeroy, Hold-
en, McKinney, Baesler, Tliurman, Bishop, Lambert, Thompson,
Roberts, Emerson, Gimderson, Lewis, Smith, Allard, Barrett,
Nussle^ Boehner, Ewing, Goodlatte, Dickey, Pombo, and Canady.
Staff present: Julia M. Paradis, assistant coimsel; William E.
O'Conner, Jr., minority policy coorcUnator; John E. Hogan, minority
coimsel; Glenda L. Temple, clerk; Anita R. Brown, James A. Davis,
and Lynn Gallagher.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. E (KIKA) de la GARZA, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
Before we proceed, with the permission of the members, we have
some guests who I would like to introduce to the membership and
to the Secretary. It's our honor to have with us today, and who will
be here, I imderstand, for several days, the president of the Fed-
eration of Swedish Farmers, and he also is the chairman of the
International Federation of Agriculture Producers, Mr. Bo
Dockered from Sweden.
We welcome you, sir, and those who come with you.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. We're very happy to have you here and look for-
ward to further meetings with you while you're here.
Mr. Secretary, we're very happy to have you again. Welcome
home. We're always happy to have you come back to our commit-
tee.
We meet today in order to continue our ongoing effort to address
domestic and foreign assistance programs. Our objectives at this
hearing and the subcommittee hearing immediately following this
hearing are to review the administration of U.S. food assistance
programs, both domestic and foreign, and to try and determine how
these programs can be improved and made more effective within
the constraints of the Federal budget.
(1)
Digitized by
Google
Let there be no doubt about this committee's commitment and
my personal interest in tiie programs that help meet the food needs
of low-income and homeless people here at home and to impover-
ished and starving people abroad. Regardless of what happens else-
where in Congress, our responsibility and commitment to focus
Government resources on fighting himger here at home and abroad
have always been there. Perhaps we do not get enough credit for
our efforts to improve our nutrition programs, but it is here in the
Committee on Agriculture that real legislative accomplishments
have been attempted and achieved.
I'm giving eadi member of the committee a list of our achieve-
ments—the laws that are now on the books that have been enacted
by the Congress that came fi:x)m this committee, the reports that
we have had and the hearings that we have had — so that there be
no equivocation that we have been there, that we have done to the
utmost, within the constraints of budget, what needed to be done.
Yes, there is more to be done, and we have to admit that, but let
no one say that this committee has not achieved, to the extent pos-
sible, our responsibilities in meeting these issues.
The focus now is, for example, in Somalia. In the 1970's, the
chairman of this committee assigned the chairman of the sub-
committee, who is your present chairman, to work on the problems
of himger abroad. I went to Somalia before many knew where So-
malia was. I went to Mozambique. I went to Ethiopia. I went to
Sudan. I went to the Central African Republic. I went to Chad. I
went to Cameroon. I went to Mauritania. We went the width and
length of Afiica looking, and a report was made in 1974.
I wish to commend my colleagues. Chairman Charlie Stenholm,
of the Department Operations and Nutrition Subcommittee, and
Tim Penny, of what we now call the Foreign Agriculture and Him-
ger Subcommittee, for what they are worlang on and will continue
working.
Mr. Secretary, you worked on the Mickey Leland bill, you worked
with us on the food assistance programs, you worked with us in the
development of rursQ legislation. It was your legislation for the mi-
nority farmers and the minority people in rursQ America that was
put on the books. So we commend you for your continued interest.
I commend you for your initiative to have forums throughout the
country and that the first one be on himger. We commend you be-
cause we have been doing that, and we will continue to be doing
that. We look forward to receiving fi'om you, Mr. Secretly, the in-
formation that you will gather at this forum that you will be hav-
ing and that it will complement all tiiat we have done.
I have been to food banks in Chicago and New York — ^in the
Bronx and Brooklyn — and L.A. and Houston. As you know, we —
and you too— have gone to many areas of the country as a member
of the committee. We worked with you when you were a member
of the Select Committee on Himger in the House. I don't know
what is going to happen in that area, but I can assure you that as
far as this committee is concerned, we are the Committee on Hun-
ger in this House. Tim Penny will handle overseas himger issues,
and I know that he is capable and very able and will be working
with you. Mr. Stenholm has the jurisdiction of the food stamps ana
Digitized by
Google
3
other nutrition programs, and he also has dedicated much of his ef-
fort in tbat regard.
So we look mrward to working with you. The list is here of what
we have done, lest anyone question whether we have fulfilled to
the nth degree our responsibility. But the problem is that we have
not conquered. We have merely made a dent, and the effort must
continue, and we will continue it.
An^ prepared statements submitted by the members will appear
at this point in the record.
[The prepared statements of Mr. de la Garza, Mrs. Clayton, Ms.
McKinney, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Canady, and H.R. 529 follow:]
Digitized by
Google
8tat«iMt by R^p. Kika «• la oaria (D-Tl)
ChainMia, Houaa Agrioultura CoBBitttt«
Couittaa Haaring on Doaaatio and Foraiga rood waada
and 0.8. rood Aaaiataaoa Programa
April 28, 1993
The Committee on Agriculture has scheduled thia hearing to
renew its on-going and continuous efforts to addraaa domaatic and
foreign food assistance needs.
Our objectives at this hearing and the Subcommittee hearings
to follow are simple: to review the administration of U.S. food
assistance programs — both domestic and foreign — and to try to
determine how these programs can be improved and made more
effective within the constraints of the Federal budget.
Let there be no doubt about this Committee's commitment to -
- and my personal interest in — the programs that help meet the
food needs of low- income and homeless people here at home and to
impoverished and starving peoples abroad.
Regardless of what happens elsewhere in Congress, our
responsibility and commitment to focas government resources on
fighting hunger here at home and abroad have always been there.
Perhaps we do not get enough credit for our efforts to improve
our nutrition programs. But it is here in the Committee on
Agriculture that real legislative accomplishments have been
attempted and achieved.
This Committee has made food and hunger issues a top agenda
item throughout my tenure as Chairman. Our record is one that I
am proud of, and I would ask that a staff -prepared statement of
activities by the committee on Agriculture on food and hunger
issues over the past two Congresses be made available to the
public and included in the hearing record following my statement.
I want to commend my colleagues. Chairman Charlie Stenholm
of the Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition and
Chairman Tim Penny of the Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and
Hunger, for scheduling their Subcommittee hearings oi^ hun^g^er
issues early in the 103rd Congress I look forward to working
with them and their Subcommittees as we seek to strengthen our
nation's food assistance programs.
We are pleased to have with us today the Secretary of
Agriculture who is here to discuss the Administration's
recommendations concerning H.R. 529, the Mickey Leland Childhood
Hunger Relief Act, and the status of USDA*s foreign food
assistance programs.
The purpose of the Mickey Leland bill is simply to better
meet the food needs of low-income families with children. It is
not a new proposal. In fact, we have passed the Mickey Leland
bill twice out of this Committee — first in 1990 as part of the
1990 farm bill and again in 1992 when it was attached to the
Digitized by
Google
Family Preservation Act. Unfortunately, in both cases the
legislation stalled because of the lack of off -setting revenue
increases or budget cuts as required under the "pay-go"
provisions of the 1990 budget agreement.
Today we renew the fight to help needy children. This year
we have ati opportunity to pasB and fund the Hickey Leland
Childhood Htjnger Relief Act. With the suppcirt of President
Clinton and our former colleague, OHQ Director Leon Panetta, we
now have a President $ budget proposal and a congressional budget
resolution that provide for the funding of this very important
legislative initiative. It is my hope and intention to see this
third attempt at passage succeed.
This Committee has, to the extent possible and within the
constraints of the budget sought to respond to the human needs
that cry out for our attention and compassion.
But something very fundamental is %n:ong in our economy when
a nation like ours has more than 26 million Americans — more
than 10 percent of the population — receiving food stamps. Our
food supply is the most affordable in the world . . • and yet
people and children go to bed hungry. This should not happen.
Our world has the productive capacity to feed all of its
peoples — and yet we see starvation in Somalia and Bosnia. This
should not happen.
Almost 20 years ago, when I was Chairman of what was then
called the Subconunittee on Department Operations, we held a
series of hearings that focused on many of the issues we are
looking at this week: the world food supply, population growth,
food reserves, etc.
I was struck by the similarities of the problems then and
now. My opening statement for one of those hearings back in 1974
alluded to the "mass starvation that is occurring in several
countries."
In 1974, I discussed the problem of U.S. food aid "rotting
in ports ... not reaching the people for whom it was intended."
And I talked about the need for developing long-range solutions
to food shortages and distribution problems.
Over the past two decades we have done much to improve our
domestic and foreign food assistance programs. But as long as
natural disaster economic turmoil and civil strife occur in our
worldi there will be a need for further refinements in our food
assistance programs.
This Committee has done and must continue to do its part to
ensure that we have properly- funded and sensible programs that
bring food to the people who need it most here at home and
abroad.
«
Digitized by
Google
lOffTH COWgREgg
B11L» Bn aotad Intti Piiblic Lawat
St«w&rt B< MoXlaaay loa«lttB» Xssi stance Act. H.R. 558.
Coflunittee od" Agriculture appointed as conferees. Conference
report filed on ^ane 19, 1987, H.Rept. 100-174. July 22, 1987
signed into P.L. 100-77.
Agriculture CoMMdity DistrilnitioB Act of if 87. H.R. 1340.
SubcoiBiiittee on Domestic Harketing, Consuaer Relations, and
nutrition held a hearing on Harch 18, 1987 (Hearing Serial #100-
6, Agricultural Coanodity distribution Act of 1987)
Conunittee on Agriculture reported to the House on July 13,
1987 H. Rept. 100-218, Part 1. January 8, 1988 signed into P.L.
100-237.
Charitable Assistance and Pood Bank Act of 1987. H.R. 3435.
Coaaittee on Agriculture reported to the House on Decenber
14. 1987, H.Rept. 100-478 pt. 1. January 5, 1988 signed into
P.L. 100-232.
Hunger Prevention Act of 1988. H.R. 4060, S. 2560.
Conmittee on Agriculture reported to the House on August 5,
1988, H. Rept. 100-828, Part 1. Sept. 19, 1988 signed into
P.L. 100-435.
Fanily Independence Denonstration Project aaendnents. H.R. 4998.
Committee on Agriculture reported to House on August 8, 1988.
H.Rept. 100-840. October 11, 1988 signed into P.L. 100-481.
Family Welfare Reform Act of 1988. H.R. 1720.
Committee on Agriculture appointed as conferees on July 7,
1988. Sept. 28, 1988, Conference report filed H.Rept. 100-998.
Oct. 13, 1988 signed into P.L. 100-485.
Technical correction in Hunger Prevention Act. S. 2885.
Passed the Senate on Oct. 12, 1988. Passed the House on
Oct. 20, 1988. Nov. 5, 1988 signed into P.L. 100-619.
Bills Reported;
Food Assistance for the Homeless. H.R. 177.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a hearing on Feb. 24, 1987 (Hearing Serial if 100-
1, Review of Nutrition Programs Which Assist the Homeless).
Committee on Agriculture reported H.R. 177 to the House on
February 27, 1987, H. Rept. 100-8.
zed by Google
Digitized by
Food stamp Family Welfare Reform Act. H.R. 3337.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a hearing on May 5, 1987 (Hearing Serial #100-15,
Welfare Reform Proposals.
Committee on^Agriculture reported to the House on October
26, 1987, H. Repti 100-396.
Hearings Heldt
Food Bank Participation in the Temporary Bmergeaoy Food
Assistance Program.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a field hearing on May 29. 1987 in Sikeston, MO,
(Hearing Serial #100-16) .
Quality Control and Fiscal Sanctions in the Food Stamp Program.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Nutrition
and Investigations of the Senate Committee on Agriculture on Oct.
22, 1987, (Hearing Serial #100-43).
Hunger Bmergenoy in America.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition of House Committee on Agriculture, and Domestic Task
Force of Select Committee on Hunger held a joint hearing on
February 24, 1988, (Hearing Serial #100-63).
Digitized by
Google
IQlg T CQNQR EgS
Bills Bnaoted Into Public Laws;
Authorising food ^tamp portion of the Minnesota Family Investment
Plan. S. 1960 atid H.R. 3744.
Subcommittei^ on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a hearing on July 11, 1989, Minnesota Family
Investment Plan (Hearing Serial #101-25) .
S. 1960 passed the Senate and the House on Nov. 21, 1989.
Dec. 6, 1989 signed into P.L. 101-202..
Distribution of certain meat to charity and public agencies.
H.R. 2134.
Committee on Agriculture reported to the House on Nov. 13,
1989, (H.Rept. 101-348).
Dec. 7, 1989 signed into P.L. 101-205.
National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act.
H.R. 1608.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a joint hearing with the subcommittee on
Department Operations, Research and Foreign Agriculture and the
Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the
Committee on Science « Space and Technology on Sept. 21, 1989
[Nutrition Monitoring ^ Searing Serial f 101-29) .
Committee on Agriculture reported to the House on Oct. 2,
1990, H.Rept. 101-788.
Oct. 22, 1990 signed into P.L. 101-445).
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. S. 2830
and H.R. 3950.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held 8 hearings on the Formulation of the 1990 Farm
Bill (Hearing Serial #101-30 pt 3) :
(1) Sept. 8, 1989 (Atlanta, GA) ; Oct. 31, Nov. 1, 1989
(Houston, TX) on the Reauthorization of the Food Stamp
Program;
(2) Nov. 15 & 16, 1989 (Houston, TX) on the
Reauthorization of the Commodity Distribution Programs;
and
(3) Dec. 1, 1989 (Houston, TX) ; Dec. 8, 1989, and Feb. 28,
1990 (Bronx, NY) on the Reauthorization of the Food
Stamp Program and Commodity Distribution Programs.
Committee on Agriculture reported to the House H.R. 3950,
(H.Rept. 101-569 pt. 1) on July 3, 1990, with Title XVII as the
Digitized by
Google
Food Stamp and Related Provisions Title.
Conference Report to Accompany S. 2830 (H.Rapt. 101-916)
filed on October 22, 1990 with Title XVII as the Food Stamp and
Related Provisions Title.
Nov. 28, 1990 signed into P.L. 101-624.
Hearings Held;
Review of 0.8. International Review of 0.8. Intamational •
Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Foreign Affairs held
a joint hearing on November 1, 1989. (Hearing 8arial #101-32).
Issues Related to the Reauthorization of Food for Paaoe and
Agricultural Export Promotion Programs.
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign
Agriculture of Committee on Agriculture and Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy and Trade of Committee on
Foreign Affairs held a joint hearing on March 21, 1990.
Review of the Use of Food Stamp in Farmer •& Markats.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a hearing on Oct. 25, 1989. (Hearing 8erial #101-
68) .
Hunger in Rural America.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a hearing on May 17, 1989. (Hearing Serial #101-
15).
Digitized by
Google
10
IQ2NP CQHgRESg
Bills Enacted Into Public Law;
**•
Food, Agriculture, conservation, and Trade Act Amendments of
1991. H.R. 3029.
Couittee on Agriculture reported to the House on July 30,
1991, H.Rept. 102-175.
Dec. 13, 1991, signed into P.L. 102-237.
Exclusions from Food stamp Income, s. 2324.
Passed the Senate on March 5, 1992.
Passed the House on March 11, 1992.
March 26, 1992, signed into P.L. 102-265.
WIC Farmers* Market Hutrition Act. H.R. 3711.
Committee on Agriculture reported to the House on June 4,
1992 (H.Rept. 102-540 pt. 2).
July 2, 1992, signed into P.L. 102-314.
Prevent Reduction in Adjusted Cost of Thrifty Food Plan. S.
3001.
Passed the Senate on July 28, 1992.
Passed the House on August 12, 1992.
Aug. 26, 1992 signed into P.L. 102-351.
Use of Foreign currency Proceeds. H.R. 4774.
Committee on Agriculture reported to the House on April 9,
1992. (H.Rept. 102-496).
May 20, 1992 signed into P.L. 102-289.
Bills Reported;
Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act. H.R. 1202.
Committee on Agriculture reported to the House on Oct. 16,
1991, (H.Rept. 102-396).
Food for Emerging Democracies Act of 1991. H.R. 3556.
Committee on Agriculture reported to the House on November
27, 1991, (H. Rept. 102-403, Part 1).
Communities Making the Transition to Hunger-Free Status.
H. Con. Res. 302.
Committee on Agriculture reported to the House on June 29,
1992. (H. Rept. 102-616. pt. 1).
Digitized by
Google
11
Passed the House on July 28, 1992.
Passed the Senate on Oct. 5, 1992.
Hearings Haldt "
Hffeotiveness of U.8.D.A. in Meeting the Agricultural Meeds of
Bnerging DoBocraoies.
Couittee on Agriculture held 2 hearing; September 24, 1991;
September 26, 1991. (Hearing serial «l02-37).
Zmpaot of the Farmers* Market Mutrition Aot of iff 1 on Farmors*
Markets and the Marketing of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a hearing on May 13, 1992. (Hearing Serial #102-
•1).
Zmpaot of Regulation B of the Bleotronio Funds Transfer Aot of
the Food Stamp Bleotronio Benefits Transfer Delivery Systems.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, an
Nutrition held a hearing on March 25, 1992. (Hearing Serial
«102-6f).
Food Stamp Trafficking and the Food Stamp Bleotronio Benefit
Transfer Program.
Subcpimiiittee on Domestic HarKetlng, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a joint hearing with the subcoimittee on Policy
Research and Insurance of the Ccnunittee on Banking Finance and
Urban Affairs and the Subconraittee on Regulation, B\Jsifiess
Opportunities of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on March
18, 1992. (Hearing Serial «l02-74).
Hunger in America, Its Bf foots on Children and Families, and
Implications for the Future.
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a hearing on Nay 8, 1991. (Hearing Serial #102-
13).
Welfare simplification.
Subcommittee on Domestic Narketing, Consumer Relations, and
Nutrition held a hearing on June 23, 1992. (Hearing Serial #102-
84).
Digitized by
Google
12
Congretit; of ttje IHniteb i^tateti
%ou£(e of i^epre£(entatibe£(
OlMbington. BC 20515-3301
HOUSE Of PICE BUICmNC
WASHtNGTOM. OC 20619-3301
(202)229-3101
OPENING STATEMENT FOR REP. EVA M. CLAYTON
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON FOOD STAMPS
4/28/93
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I want to
extend my gratitude to you and Congressman Stenhohn
for holding today's proceedings pertaining to the Food
Stamp Program in such an expeditious fashion. I would
also like to extend my appreciation to Secretary Espy for
participating in this hearing. Recently, I have become
familiar with the history of the proposed legislation, and I
am excited that this Committee is responsible for the
consideration of this bill.
The issue of hunger has recently come under a
Digitized by
Google
13
heightened amount of attention. The hunger fast of our
esteemed colleague, Tony Hall, has served to cast
additional light on this problem. Internationally we have
witnessed the deaths of literally thousands of people in
countries such as Somalia due to inadequate food suppUes
caused in part by warring clans. However, at the same
time, we are confk'onted with a growing domestic hunger
dilemma that reaches into the ranks of those who are
most vulnerable: our chUdren.
The nationwide Community ChUdhood Hunger
Identification Project (CCHIP) released m 1991 reported
that 5.5 million American chUdren under age 12 are
hungry. This means 1 out of every 12! Furthermore, an
additional six million children find themselves in families
that are "at-risk" of hunger because of recurring
problems of food shortage. These figures are astonishing
in Ught of the abundance that we find in American
agriculture.
69-454 0-93-2
Digitized by
Google
14
Mr. Chairman, the Food Stamp Program is the only
program in America that is available to everyone. This
includes those groups who are most vulnerable to the
problem of hunger such as the elderly and the young.
One-half of the recipients of food stamp benefits are
children, whUe 80 percent of the benefits in the program
go to families with children. Furthermore, it is the only
program that addresses hunger in a comprehensive
manner. Put simply, it is the fi*ont-line of defense for
preventing hunger in America.
There are those who may disparage the Program and
the Mickey Leiand Childhood Hunger BiU. In this regard,
I say to the leadership of this Committee that I firmly
stand behind you who support this bill and the hungry.
We must not accept hunger as a standard in this country.
The Mickey Leiand BiU speaks to this problem by
providing basic subsistence to those who are in desperate
need.
Digitized by
Google
15
Again, I welcome the participants to the proceedings
and hope this hearing will be useful in casting hght on the
overall question of hunger in the United States.
Thank you.
Digitized by
Google
16
CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY /^^ WASHmOTON OfFICE:
O 124 C
COMMITTEE ON AGIUCULTURE
msTmcT OFnce
31 tavTMlMCMa Cmnu
tWTit
tm CAHeua NOM
Congress of the Hniteil States
liotut of KeprtsentadDts
^uhfngtan, BC 205)5-101]
April 28, 1993
Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia A. McKinney
Thank you Mr. Chairman for having this hearing. I am here today to
address the crisis of himger in this country, and legislation ~ the Mickey
Leland Childhood Himger Relief Act - that would help to end this crisis for
millions of our children. I applaud the Clinton Administration for its
leadership in developing legislation akin to the Leland Bill, the first bill of
its kind to be supported by Uie Administration in sixteen years.
The bill focuses on getting food to poor, himgry children. In 1991, more
than 35 million people in the United States lived in poverty, more than one
of every 7 people in this country. USDA data show that families with
children receive over 80% of food stamp benefits. Over 90% of the benefits
would go to low-income children and their families. In my state of Georgia,
food stamp participation rose nearly 15% in the last year alone. In
January, 1993, over 800,000 people in Georgia had to rely on the Food Stamp
Program. These figures do not reflect the many others who are forced to
rely on food pantries and soup kitchens to provide food for themselves and
their families.
In a statement issued March 26, 1993, Secretary Espy said an all-time high
number of Americans received food stamps in January, proving the need to
take steps to stimulate the economy. According to figures released on this
same day March 26 by USDA, 26.83 million Americans received food
stamps in January, a 213,000 increase firom December 1992. These figures
represent the highest-ever level of participation since the program
originated in 1964.
While the Food Stamp Program is vital in providing millions of families
with much needed food assistance, reforms are needed to strengthen the
program, particularly for families with children. This legislation, the
Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act would make those changes.
For instance, it would raise benefit levels which now provide an average of
only $.75 per person per meal.
It would strengthen the child support system by removing an actual
disincentive for absent parents to pay child support. The bill would exclude
the first $50 a month received in child support firom consideration as
Digitized by
Google
17
income in determining food stamp allotments. It gives custodial parents
an incentive to seek out absent parents and gives absent parents and
incentive to pay child support. AFDC already allows households to keep
the first $50 of child support paid each month. Excluding the first $50 of
child support payments for food stamps as well as AFDC will also simplify
the administration of the two programs and ease burdens on case workers.
This reform passed the House in 1987 as part of the Family Support Act and
was supported so strongly by the Ways and Means Committee that it was
one of the last provisions dropped when conferees has to reduce that bill's
cost. It passed the House again as part of the 1990 and 1992 Leland bills.
The bill would index the current $4,500 limit on the fair market value of
vehicles that food stamp recipients may own. This is particularly
important to the rural areas of my district and many others in this country
where people must often travel great distances to work. The current $4,500
vehicle limit was written into the Act in 1977 and has not changed since,
despite substantial inflation. The President's Task Force on Food
Assistance in 1984 recommended that this limit be increased to $5,500
immediately.
One of the centerpieces of the bill is a provision that would get more food to
famiUes with children that are on the brink of homelessness. It would give
families with children the benefit of the same rules that apply to elderly and
disabled people whose housing costs consimie an extremely high portion of
their incomes. These rules are designed to ensure that those paying more
than half of their income for housing can both pay their rent and utilities
and obtain a minimally adequate diet throughout the month.
This legislation is not only vitally important, it is a responsible investment.
Funding for it was designated in this year's budget resolution, which
specifically mentioned the Leland bill. I am eager to see this important
legislation successfully marked up in this subcommittee so that it can
proceed on its way toward enactment.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Digitized by
Google
18
Opening Statement of the Honorable Tom Lewis of Florida
House Agriculture Committee - April 28, 1993
Mr. Chairman, while the intention of reducing hunger in America is certainly
admirable; we cannot overlook the many problems which exist with the
administration of the food stamp program. This is especially evident in my
home state of Florida.
Last year alone, ineligible payments and overpayment of food stamps cost the
federal government more than $172 million in Florida. The State's error rate
soared to an astronomical 18.5%. These numbers suggest to me that the State
of Florida is wasting too much money administering their program, rather than
feeding those in need.
Later today, I will be meeting with Florida's Lieutenant Governor Buddy
McKay, and I fully intend to discuss these problems with him and get an
assessment on what the state is planning to do to rectify the problems with the
food stamp program in Florida
Let me give the Committee an illustration of the administrative nightmare I am
talking about. After a gathering of over 2,000 people in the Ocala National
Forest, a smaller group of about 100 "Rainbow People" stopped by the Health
and Rehabilitative Services office in Tavares, Florida, and walked away with
about $6,000 in food stamps. Due to an expedited procedure, all these
individuals had to do was provide some form of identification and state that
they were homeless. These two actions alone enabled them to then walked out
of the office with a handful of food stamps.
Digitized by
Google
19
This kind of problem is magnified by reports that David Koresch was
stockpiling his Waco cult compound with provisions purchased by his wives
using food stamps. If this is true, how could they afford to buy enough
sophisticated weaponry to hold off the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, but still qualify for federal food assistance.
I fmd it extremely distressing that children in America are going hungry but the
"Rainbow people" and David Koresch can easily receive food stamp benefits.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration's proposal to increase funding of the food
stamp program by $7.3 billion over the next four years has a commendable
goal, to reduce hunger. Tragically, given current program inefficiencies much
of this money will go to waste because states do not properly administer their
food stamp programs.
I believe the American people fully support programs to end hunger in this
nation. However, they cannot support fraud and mismanagement. I look
forward to hearing from Secretary Espy regarding the problems facing the
administration of the food stamp program.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Digitized by
Google
20
CHARLES T. CANAOY ..oT i ,„ ,,M»..iy v ..._
ttwm iMtmr*. ttomm 0011 Ut-tttl
QCHMMTTII Oft AQMCUl ryt* , ^^ trnffrTwlMwll AL tiiu i
'"^!^\^^^«.vmu^»w ConffTtHK of t^t Unittb S^taM 'irJiMMtSf?'
X^otiie of Eeinreieiitatitiei
■btftPingtmu BC 20515-0912
8TATIIIBIT OF TEE ■OMOSABLI CBMtLM T. aaaU>T
off Florida
bofforo tlko
■0U8I MRZCULTORB COKIIZTTBI
April 2%, lff3
Thank you Mr. Chalnwa. Mr. Sacratary, I want to join my fellow
collcaguea in thanking you for appearing before ua today to
dlftci^sifi the Administration' a propoaal regarding the Mickey Leland
Childhood Hunger RvXiaf Act (H.R. 529).
jfr. Aaoretary^ a particular area I would bring to yo\ir
attention today la the automation of our state s welfare program
distribution ayatemB.^ hm you nay ba aware Florida has recently
axperiencfld aevere and costly problems ulth its attenpt to
automate the diBtribution of Food Stamps,, AFDC and Medicaid. *th*
state spent $10S million to develop a computer that is Bupposed
to isprova the services provided to Florida's needy and eldctrly.
Of that $100 million, over 751 of the planning, design and
installation money for the system was provided by the federal
govariiment .
Unfortunately^ during its first year of operation, the
computer lost roughly $26Q million dollars because of errors and
Biemanagement in proifras distribution,
A General Accounting Office report released in May of 1992
stated that ineffective oversight of the development and
installation of automated siyBteinB such as the one in Florida "has
allowed mil lions of dollars to be spent on systems that either do
not work or do not meet requirements." "Further, KHS and USDA
each spend time and money independently reviewing state eye ten 5
rather than coordinating their reviews^ even though most states
are developing or operating systems that include all three
federal progratas , **
According to €A0^ examples of this waste and ineffective
oversight are '•three states spent almost $30 million in federal
funds before oenoeling projects because of development problems,
in another caser a state has been unable to implement its $51
million Bystem because it did not incorporate important user
requirements into its system design."
Digitized by
Google
21
Pag* Two
With more states moving toward the automation of systems
covering Food Stamps and other welfare programs, I am deeply
concerned that USDA and HHS are not providing the proper
oversight to ensure new systems accomplish their stated goals and
that any lessons learned by states previously working towards
automation will be passed on to states currently attempting to
improve their systems.
Mr. Secretary, on April 6th of this year, I sent you a
letter encouraging the USDA and the HHS to coordinate their
investigations of alleged mismanagement and abuse of funds by
Florida's Health and Rehabilitative Services. I look forward to
your response to this inquiry because I believe that this is
basic, essential good government policy that will save the
American taxpayer millions of dollars. Whenever two federal
agencies provide funds to a single state agency for distribution,
the two agencies must coordinate their operations and oversight
to guarantee that there are no overlapping services or costs.
When two government departments, such as USDA and HHS, spend
the money that is encompassed by these three programs — in
FY 1990, AFDC benefits were $10.1 billion, Medicaid Benefits were
$68.7 billion and Food Stamp benefits were over $14 billion —
proper coordination and oversight of these moneys must be
guaranteed to ensure that federal dollars are not wasted.
I would encourage you to review the May 1992 6A0 report and
work for the implementation of its recommendations.
Digitized by
Google
22
103d congress
1st Session
H. R. 529
To amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to respond to the hunger emergency
afOicting American fleunilies and children, to attack the causes of hunger
among all Americans, to ensure an adequate diet for low-income people
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness because of the shortage
of affordable housing, to promote self-sufiGciency among food stamp
recipients, to assist families affected by adverse economic conditions,
to simplify food assistance programs' administration, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 21, 1993
Mr. Panetta (for himself, Mr. E&ierson, Mr. DE la Garza, and Mr. Hall
of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Commit-
tee on Agriculture
A BILL
To amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to respond to the
hunger emergency afflicting American families and chil-
dren, to attack the causes of hunger among all Ameri-
cans, to ensure an adequate diet for low-income people
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness because
of the shortage of affordable housing, to promote self-
sufficiency among food stamp recipients, to assist fami-
lies affected by adverse economic conditions, to simplify
food assistance' programs' administration, and for other
purposes.
Digitized by
Google
23
2
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress a^ssembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
4 (a) Short Title. — ^This Act may be cited as the
5 "Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act".
6 (b) Table op Contents. — The table of contents is
7 as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. References to Act.
. TITLE I— ENSURING ADEQUATE FOOD ASSISTANCE
Sec. 101. Families with high shelter expenses.
Sec. 102. Basic benefit level.
Sec. 103. Continuing benefits to eligible households.
Sec. 104. Homeless families in transitional housing.
Sec. 105. Improving the nutritional status of children in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 106. Households benefiting fix)m general assistance vendor payments.
Sec. 107. Helping low-income high school students.
TITLE n— PROMOTING SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Sec. 201. Child support disregard.
Sec. 202. Child support payments to non-household members.
Sec. 203. Vehicles needed to seek and continue employment and for household
transportation.
Sec. 204. Vehicles necessaiy to cany fuel or water.
Sec. 205. Improving access to employment and training activities.
TITLE m— SIMPLIFYING THE PRO^^SION OF FOOD ASSISTANCE
Sec. 301. Simplifying the household definition for households with children and
others.
Sec. 302. Resources of households with disabled members.
Sec. 303. Assuring adequate fimding for the food stamp program.
TITLE IV— COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION TO NEEDY FAMILIES
Sec. 401. Commodity purchases.
TITLE V—IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVE DATES
Sec. 501. Effective dates.
^. 502. Budget neutrality requirement.
•HR ft29 IH
Digitized by
Google
24
3
1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO ACTS.
2 Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, ref-
3 erences to "the Act" and sections thereof shall be deemed
4 to be references to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
5 2011 et seq.) and the sections thereof.
6 TITLE I— ENSURING ADEQUATE FOOD
7 ASSISTANCE
8 SEC. 101. FAMILIES WITH HIGH SHELTER EXPENSES.
9 (a) Removal op Cap. — (1) The fourth sentence of
10 section 5(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (hereinafter
11 referred to as "the Act") (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)) is amended
12 by striking ": Provided, That the amount" and all that
13 follows through "June 30".
14 (2) The fifth sentence of section 5(e) of the Act (7
15 U.S.C. 2014(e)) is amended by striking "under clause (2)
16 of the preceding sentence".
17 (b) Transitional Cap. — (1) Effective on the date
18 of enactment of this Act, section 5(e) of the Act is amend-
19 ed by inserting after the fourth sentence the following: "In
20 the 12-month period ending September 30, 1994, such ex-
21 cess shelter expense deduction shall not exceed $230 a
22 month in the forty-eight contiguous States and the Dis-
23 trict of Columbia, and shall not exceed, in Alaska, Hawaii,
24 Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States, $400,
25 $328, $279, and $170 a month, respectively; in the 12-
26 month period ending September 30, 1995, shall not exceed
•HRS29IH
Digitized by
Google
25
4
1 $260 a month in the forty-eight contiguous States and the
2 District of Columbia, and shall not exceed, in Alaska, Ha-
3 waii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States,
4 $452, $371, $315, and $192 a month, respectively; in the
5 12-month period ending September 30, 1996, shall not ex-
6 ceed $300 a month in the forty-eight contiguous States
7 and the District of Columbia, and shall not exceed, in
8 Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the Unit-
9 ed States, $521, $420, $364, and $221 a month, respec-
10 tively; and in the 12-month period ending September 30,
11 1997, shall not exceed $360 a month in the forty-eight
12 contiguous States and the District of Columbia, and shall
13 not exceed, in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Is-
14 lands of the United States, $626, $514, $437, and $266
15 a month, respectively.".
16 (2) Effective October 1, 1997, section 5(e) of the Act
17 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)) is amended by striking the fifth
18 sentence.
19 SEC. 102. BASIC BENEFIT LEVEL.
20 Section 3(o) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2012(o)) is amend-
21 ed by striking "(4) through'' and all that follows through
22 the end of the subsection, and inserting the following: "(4)
23 on October 1, 1993, adjust the cost of such diet to reflect
24 103V3 percent of the cost of thrifty food plan in the pre-
25 ceding June (without regard to adjustments made under
•IIR529 IH
Digitized by
Google
26
5
1 clauses (9), (10), and (11) of this subsection as in effect
2 before the date of the enactment of the Mickey Leiand
3 Childhood Hunger ReUef Act), as determined by the Sec-
4 retaiy, and round the result to the nearest lower dollar
5 increment for each household size, (5) on October 1, 1994,
6 ac^ust the cost of such diet to reflect 103% percent of
7 the cost of the thrifty food plan in the preceding June
8 (without regard to ac^ustments made under such clauses
9 (9), (10), and (11) and under clause (4)), as determined
10 by the Secretary, and round the result to the nearest lower
11 dollar increment for each household size, (6) on October
12 1, 1995, acyust the cost of such diet to reflect 104 percent
13 of the cost of the thrifty food plan in the preceding June
14 (without regard to ac^ustments made under such clauses
15 (9), (10), and (11) and under clauses (4) and (5)), as de-
16 termined by the Secretary, and round the result to the
17 lowest dollar increment for each household size, (7) on Oc-
18 tober 1, 1996, ac^just the cost of such diet to reflect 104y3
19 percent of the cost of the thrifty food plan in the preceding
20 June (without regard to ac^justments made under such
21 clauses (9), (10), and (11) and under clauses (4), (5), and
22 (6)), as determined by the Secretary, and roimd the result
23 to the nearest lower dollar increment for each household
24 size, (8) on October 1, 1997, acyust the cost of such diet
25 to reflect 104% percent of the cost of the thrifty food plan
•IIRS29IH
Digitized by
Google
27
6
1 in the preceding June (without regard to adjustments
2 made under such clauses (9), (10), and (11) and under
3 clauses (4), (5), (6), and (7)), as determined by the Sec-
4 retaiy, and round the result to the nearest lower dollar
5 increment for each household size, and (9) on October 1,
6 1998, and on every October 1 thereafter, adjust the cost
7 of such diet to reflect 105 percent of the cost of the thrifty
8 food plan in the preceding June (without regard to pre-
9 vious adjustments made under such clauses (9), (10), and
10 (11), under clauses (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), and under
11 this clause), as determined by the Secretary, and round
12 the result to the nearest lower dollar increment for each
13 household size.".
14 SEC. 103. CONTINUING BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE HOUSE-
IS HOLDS.
16 Section 8(c)(2)(B) of the Act (7 U.S.C.
17 2017(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting "of more than one
18 month in" after "following anj'^ period".
19 SEC. 104. HOMELESS FAMILIES IN TRANSITIONAL HOUS-
20 ING. '
21 Section 5(k)(2)(F) of the Act (7 U.S.C.
22 2014(k)(2)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
23 "(F) housing assistance payments made to a
24 third party on behalf of a household residing in
25 transitional housing for the homeless;".
•HRfi29 IH
Digitized by
Google
28
7
1 SEC. 105. IMPROVING THE NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHIL-
2 DREN IN PUERTO RICO.
3 Section 19(a)(1)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C.
4 2028(a)(1)(A)) is amended:
5 (1) by striking "$1,091,000,000" and inserting
6 "$1,111,000,000"; and
7 (2) by striking "$1,133,000,000" and inserting
8 "$1,158,000,000".
9 SEC. 106. HOUSEHOLDS BENEFITING FROM GENERAL AS-
IC SISTANCE VENDOR PAYMENTS.
11 Section 5(k)(l)(B) of the Act (7 U.S.C.
12 2014(k)(l)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
13 "(B) a benefit payable to the household for
14 housing expenses, not including energy or utility-cost
15 assistance, under —
16 "(i) a State or local general assistance pro-
17 gram; or
18 "(ii) another basic assistance program
19 comparable to general assistance (as determined
20 by the Secretary).".
21 SEC. 107. HELPING LOW-INCOME IflGH SCHOOL STU-
22 DENTS.
23 Section 5(d)(7) is amended by striking ", who is a
24 student, and who has not attained his eighteenth birth-
25 day'' and inserting "and who is an elementary or second-
26 aiy student".
•HR6S9IH
Digitized by
Google
29
8
1 TITLE n— PROMOTING SELF-SUFFICIENCY
2 SEC. 201. CHILD SUPPORT DISREGARD.
3 Section 5 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended—
4 (1) in clause (13) of subsection (d) —
5 (A) by striking "at the option" and all
6 that follows through "subsection (m)," and in-
7 serting "(A)"; and
8 (B) by adding at the end the following:
9 "and (B) the first $50 of any child support
10 payments for each month received in that
11 month, and the first $50 of child support of
12 each month received in that month if such pay-
13 ments were made by the absent parent in the
14 month when due,"; and
15 (2) by striking subsection (m).
16 SEC. 202. CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS TO NON-HOUSEHOLD
17 MEMBERS.
18 Section 5(d)(6) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)(6)) is
19 amended by striking the comma at the end and inserting
20 the following: ": Provided, That child support payments
21 made by a household member to or for a person who is
22 not a member of the household shall be excluded from the
23 income of the household of the pei^son making such pay-
24 ments if such household member was legally obligated to
25 make such payments,".
69-454 0-93-3
Digitized by VjOOQIC
30
9
1 SEC. 203. VEHICLES NEEDED TO SEEK AND CONTINUE EM-
2 PLOYMENT AND FOR HOUSEHOLD TRANS-
3 PORTATION.
4 Section 5(g)(2) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2014(g)(2)) is
5 amended by striking $4,500" and inserting the following:
6 "a level set by the Secretary, which shall be $4,500
7 through September 30, 1993, and which shall be adjusted
8 from $4,500 on October 1, 1993, and on each October
9 1 thereafter, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price
10 Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau
11 of Labor Statistics, for new cars, for the 12-month period
12 ending the preceding June 30, and rounded to the nearest
13 $50".
14 SEC. 204. VEHICLES NECESSARY TO CARRY FUEL OR
15 WATER.
16 Section 5(g)(2) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2014(g)(2)) is
17 amended by adding at the end the following: "The Sec-
18 retary shall exclude from financial resources the value of
19 a vehicle that a household depends upon to carry fuel for
20 heating or water for home use when such transported fuel
21 or water is the primary source of fuel or water for the
22 household.".
•HR6S9IH
Digitized by
Google
31
10
1 SEC. 205. IMPROVING ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT AND
2 TRAINING AcnvrriES.
3 (a) Dependent Care Deduction. — Section 5(e) of
4 the Act (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)) is amended in clause (1) of
5 the fourth sentence —
6 (1) by striking "$160 a month for each depend-
7 ent" and inserting "$200 a month for a dependent
8 child under age 2 and $175 a month for any other
9 dependent"; and
10 (2) by striking ", regardless of the dependent's
11 age,".
12 (b) Reimburseiments to Participants. — (1) Sec-
13 tion 6(d)(4)(I)(i)(I) of the Act (7 U.S.C.
14 2015(d)(4)(I)(i)(I)) is amended by striking "$25" and in-
15 serting "$75".
16 (2) Subclause (II) of section 6(d)(4)(I)(i) of the Act
17 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)(I)(i)(II)) is amended by striking
18 "reimbursements exceed $160" and all that follows
19 through the end of such subclause, and inserting "reim-
20 bursements exceed the applicable local market rate as de-
21 termined by procedures consistent with any such deter-
22 mination under the Social Security Act. Individuals sub-
23 ject to the program under this paragraph may not be re-
24 quired to participate if dependent care costs exceed the
25 limit established by the State agency under this paragraph
•HR 529 IH
Digitized by
Google
32
11
1 (which limit shall not be less than the limit for the depend-
2 ent care deduction under section 5(e)).".
3 (c) Reimbursements to State Agencies. — Sec-
4 tion 16(h)(3) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(3)) is
5 amended —
6 (1) by striking **$25" and all that follows
7 through "dependent care costs)" and inserting "the
8 payment made under section 6(d)(4)(I)(i)(I) but not
9 more than $75 per participant per month"; and
10 (2) by striking "representing $160 per month
11 per dependent" and inserting "equal to the payment
12 made under section 6(d)(4)(I)(i)(II) but not more
13 than the applicable local market rate".
14 TITLE in— SIMPLIFYING THE PROVISION
15 OF FOOD ASSISTANCE
16 SEC. 301. SIMPLIFYING THE HOUSEHOLD DEFINITION FOR
17 HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN AND OTHERS.
18 The first sentence of section 3(i) of the Act (7 U.S.C.
19 2012(i)) is amended—
20 (1) by striking "(2)" and inserting "or (2)";
21 (2) by striking ", or (3) a parent of minor chil-
22 dren and that parent's children" and all that follows
23 through "parents and children, or sibhngs," and in-
24 serting ". Parents and their minor children who live
25 together and spouses"; and
•HR629IH
Digitized by
Google
12
1 (3) by striking ", unless one of and all that
2 follows through "disabled member".
3 SEC. 302. RESOURCES OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH DISABLED
4 MEMBERS.
5 Section 5(g)(1) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2014(g)(1)) is
6 amended by striking "a member who is 60 years of age
7 or older," and inserting "an elderly or disabled member,".
8 SEC. 303. ASSURING ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE FOOD
9 STAMP PROGRAM.
10 Section 18 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2027) is amended
11 by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d) and redesignating
12 subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (b) and (c), respec-
13 tively.
14 TITLE IV— COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION TO
15 NEEDY FAMILIES.
16 SEC. 401— COMMODITY PURCHASES.
17 Section 214(e) of the Emergency Food Assistance
18 Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended—
19 (1) by striking "$175,000,000" and all that fol-
20 lows through "1992, and";
21 (2) by inserting after the first sentence the fol-
22 lowing:
23 "During fiscal year 1994, the Secretary shall spend
24 $220,000,000 to purchase, process, and distribute addi-
25 tional commodities under this section."; and
•HR 529 IH
Digitized by
Google
34
13
1 (3) in the last sentence by striking "1991
2 through" and inserting "1993 and".
3 TITLE V— IMPLEMENTATION AND
4 EFFECTIVE DATES
5 SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATES.
6 (a) General Effective Date. — Except as other-
7 wise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall
8 become effective and be implemented on October 1, 1993.
9 (b) Special Effectr^ Date. — Sections 103, 106,
10 201, 202, 204, 205, 301, and 302 of this Act shall become
1 1 effective and be implemented on July 1, 1994.
12 SEC. 502. BUDGET NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT.
13 None of the provisions of this Act shall become effec-
14 tive unless the costs are fully offset in each fiscal year
15 through fiscal year 1998. No agriculture price or income
16 support program administered through the Commodity
17 Credit Corporation under the Agricultural Act of 1949
18 may be reduced to achieve such offset.
•IIR629 IH
Digitized by
Google
35
H.R. 529, as introduced
Section-by-Section Analysis
H.R. 529, the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act, is virtually
identical to H.R. 1202, a bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture in the
102nd Congress that was later incorporated into the Family Preservation Act
and passed by the House. Most of the provisions of H.R. 1202 originated in
the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act of 1990 as that bill
was reported by the Committee on Agriculture and passed by the House as title
XVII, Food Stamp and Related Provisions, of H.R. 3950, the Food and
Agricultural Resources Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; the 1990 Farm Bill).
Section 1— Short title and table of contents
Section 1 provides that the bill may be cited as the "Mickey Leland
Childhood Hunger Relief Act", and sets out the table of contents of the bill.
Section 2-Reference8 to Act
Section 2 provides that references in the bill to "the Act" are references
to the Food Stamp Act of 1977.
TITLE I-ENSURING ADEQUATE FOOD ASSISTANCE
Section 101-Families with high shelter expenses
Section 101 amends section 5(e) of the Act to provide that households
without elderly or disabled members, for purposes of determining Food Stamp
Program eligibility and benefit levels, may deduct from income high shelter
costs in the same way that elderly and disabled households do at present.
Under current law, households may deduct shelter expenses that exceed 50% of
their incomes, but this deduction is capped, currently at $200 a month in the
48 contiguous States, for households that do not contain elderly or disabled
members.
Section 101(a) removes the cap for such households effective October 1,
1997 and makes a conforming change to section 5(e) of the Act. Section 101(b)
establishes increased shelter deduction caps for the interim period.
Section 102-Basic benefit level
Section 102 amends the definition of "thrifty food plan" in section 3 of
the Act to raise basic food stamp benefits. The thrifty food plan is the cost of
the diet required to feed a family of four adjusted by household size. The cost
of such diet is the basis of the food stamp allotments for households. These
allotment levels are adjusted every October to reflect food costs under the
Digitized by
Google
36
thrifty food plan for the year ending the previous June.
Food stamp benefits are currently set at 103% of the cost of the thrifty
food plan. Under section 102, food stamp benefits will rise in increments on an
annual basis until they reach 105% of the thrifty food plan by fiscal year 1999.
Section 103-Continuing benefits to eligible households
Section 103 amends the definition of "initial month" in section 8 of the
Act to mean the first month for which an allotment is issued to a household
following any period of more than one month in which the household was not
participating in the Food Stamp Program, after previous participation in the
program.
The effect of this provision is that eligible households reapplying during
the first month following the end of their prior certification period will receive
full benefits, rather than pro-rated benefits as required by current law, for that
month. This rule currently applies to migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
Section 104-HomeIess families in transitional housing
Section 104 amends section 6 of the Act to exclude from income, for
purposes of determining Food Stamp Program eligibility and allotment levels,
the full amount of vendor payments (payments made to third parties) for
transitional housing for homeless households.
The Food Stamp Act generally excludes vendor payments from
calculations of food stamp income. However, in those states that have shelter
allowance components within their payments to families under the Aid To
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, current law excludes that
portion of the vendor payments for transitional housing for the homeless only
up to an amount equal to half of the AFDC maximum shelter allowance. The
amount of a vendor payment that exceeds the AFDC maximum shelter
allowance is also excluded. The majority of states have no separate AFDC
shelter allowance, and therefore the entire vendor payment is excluded for the
purposes of the Food Stamp Program under the general rule to exclude vendor
payments. This section would treat vendor payments for transitional housing
the same in all states by excluding the entire vendor payment from income for
purposes of determining Food Stamp Program eligibility and allotment levels.
Section 105-Improving the nutritional status of children in Puerto Rico
Section 105 amends section 19 of the Act to increase funding for the
Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. In 1981, the Food Stamp
Act was amended to replace the Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico with a
block grant, the Nutrition Assistance Program. For 1994, the block grant
funding for NAP funding is increased from $1,091 billion to $1,111 billion; and
for 1995 it is increased from $1,133 billion to $1,158 billion.
Digitized by
Google
37
Section lOO-Households benefiting from general assistance vendor payments
Section 106 amends section 5 of the Act to include only general
assistance (GA) vendor payments provided for housing expenses, but excluding
energy or utility-cost assistance, as income for determining food stamp eligibility
and benefit levels.
Under current law, GA vendor payments are excluded from consideration
as income if they are made under state laws that prohibit making direct GA
payments to households. In other states, they are counted as income if they
are made for normal living expenses.
The 1990 Farm Bill established the current exclusion from income for
those GA vendor payments made under state laws prohibiting direct GA
payments to households.
Section 107-Helping low-income high school students
Section 107 amends section 5 of the Act to exclude the income of high
school students for the purpose of calculating eligibility and benefit levels for
the Food Stamp Program. Current law excludes the income of high school
students only up to their eighteenth birthday.
TITLE II-PROMOTING SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Section 201 -Child support disregard
Section 201 amends section 5 of the Act to exclude from consideration as
household income in determining Food Stamp Program eligibility and allotment
levels the first $50 a month received for child support, including those
payments made on time but received in a later month. Under current law, the
State agency has the option to exclude the first $50 in child support payments
received by households participating in the AFDC program, but must reimburse
to the Federal government, from state funds, the value of increased food stamp
benefits.
Section 202-Child support payments to non-household members
Section 202 amends section 5 of the Act to exclude from consideration as
income for purposes of determining Food Stamp Program eligibility and
allotment levels any child support payments a household member makes to
support a child outside of the household, if the payments are a legal obligation.
Current law provides no such exclusion.
Section 203-Vehicles needed to seek and continue employment and for
household transportation
Section 203 amends section 5 of the Act to require the annual indexing
of the current asset threshold for the fair market value of vehicles owned by
Digitized by
Google
households. Current law imposes the eligibility requirement, generally, that
households not have assets above $2,000 if they do not contain an elderly
member, or $3,000 if they do contain an elderly member. The amount of the
fair market value of each household vehicle (other than those that are totally
disregarded) that exceeds $4,500 is calculated toward the asset limit. Section
203 requires that the $4,500 threshold be adjusted, beginning on October 1,
1993, and on each October 1 thereafter, to reflect changes in the Consumer
Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, for new cars, rounded to the nearest $50.
Section 204-Vehicles necessarv to carry fuel or water
Section 204 amends section 5 of the Act to exclude from financial
resources, for purposes of determining Pood Stamp Program eligibility, a vehicle
that is used by a household to transport fuel for heating or water when that
fuel or water is the primary source for the household. Current law provides no
such exclusion.
Section 205-Improving access to employment and training activities
Section 205(a) amends section 5 of the Act to raise the current dependent
care deduction, allowed in computing household income for purposes of
determining program eligibility and benefit levels, from $160 a month for each
dependent to $200 a month for children under age 2 and $175 a month for
other dependents. Current law permits a dependent care deduction when
dependent care enables a household member to work or look for work, or
engage in education or training in preparation for employment.
Section 205(b) amends section 6 of the Act to raise the limit on
reimbursements to recipients participating in employment and training (E&T)
programs for costs related to E&T activities. Current law limits dependent care
reimbursements to $160 per dependent per month and other reimbursements to
$25 per month per person and requires states to exempt from participation in
E&T activities those households whose costs would exceed the reimbursement.
Section 205 raises dependent care reimbursements to the applicable local
market rate as determined using procedures consistent with those used for
AFDC EI&T programs. Section 205 exempts from participation in EI&T
activities individuals whose dependent care costs exceed the dependent care
deduction. Section 205 also raises the limit for reimbursements for other work-
related costs to $75 a month.
Section 205(c) makes a conforming change to the Act in section 16 to
raise the amounts of E&T dependent care and other work-related
reimbursements made by State agencies to recipients for which State agencies
will be reimbursed (at the normal fifty percent rate) by USDA, consistent with
the increase in such reimbursements to recipients.
Digitized by
Google
39
5
TITLE III-^IMPLIFYING THE PROVISI ON OF FOOD ASSISTANCE
Section 301-Simplifving the household definition for households
with children and others
Section 301 amends section 3 of the Act to delete a provision that
requires siblings living together and parents living with adult children to be
considered as one household even if they do not purchase and prepare meals
together.
Section 301 amends the definition of "household" in section 3 of the Act
to include (1) an individual who lives alone, (2) an individual who lives with
others but customarily purchases food and prepares meals separate and apart
from the others, and (3) a group of individuals who live together and
customarily purchase food and prepare meals together. Parents and their
minor children who live together and spouses who live together would continue
to be treated as a group of individuals who customarily purchase and prepare
meals together even if they do not do so.
Section 302--Resource8 of households with disabled members
Section 302 amends section 5 of the Act to increase the resource limit
for determining Food Stamp Program eligibility from $2,000 to $3,000 for any
household containing a disabled member.
Under current law, most households have a resource limit of $2,000,
while those containing at least one elderly member have a $3,000 limit. This
amendment extends to households containing a disabled member the $3,000
limit available now for households with an elderly member.
Section 303-Assuring adequate funding for the Food Stamp Program
Section 303 amends section 18 of the Act to delete from the Act
provisions that authorize the reduction of benefits to households and
notification to States if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that Food
Stamp Program funding is insufficient.
TITLE rV-COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION TO NEEDY FAMILIES
Section 401-Commoditv purchases
Section 401 amends section 214 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of
1983 to require that the Secretary spend $220,000,000 in fiscal year 1994 to
purchase, process, and distribute additional commodities. These commodities
are to be in addition to those commodities from Commodity Credit Corporation
stocks distributed under the authority of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of
1983.
Current law, which would not be changed by this provision, authorizes to
be appropriated $220,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1993 through 1995.
Digitized by
Google
40
TITLE V-IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVE DATES
Section 501-EfTective dates
Section 501 provides that sections 103, 106, 201, 202, 204, 205, 301, and
302 will become effective and be implemented on July 1, 1994. Other
provisions of the bill will become effective and must be implemented on October
1, 1993.
Section 502-Requirement for budget neutrality
Section 502 provides that none of the provisions of the bill shall become
effective unless the costs of the bill are fully offset in each fiscal year through
fiscal year 1998. The offset may not be achieved by reduction of any
agriculture price or income support program.
Digitized by
Google
41
The Chairman. I now yield to my distinguished friend, the rank-
ing minority member from Kansas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also wish to wel-
come the Secretary to our hearing.
The subject of our hearing, domestic and overseas food assistance
Programs, is extremely important. A review of the budget of the
department of Agricmture certainly demonstrates that fact. The
1994 budget for the USDA, as submitted by the President, totaled
$63 billion. Of that amount, $38 billion is proposed to be spent on
domestic food and nutrition programs. That represents more than
55 percent of the 1994 USDA budget.
The administration did submit its proposals for changes to the
food stamp program as of yesterday. In that package, the President
has proposed to increase spending on the food stamp program by
$563 milUon in 1994 and $6,955 billion over a 5-year period. These
proposals include removing the ceiling on the excess shelter deduc-
tion, which will cost $2.5 billion over 5 years, over one-third of the
new spending, resulting in additional food stamp benefits to only
15 percent of the famihes that are receiving food stamps. Another
change increases the value of a car that food stamp families may
own and then increases that amount each year to reflect the
changes in the Consumer Price Index for new cars.
Now, Fm raising this issue because one of the themes of the
President and a bipartisan goal of this Congress was to end reform
welfare as we know it. These proposals, as far as I can see, do not
end welfare as we know it. That is a very, very difficult goal. But
it seems to me that what is missing in this package is a significant
proposal to accompUsh this goal or, to put it in another way, to bet-
ter target assistance to the truly disadvantaged and to assist those
who are able to gain real jobs and employment.
In fact, the changes to the food stamp employment and training
program included in the President's bill cost $20 million over 5
years, or less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the entire 5-year
cost of the bill. If we are to increase spending in this program $7
billion, surely we can allocate more than three-tenths of 1 percent
to employment and training, and I look forward to working with
the Secretary to see if we can't get fiinding increased for employ-
ment and training.
Mr. Chairman, Fd like to include in the record a chart that does
illustrate the increases in expenditures — ^you can't measure
progress entirely by expenditures, but in terms of commitment, I
think that you can at least see that it is a good indicator — expendi-
tures of the food stamp program since 1979. In that year the Fed-
eral cost of the food stamp program was $7 billion. Ten years later,
in 1989, the Federal cost of the program had doubled to $14 billion.
In 1993, 4 years later, the Federal cost of the food stamp program
has almost doubled again to $25 billion.
Over the past several years, as you have indicated, this commit-
tee has had the food stamp program under almost constant review.
Since 1981 legislation affecting the food stamp program has been
enacted every year, sometimes more than once a year, with the ex-
Digitized by
Google
42
option of 1986. The emergen<^ food assistance program, or
TEFAP, and the commodity mstnbutionjnrograms also have been
under review by tins committee. In fact, TEfAP was actually initi-
ated bv this committee.
So mis committee, under the leadership of Chairman de la Garza
and Mr. Panetta and my good friend, Mr. Emerson, who has done
yeoman work in this field, has addressed this issue with full and
complete responsibility as well as the broader issue of making sure
that needy families and all Americans can buy food at a reasonable
cost.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and I ask permission that this table
be inserted in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
Digitized by
Google
43
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAT ROBERTS
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
REVIEW OF DOMESTIC AND OVERSEAS
FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
APRIL 28, 1993
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I WISH TO WELCOME THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO OUR HEARING. THE SUBJECT OF OUR
HEARING, DOMESTIC AND OVERSEAS FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, IS
VERY IMPORTANT. A REVIEW OF THE BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE DEMONSTRATES THAT FACT.
THE 1994 BUDGET FOR USDA AS SUBMITTED BY PRESIDENT
CLINTON TOTALS $63 BILLION. OF THAT AMOUNT $38 BILLION IS
PROPOSED TO BE SPENT ON DOMESTIC FOOD AND NUTRITION
PROGRAMS— REPRESENTING MORE THAN 55% OF THE 1994 BUDGET.
THE ADMINISTRATION SUBMITTED ITS PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES
TO THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM YESTERDAY. IN THAT PACKAGE THE
PRESIDENT PROPOSES TO INCREASE SPENDING ON THE FOOD STAMP
PROGRAM BY $563 MILLION IN 1994 AND BY $6,955 BILLION OVER A FIVE
Digitized by
Google
44
YEAR PERIOD. THE PROPOSALS INCLUDE REMOVING THE CEIUNG ON
THE EXCESS SHELTER DEDUCTION WHICH WILL COST $2.5 BILUON OVER
FIVE YEARS (OVER ONE-THIRD OF THE NEW SPENDING) RESULTING IN
ADDITIONAL FOOD STAMP BENEFITS TO ONLY 15% OF THE FAMILIES
RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS. ANOTHER CHANGE INCREASES THE VALUE
OF A CAR FOOD STAMP FAMILIES MAY OWN AND THEN INCREASES THAT
AMOUNT EACH YEAR TO REFLECT THE CHANGES IN THE CONSUMER
PRICE INDEX FOR NEW CARS.
I AM RAISING THIS ISSUE BECAUSE ONE OF THE THEMES OF
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN AND A BI-PARTISAN GOAL OF THIS
CONGRESS WAS TO END AND REFORM WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT. THESE
PROPOSALS DO NOT END WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT; RATHER, THEY
CONTINUE THE SAME WELFARE PROGRAMS. THE PRESIDENT SAID HE
WANTED TO REQUIRE THOSE WHO CAN WORK, TO GO TO WORK. WHAT
IS MISSING IN THIS PACKAGE IS A SIGNIFICANT PROPOSAL TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL, OR PUT ANOTHER WAY, TO BETTER TARGET
ASSISTANCE TO THE TRULY DISADVANTAGED AND TO ASSIST THOSE
WHO ARE ABLE, TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. IN FACT, THE CHANGES TO
THE FOOD STAMP EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM INCLUDED IN
THE PRESIDENTS BILL COST $20 MILLON OVER FIVE YEARS-OR LESS
THAN .3%— THREE TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE FIVE YEAR
COST OF THE BILL IF WE ARE TO INCREASE SPENDING IN THIS
Digitized by
Google
45
PROGRAM $7 BILLION, SURELY WE CAN ALLOCATE MORE THAN .3% TO
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING.
WE MUST BUILD WORK INCENTIVES INTO THE FOOD STAMP
PROGRAM AND MAKE TAXPAYERS OUT OF THE ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE
NOW RECEIVING FOOD ASSISTANCE.
IF ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS ALLOCATED TO THE FOOD STAMP
PROGRAM, AND DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT AS AN INVESTMENT, THIS
INVESTMENT SHOULD PAY DIVIDENDS— TO THE ABLE BODIED PEOPLE
NOW RELYING ON FOOD STAMPS AND TO THE TAXPAYER WHO IS
FOOTING THE BILL.
I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THE COMMENTS OF THE
SECRETARY.
MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THE RECORD A
CHART ILLUSTRATING THE INCREASES IN THE COST OF THE FOOD STAMP
PROGRAM SINCE 1979. IN THAT YEAR THE FEDERAL COST OF THE FOOD
STAMP PROGRAM WAS $7 BILLION; TEN YEARS LATER, IN 1989, THE
FEDERAL COST OF THE PROGRAM HAD DOUBLED TO $14 BILLION.
IN 1993, FOUR YEARS LATER, THE FEDERAL COST OF THE FOOD
Digitized by
Google
46
STAMP PROGRAM HAS ALMOST DOUBLED AGAIN-TO $25 BILLION.
OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS THIS COMMITTEE HAS HAD THE
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM UNDER ALMOST CONSTANT REVIEW. SINCE 1981,
LEGISLATION AFFECTING THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM HAS BEEN
ENACTED EVERY YEAR, AND SOMETIMES MORE THAN ONCE A YEAR,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 1986. THE EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM (TEFAP) AND COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS ALSO
HAVE BEEN UNDER REVIEW BY THIS COMMITTEE-IN FACT, TEFAP WAS
INITIATED BY THIS COMMITTEE.
THIS COMMITTEE, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHAIRMAN,
MR. PANETTA AND MR. EMERSON, HAS ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE WITH
FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY, AS WELL AS THE BROADER ISSUE
OF MAKING SURE THAT NEEDY FAMILIES, AND ALL AMERICANS, CAN
BUY FOOD AT A REASONABLE COST.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
(Attachroents follow:)
Digitized by
Google
47
CRS-22
TABLE lA. Recent Total Food Stamp Act Expenditures:
Current Dollars, Including Puerto Rico
(in millions)
Fiscal year
Benefits**
(Federal)
Administration*
Federal
State and
local
Total
1979 $ 6,480 $ 515 $ 388 $ 7,383
1980 8,685 503 375 9,563
1981 10,630 678 504 11,812
1982 10,408 709 657 11,674
1983 11,955 778 612 13,345
1984 11,499 971 805 13,275
1985 11,556 1,043 871 13,470
1986 11,415 1,113 935 13,463
1987 11,344 1,195 996 13,535
1988 11,999 1,290 1,080 14,369
1989 12,483 1,332 1,101 14,916
1990 15,090 1,422 1,174 17,686
1991 (estimated) . . . 18,249 1,516 1^247 21,012
'Includes all Federal administrative coets associated with the Food Stamp program and
Puerto Rico's block grant: Federal matching for administrative and employment and training
program expenses and direct Federal administrative costs. Figures for Federal administrative
costs beginning with fiscal year 19S9 include thoee paid out of the food stamp appropriation,
Puerto Rico's block grant, and the food stamp f>ortion of a separate FNS appropriation for food
program administration. Figures for earlier years also incorporate estimates ($lS-$20 million a
year) of food stamp-related Federal administrative expenses paid out of other Agriculture
Department accounts (e.g., the OfTice of the Inspector General).
State and local coets are estimated based on the known Federal shares and represent an
estimate of all administrative expenses of States and other jurisdictions (including Puerto Rico).
deludes all benefit coets associated with the Food Stamp program and Puerto Rico's block
grant. The benefit amounte shown in the Uble reflect small downward acljustments for
overpayments collected from recipiente. Figures reflect both changes in benefite and numbers of
recipients and, for Puerto Rico, include amounte spent on agricultural and wage subsidy projecte.
Digitized by
Google
48
OSM FOOD ASSISTANCE PROCRAM*
EBfififi^
DATE OP
ENACTMBMT
FY
12M
FY
FY
1222
FY
1221 1/
1962
, . . .in Billion
dollars ,
23,470 1/
Food StaiBDa
9,191
16,465 1/
25,121 1/
CTiild Nutrition
School Lunch
1946
2,104
3,230
3,870
4,131
School Breakfast
1966
250
591.5
801
891
Special Milk
1955
157
22
22
20
Comnodities for School
Programs, Including bonus
and Section 32
Sumner Food 1969
Child Care Food
1968
?<vitritignal SMPPlg^gntg fpr
Wgffign. Inf?>ntg. and Chil<argn
944
89
214
568.1
163.5
803.9
WIC
1972
736
2,129
CSFP
1969
22
72.9 2/
Elderly Feeding
1965
72
143.4
Conpc><llt4e9 Ppn^tions
Food Distribution
Programs
1936
34
68.3
Charitable
Institutions
1973
70
66.3
TEFAP (including
bonus)
1981
288.3
Soup Kitchens
and Food Banks
1989
39.4
725
203
1,090
TOTALS
$13,883 $24,651.6
83.5
101
254
32
$33,594.5
747
230
1,327
2,673 2,974
118 2/ 117 2/
152 143
83.5
101
320 2/
32
$36,237.5
1/ Includes Puerto Rico block grant, excludes $10. 8m to APHIS for tick
eradication
2/ Includes Elderly Pilot Projects and bonus donations
V Includes $42. 3m from Farm Credit Security Act
1/ FY93 estimate includes stimulus funding requests as follows: WIC-f$75m;
TEFAP^$23m; CACFP^$5m; and, Commodities^$3m
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (March 1993)
Digitized by
Google
49
The Chairman. The Secretary has informed me that he brought
with him Ms. O'Neil and Mr. Braley, who are the eroerts in the
area we will be addressing. I would remind the members we will
be working on the time of arrival, as is our practice.
Mr. Secretary, ifs always a pleasure and, I might say, an honor
for us to have the distinguished Secretary of Agriculture, Mike
Espy.
STATEMENT OF MIKE ESPY, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY BONNY O^^IL, ACT-
ING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD STAMP PROGRAA^
GEORGE BRALEY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FOOD
AND CONSUMER SERVICES; AND CHRIS GOLDTHWATT, ACT-
ING GENERAL SALES MANAGER
Secretary Espy. Mr. Chairman, it is also an honor and a privi-
lege for me to return to this committee. Thank you for your hard
work on this issue, and to you and to Mr. Roberts and also to Mr.
Stenholm and Mr. Penny, both of whom have a subcommittee with
direct jurisdiction over the matter that we're discussing today. I
want to tell you again what a pleasure it is for me to return here
to talk with so many of my friends and former colleagues that I've
worked with on hunger issues in the past.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that rm the first Secretary of Agri-
culture to ever address this committee on our effort to seek
antihunger legislation. I think that demonstrates not only my per-
sonal commitment to this issue, to the issue of eliminating hunger,
but also it demonstrates the commitment of this Clinton adminis-
tration.
It's a pleasure for me to comment on this long-overdue legislation
named in honor of my beloved friend, the late Mickey Leland, from
your State of Texas. Just yesterday I signed and delivered to the
Congress the administration's legislative proposal for the food
stamp program. We are very proud of the comprehensive package
that we've submitted, and I'm certainly here to support that pack-
age.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here to comment on it in a way of simunary.
We have many, many experts here, and two of them are sitting be-
side me: Ms. Bonny O'Neil, the Acting Deputy Administrator of the
Food Stamp Program, and Mr. George Braley, the Acting Assistant
Secretary for Food and Consumer Services. We have Mr. Chris
Goldthwait, who many of you know. Chris has worked a long time
in the USDA, and he presently serves as Acting General Sales
Manager. We also have Ellen Haas, who, if and when confirmed in
a few days, will be the permanent Assistant Secretary for that
same division. Food and Consumer Services. And we have Mr.
Frank Vacca, who is also here today, who, when confirmed, will be
the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.
So we've got a big team here today, and I'd like to move forward
by simunanzing this very comprehensive bill, and then asking
those who are with me today to share answers to questions that
you might have.
Let me also introduce, though. Reverend Larry Jones, who we
had lunch with today, Mr. Chairman, and who has agreed to join
us on the screening committee for the hunger forums that you
Digitized by
Google
50
mentioned in your opening statement. Of course, everyone's famil-
iar with Reverend Jones by way of TV and by wav of his long his-
tory in ameliorating conditions of him^er in die United States and
throughout the world as director ana chairman and czar of his
Feed the Children organization.
I'd like to also recognize the lon^tanding leadership of you, Mr.
Chairman, on the issue of alleviatmg hunger in the United States
and overseas, and I do look forward to working with Congressmen
Stenholm and Penny on these issues as well as my good friend
from Missouri, Mr. Emerson, who IVe worked with many years on
the issues of one-stop shopping and EBT reform and the uke.
Last, rd also be very, very remiss if I did not mention the role
of our 0MB Director, Leon Panetta, as a leader in shaping our Na-
tion's food assistance programs that benefit millions of low-income
individuals in desperate need. So this bill today not only has the
imprimatur of the 0MB from a policy and a fiscal standpoint, but
fix)m his yeoman's work as a member of this committee, Mr. Cnair-
man, we know that we have the stamp of Leon Panetta's heart on
this bill as well.
Our comprehensive food stamp legislation is an investment in
the future of our Nation, and in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is
an investment that is long overdue. Today we have a tra^c situa-
tion due to poverty and hunger that continues to exist within our
powerful Nation. In the richest country on the face of God's Earth,
we have 35.7 million people living in poverty, according to the lat-
est statistics, and 21.8 percent of our children, more than one in
five, grow up in conditions of eirtreme poverty. So today we are an-
nouncing yet another all-time high in food stamp participation.
Last February, Mr. Chairman, we announced a record-setting
level of 26.9 mUhon Americans who received food stamps in Feb-
ruary of 1993, and that's about 1.5 million more than February of
1992, so we have an unprecedented need for food and certainly an
obvious need for participation in this particular bill. This is a bill
that is bold. It addresses a problem that we have existing in Amer-
ica today, but it also has a number of changes in management and
administration, and it also addresses existing and persistent ques-
tions of fraud and enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, 1 out of 10 people receive food stamps, and these
people live in households with gross incomes at or below 130 per-
cent of the poverty line, which, as you know, is about $14,350 a
vear for a family of four. Eight in 10 of every food stamp recipient
has children or elderly wiuiin their family, and tliey receive a
monthly benefit that averages about $68 per person. Thatfs about
$2.25 per day, or 75 cents a meal, per person. So this is not some
bonanza that we are here asking for today.
We think this bill is necessary so that the next generation of
Americans will not have to decide whether to heat their homes or
to pav their rent or to feed their children. We endorse this bill so
that basic benefit levels can ensure that people can still buy an
adequate, though inexpensive, diet at the end of the year as well
as at the beginning of the year. We would like you to consider this
bill favorably so that people won't have to sell their cars to receive
food stamps in addition to the time that they're trying to look for
work, so that people paying and receiving child support are encour-
Digitized by
Google
51
aged to do so rather than discouraged to do so, and that these and
omer provisions of our bill will ease the burden of lingering eco-
nomic problems that face families throughout our Nation today.
Mr. Chairman, I'm also pleased to point out that all of the provi-
sions of our bill are fully effective by the second year, fiscal year
1995, so tliat there are no hidden costs in the outyears. So this
could be referred to as a truth-in-budgeting bill. Also, the cost of
this bill falls within the House concurrent budget resolution, so we
believe that we can afiford it.
The legislation that we have submitted recognizes the past work
of this committee. As you have pointed out in your opening re-
marks, the Mickey Leland antihunger assistance bill has passed
this committee and indeed has passed the House of Representa-
tives two times before. But in this bill we have included several
new ideas regarding the promotion of self-suf&ciency and to provide
an assurance to the American people Hiat the program will be well-
managed and as firee of abuse as himianly possible.
In addition to our continued commitment to expansion of the
EBT, which is electronic benefits transfer, we have put before you
a nimiber of specific proposals which will enhance program integ-
rity. We've also presented a nimiber of items which will result in
proper savings, we should resolve today that this opportunity to in-
vest in our Nation's fiiture should not pass without our talong ac-
tion.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, since the text of my comments
have been included in the record, I'd like to just hit on three items
that I know this committee remains or has a substantial interest
in: The area of international food assistance, the area of antifiraud
and enforcement, and, last, an area that Fve worked on, the area
of self-suf&ciency or empowerment and attempting to help Ameri-
cans get off fooQ stamps and on the road of mdependence. Ill do
so very briefly.
In the area of international food assistance, the United States
contributes over one-half of the world's food aid, and this will
amount to over 10 million metric tons in fiscal year 1993. Of this,
the USDA programs a little more than one-half and AID a little
less than one-haU" in most years. USDA manages three food aid
programs. These include the Public Law 480, title I, which will pro-
vide over 2.5 million tons of assistance in fiscal year 1993; section
416, under which we will provide nearly 2 million tons; and FFP,
food for progress, which has been in vogue of late, under which we
will also provide roughly 2 million tons this fiscal year, not includ-
ing shipments under the special food for progress credit program
for Russia. We also attempt to meet food needs in many areas of
Afiica and in the crisis areas of the former Soviet Union.
In the area of self-suf&ciency, we need to encoura^ those who
can to prepare themselves to become self-suf&cient citizens who are
able to provide for their families without reliance on the food stamp
program or other public assistance. I am pleased to recommend to
this committee a nimiber of initiatives which move toward this
worthy goal.
The fist of these initiatives is one that many of you have heard
me talk about in my entire service in this great institution. It
would autliorize us to test allowing a limited nimiber of families
Digitized by
Google
52
who have ahready qualified for food stamps to set aside in special
savings accounts money to help them seek future independence
through education, training, or purchase of equipment related to
self-employment. They woiild be allowed to accumulate up to
$10,000 over a 4-year demonstration period for this purpose. We
would fully evaluate to what extent households take advantage of
this opportunity and to what extent it in fact results in increased
self-sifficiency.
In further recognition that education and training are vital links
to future independence, I am proposing that we increase the
amounts we reimburse participants in employment and training
programs, that we allow those who are already working to deduct
additional amounts from income for child care expenses, and that
we encourage young adults to continue their high school educations
by not counting some of their income so long as they are in school.
Mr. Chairman, we know that this is something that vou have
supported for quite a long time. We need to recognize that some
students, perhaps because of language difiGculties, may take longer
to complete their high school education and need special encourage-
ment. This provision would provide that encouragement, in our
opinion.
Last, that there are other families who are denied food stamps
because they own a car worth over $4,500. We propose to raise that
limit to $5,500 in fiscal year 1994 and to index it to future years.
To have to sell a car which would be needed to seek and to retain
future employment just because it's worth over $4,500, to me,
doesn't make good economic sense and, to me, makes no sense at
all. Even a food assistance task force established by former Presi-
dent Reagan recommended that the limit be raised to $5,500, and
that was in 1984. We think that in that regard President Reagan
had a great recommendation. [Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, in the area of antifraud, penalties, and enforce-
ment, we've done a number of thin^ we think will tighten this bill
and provide for program integrity. Because improving the integrity
of the food stamp program will always be an important goal of this
administration, our proposal includes two full titles containing good
management and integrity proposals. These proposals coincide with
the Department's ongoing efforts in the areas of expanding elec-
tronic benefit transfer as an issuance alternative.
Proposal No. 1: We'd like to expand the use and disclosure of pro-
gram information, the sales and redemption information, provided
by retail stores and wholesale food concerns to State and Federal
law enforcement and investigative agencies. This proix)sal would
enhance the Department's enforcement and investigative activity
by allowing us to match and to verify information in our files with
information in the files of other law enforcement and investigative
agencies that may provide evidence of violations in programs ad-
ministered by the Food and Nutrition Service.
Proposal No. 2: To authorize the sharing of debt collection infor-
mation on former food stamp redpients to permit collection of out-
standing overpayment claims by Federal salary offset, permanently
authorizing the collection of outstanding overpayment claims by
tax refund intercepts, and to permit the recoupment of State agen-
cy error claims.
Digitized by
Google
53
Proposal No. 3: To authorize street trafiELcking demonstration
projects in which State or local food stamp agencies test innovative
ideas for investigating street trafiELcking. The rationale for this is
because the Department's and State agencies' investigative re-
sources are insumcient to pursue street trafiELcking, particularly the
sale of food stamps outside issuing ofiGces by recipients for cash at
a discount. It is essential to enlist State ana local law enforcement
agencies to assist in these investigations.
That, Mr. Chairman, in essence is the summary of this very com-
plex, but very necessary bill. I'm here as the Secretary of Agri-
culture speaMng not just about farm programs, but also about a
very necessaiy and important part of what we do every day, and
that's to provide nutritional support for Americans who, through no
fault of their own, fibid themselves unable to do so.
Thank you. With that, I'll turn it over and ask for questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Espy appears at the con-
clusion of me hearing.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Just let me
mention a couple of items. One is that during your tenure here as
a member of our committee, we passed the Mickey Leland bill
twice. Regretfully, fiimding was not available, and we had to do
some juggling. Hopefully, one of the prime movers of that legisla-
tion now is in a position to help with some ftmding, so we look to
0MB and our dear former colleague, Mr. Panetta.
Also, there is much concern about the terrible situation we see
around the world, and we lost one of our Members, a friend, a
brother, a colleague from Texas, Mickey Leland because of it. The
sad part is that Mickey Leland gave his life on a mission not to
bring food. The food was there. The availability of the food was
never in question. He was shuttling between rival factions to allow
the food to go through. The food was there. The food was available.
He was one of the very few, perhaps the only one, in the Congress
that had that ability and knowledge and the acquaintances to be
able to speak to rival factions in that area where he fimally gave
his life.
All of us know that it came about when a child died in his arms.
So I have personally dedicated myself to that effort, and we pray
that aside from the substantive of getting the food, that somehow
the world forums and the conscience of people would be such that
this would not happen. That was happening in Somalia, and that
was happening in Mozambique, and tnat was happening in Ethio-
{)ia, and that was happening in the Sudan. Hopefully, our dip-
omats will find a way so that those — ^Uke the Feed the Children
Program — ^I'm sure the good doctor has had similar problems that
out of the kindness and generosity and human sensitivity of people
that you hit a wall when, for political or other reasons, they will
not let the food go by. So we hope that that efifort shall not be di-
minished, either, by those that handle the diplomatic areas.
We are going to have hearings, Mr. Secretary, on a very disturb-
ing piece of information that has been made public, and this is the
study made through the nutrition screening initiative, working
with the elderly, and the information is not good at all. The 132
doctors surveyed, members of the American Giriatric Society, esti-
mated that malnutrition among their own elderly, their patients.
Digitized by
Google
54
was 26 percent. The National Gerontological Nurses Association es-
timated 28 percent. The doctors estimated malnourishment in el-
derly hospital patients at 43 percent, and the nurses said
malnourishment was present in 57 percent of elderly hospital pa-
tients and 38 percent of elderly nursing home residents.
I am asking our subcommittees to look at this report and go be-
yond the report to ensure that what you're recommending and the
administration is recommending, Mr. Secretary, will address some
of these issues. We need to focus on this specifically, because in
1993 in the United States of America, this is not acceptable. Ifs
totally unacceptable, and we will do our best to see that this issue
is addressed.
We have two bells, which allow us 15 minutes, Mr. Secretary.
We're ready for questions by members, but perhaps we can b^in
with some members and then rotate as we have the availability.
If s a vote on the journal, and I think that my responsibility to you
as a distinguished guest is that at this stage of the game, I can
miss a vote now and then. [Laughter.]
So I will stay here with you as members come and go.
Secretary Espy. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but as I men-
tioned to you at the outset, I have a pressing engagement in the
other body on the other side.
I could certainly ask my colleagues to remain to answer whatever
questions you might have, but I co\ild
The Chairman. Well, members are here who might want to brief-
ly address the Secretary. If there is no objection, unanimous con-
sent is given that all prepared statements firom the members will
be inserted in the record at the beginning of the hearing.
Let me just briefly yield to Mr. Penny, the chairman of the For-
eign Agriculture and Hunger Subcommittee.
Mr. Penny. Thank you, and I appreciate the Secretarjr's interest
in the international hunger dimensions and particularly our col-
laboration on the Russian aid package in recent weeks.
I do want to ask you a question thaf s somewhat off the topic,
but I'm curious to know, as you contemplate reorganizing the De-
partment, what thoughts you might have about those programs
within the Department that are related to domestic hunger issues
and how reorganization might c^ect tliat arena.
Secretary Espy. Thank you, Tim. I appreciate the question.
We've not set in concrete any plan to reorganize USDA, but in my
mind, the present programs that we have, particularly tiiose in the
Assistant Secretary for Food and Consimier Services, would remain
largely unaffected by any reorganizational proposal. The only areas
that we've talked about as of late and that have been rumored to
be under consideration for reorganization have been those in the
international food context. There has been some talk of separating
the Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Pro-
grams into the Farm Service Agency and to create a new Under
Secretary position for International Affairs, and under that I would
expect that we could put the ILCD and the Foreign Agricultural
Service.
I'm not announcing that todav, and I'm not even sure it's going
to happen, but that hias been talked about more than any other as-
Digitized by
Google
55
pect of nutrition assistance. But nothing in the domestic has been
even discussed.
The Chairman. Any other member that may want to address the
Secretary at this time?
Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. Mr. Chairman, if you don't approve the journal,
somebody has to read it, and that could take weeks, so I'm going
to go vote on the journal to make sure that it is approved as read.
Actually, I'm going to vote against it unless it gets down to one
vote.
But at any rate, I just want to ask a very quick question, and
I'm going to leave the speech out, Mike. Is there suf&dent ftmding
in the food stamp employment and training program to accomplish
the goal of the President, who has stated he wants to end welfare
as we know it and he wants a welfare reform proposal? I know
you're going to participate in tliat initiative, but with only tiiree-
tenths of 1 percent in that employment and training, can't we do
a little bit better than that, work on that?
Secretary Espy. Ill ask Ms. CNeil to answer that.
Ms. CNeil. For fiscal year 1993 we're estimating, based on State
plans, that the combined Federal and State expenditures will be
about $253 million. In the 1990 farm bill, the E&T program was
substantially changed to allow States to target their resources on
a smaller number of people. In the past we had the limited fimd-
ing, and we also required that they serve at least 50 percent of
their total caseload, which meant that you couldn't spend very
much money indeptli trying to help individuals find employment
and training. Now, because we've allowed them to target on the
hard-to-serve and perhaps put more fimds on those individuals, we
think we have a far more effective program. Fiscal year 1993 is the
first opportunity we've had to implement the changes in the farm
bill.
Mr. Roberts. Let me point out that $253 million of a $25 billion
program is still not where it ought to be, and firom a conservative
Kepublican, don't turn down an offer of more money.
Ms. O'Neil. I might add one other thing, which is about half of
our caseload is M'DC recipients, who also receive assistance
through the jobs program under the AFDC program.
Mr. Roberts. I appreciate that.
Ill be right back, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Espy. Thank you, Pat. Let me say also parenthetically
that it's increasing because the need has been increasing, and we
announced a record participation level in food stamps — 26.9 million
folks, up 1.5 million firom last year, 1992's record level. I would love
to find more money to assist individuals to move firom the food
stamps and ranks of poverty into levels of independence. I would
love to do that and have announced within this bill some degree
of a demonstration project beyond education and training, but
microenterprise and savings accounts to help them move firom
Mr. Roberts. I'm going to yield to your expertise and that of Mr.
Emerson and people who have worked with tihis over the long term
and done their homework certainly more than I have, and I'm not
going to ask you to hit the cargo preference Softball out of the park.
Digitized by
Google
56
but I just mention that in terms of the $700 million that we have
been talking about.
Fm not going to ask that question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Secretary Espy. And Fm not going to answer it. [Laughter.]
But as of late, Mr. Roberts, IVe been screaming about it, and Fm
going to continue to.
The Chairman. Mr. Emerson.
Mr. Emerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I commend you greatly for the series of con-
ferences you're going to hold aroimd the coimtry on the himger
issue. As you and I have had the opportimity to communicate on
this subject, I really see it as the opening opportunity for public
education in the broader issue of welfare reform. I thmk that we
cannot ultimately end himger in this coimtry, which I think must
be one of our most serious national goals, without a comprehensive
reform of the welfare system.
You know from your long service on this committee and on the
Select Committee on Himger the very extensive work that was
done on the Select Committee on Himger on the subject of welfare
reform, because there we had an opportunity to cross jurisdictional
lines and get into all aspects of it. I would suggest to you that one
of the finest bodies of records or hearings or evidence available in
this town on the need for welfare reform is in the files of the now-
defimct Select Committee on Himger. I would certainly hope that
as they're closing down that operation that a fiill set of all of the
hearings relating to welfare reform, most especially the subject of
one-stop shopping, be made available to you and your staff, because
there's a tremendous resource there.
Second, as I cosponsored the Mickey Inland bill, there was a
msgor TEFAP provision in there, and that has not been included
in the budget recommendations of the administration, as I under-
stand it. I have had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Braley about
it, but I wish the administration would include a TEFAP compo-
nent in your food initiatives, and I would ask you to reexamine
why that hasn't come forward. It is in the bill, but I don't believe
it is in the requests of the administration, so I would ask you to
take a look at that.
Secretary Espy. Yes, sir. You realize that. You have been associ-
ated with this issue for quite a long time as well as 0MB Director
Leon Panetta, who authored the TEFAP legislation. So we have an
interest in it, and I think it's a valuable and viable program, and
we will review it.
Mr. Emerson. I might say that a lot of those hearings, Leon also,
as a former member of the Select Committee on Hunger as well as
the Agriculture Committee, participated in all those welfare reform
hearings that we had. So you've got an ally there who, together
with you, you two already understand the problem.
Secretary Espy. On the issue of welfare reform, we're working as-
siduously. Within this administration, the overarching issue of wel-
fare reform has been assigned to the Domestic Policy Council. In
that council we have many Secretaries, including the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and
we've already begun to work on a comprehensive welfare reform
proposal. There are other issues that impact on welfare reform as
Digitized by
Google
57
well, including the enterprise zone bills and the community devel-
opment banking bills, and we've met on these already through an-
other interagency task force coordinated through the NEC, the Na-
tional Economic Council. President Clinton has signed off on that
bill, and if Tm not mistaken, it either has been introduced or will
be introduced very soon.
Mr. Emerson. Thank you.
Secretary Espy. Thank you.
Mr. Emerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Secretary, for tiie information of some of our guests, you
heard the word **TEFAP." The letters signify a program that is
called the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program; there-
fore, the acronym TEFAP.
Mr. Secretary, I might inform you also that our version of the
Mickey Leland bill that hopefully will pass here within the next
couple of weeks does have the TEFAP section in it, and hopefuQy
well be able to move it along.
This is just off the top of my head, but many people think that
welfare is just a check to some needy person out tiiere. But the
complexity of the welfare is such that it's a combination of pro-
grams, most of which fall within your jurisdiction — ^the food stamp,
the feeding the elderly, the WIC, the school lunch, the school
breakfast, the surplus commodities, the food pantries. So the so-
called welfare programs are a m£gor part in the Department of Ag-
riculture, and we will be working with you in that respect.
I don't know if well have any members back in time before you
have to make your appointed meeting on the other side, Mr. Sec-
retary. I expect the}^! be upset at me for letting you go, but I know
your commitment on the otiier side.
I'm sorry. We still have Mr. Allard here.
Mr. Allard. I went to vote early so I'd have an opportunity to
ask one question.
I am interested in the foreign aid issue and wanted to at least
pose one or two questions in regard to that. President Clinton in
Vancouver had promised about $700 million in food to Russia, and
yet Russia will not receive the $700 million in food, and U.S. farm-
ers will not sell $700 million. This is due to the cargo preference
rules, which require that 75 percent of food for progress sales are
shipped on higher-cost U.S. ships. You have expressed concern
about the tremendous increase in freight rates. Wouldn't it have
been preferable to use the credit guarantee program, taking advan-
tage of the Paris Club rescheduling agreement?
Secretary Espy. Wayne, to say that I have expressed concern is
an understatement. I've expressed outrage at the incredibly high
level of cost attributed to the U.S. flag vessels. There's great dis-
parity between the current quotes for U.S. flag vessels against the
foreign flag vessels. To me, it's inexcusable, and even tibough we
have the mandate in the food for progress program to carry 75 per-
cent of commodities through United States means, I will be veiy
judicious and careful to make sure that we comply with the spirit
and intent of tiie law, winch also includes making sure that our
Russian friends get as much food as possible.
Digitized by
Google
58
Now, with regard to the GSM progra m, I have to say to you that
just as I'm careful to comply witii die FFP law on the 75 percent
cargo preference, Fm also careful to comply with the creditworthi-
ness standards under the GSM-102 program. The fact of the mat-
ter is that Russia has been declared, through its arrearages, a
debtor, and there are substantial arrearages continuing under the
GSM programs, and that's why we had to suspend additional sales
under GSM-102.
Tliat is a law passed by this body, so this body might want to
consider reducing, weakening, minimizing, or whatever, the credit-
worthiness standard. But the fact is that I have to act within the
law and, therefore, am unable to extend under GSM-102, notwith-
standing the action of the Paris Club. They rescheduled some debt,
but there are arrearages that still remain, and I believe— and Chris
could correct me if I'm wrong— there's a June date for repayment
of some millions of dollars in arrearages, and we'll see if they can
pay. It's $480 million that remains yet unpaid.
Mr. Allard. I'd like to thank you for your position. I appreciate
that. If I recall, your predecessor had a similar position in calling
on the Congress to try and correct the creditworthiness test.
I guess we need to just get down to our day-to-day problem, so
the next question I have is, what sort of feel are you getting from
the administration on how they^re going to pay for those increased
costs in the freight that you've talked about?
Secretary ESFY. President Clinton in the Vancouver Conference
committed a $700 million package to President Yeltsin. I'm obli-
gated to carry out that promise, and I'm going to do it as best I
can. There are a number of options available to the Secretary of
Agriculture within the Public Law 480, title I, as well as the food
for progress program, and I'm looking at all the options and will
be exercising some of those options in due course.
Mr. Allard. Do you anticipate that money coming from the $700
million, or will there be another source?
Secretary EsPY. What money?
Mr. Allard. For shipping tiie commodities to Russia.
Secretary EsPY. Yes, sir. The $700 million is a cap, and we can't
go over it. However, the transportation costs are included as a cost
within the total cap. That's why we're so concerned about it. We
want to send as much food as possible, obviously, and for every dol-
lar we spend on transportation costs is a dollar less that we can
commit to the value of food. So we have to exercise every option
we can to maximize the value of the package. But it is a
concessional sales program. I mean, Russia will be repaying the
$700 million, including the cost of freight.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Mr. Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We're going to do it out of order, but if the mem-
bers could be as brief as possible on the hunger issue, not on other
items, because the Secretary must leave at 2:30 p.m. or shortly
thereafter.
Ms. Long.
Ms. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Digitized by
Google
59
It's good to have you here again, Mr. Secretary, and welcome
back. 1 would like to ask you about your position on H.R. 1195, the
quality control amendments.
Secretary Espy. Jill, I can appreciate the question. I know that
you have an interest in H.R. 1195.
Ms. Long. A msgor interest.
Secretary Espy. A msgor interest. A msgor authorizing interest,
I understand. Let me say to you that I'm an advocate for quality
control, but I think that we should be allowed to have time to tight-
en the quality control elements within the current bill. We have
some problems in States, particularly in the State of Florida and
others, where we have witnessed some abuse and error rate prob-
lems in the deUveiy of some of our programs, and I've been in Hiere
96 or 97 days, and I think that we should be allowed a chance to
attack the problems before we have any new attempts to legislate
new standards.
We met with some of those States where we're having problems,
weVe worked out resolution, and we'll be announcing those very
shortly. So I'm unable to endorse the bill that you're mentioning as
of the moment, because I want to have time to tighten the food
stamp program and to promote the integrity of the program as it
stands now.
Ms. Long. Well, let me ask you, in your written testimony, you
indicated on page 10 that you cannot support the bill, which is a
somewhat different statement than 1 am not endorsing the bill,"
and it would be my hope that there would be an opportunity for
us to work with the administration, with your Dei)artment, on this
issue. Could you tell me with regard to the provisions in the bill —
and I don't think that we should do anjrthing to back off on making
sure that States are responsible and accurate in issuing food
stamps, but there are problems with the quality control system as
it currently exists, ana I would like to hear from you on any spe-
cific provisions in the bill that you have trouble with.
Secretary Espy. Well, perhaps I can turn to some of my col-
leagues at the table, but let me share with you just my reaction.
One is that there's a difference between not objecting to something
and not endorsing something. So I don't object to it. I do not. But
for me to embrace it, endorse it, and hold it forward as something
that we endorse and embrace and put forward, I'm not able to do
that as of this time. I will review it to see if we would have any
changes in that regard.
Within the discussion of changes and program integrity in-
creases^ I can sa^ to you that, one, I am really concerned about
maintaming the mtegrity of the food stamp program. I mean, we
operate it in every State, and I would like to have imiform stand-
ards. Thaf s why we need to, when we announce these error rates,
make sure that we're not treating one State more favorably than
another State and that when we announce penalties, the penalties
need to have teeth in them. But instead of the State providing pen-
alty payments to the USDA or to the administration, I'd rather re-
turn Hie money under the penalty standard to the State to have
them beef up their enforcement and their administration. To me,
it's returning money under the standard. We can do that under the
law that we're proposing, and thaf s what I would favor right now.
Digitized by
Google
60
Ms. Long. I have no objection to that. In fact, I think that is
something that's needed, a provision that is needed, but I also
think that in addition to making sure that there is consistenpy, I
think we need to make sure that there is accuracy, that there is
validity and reliability in the way the data are collected and the
way that they are analyzed for each State. As you know, the sam-
ples are very small, but when you run the regression, the statis-
tical precision is low in many cases.
I am one of the authors of the bill, so obviously I don't see any
problems in the bill, but I would like to hear from you and cer-
tainly would be glad to hear from you in writing on your assess-
ment of the provisions of the bill and hope that we will have an
opportunity to work together.
Secretary Espy. We have worked together, we will work together,
and anything you want from me in writing. 111 be glad to provide
to your office.
Ms. Long. OK. I just want to make sure, you're simply saymg
that you haven't endorsed the bill, but that doesn't mean that with
some changes in the provisions that at some point you may be able
to.
Secretary Espy. We'd like to work together, and we promote har-
mony and consensus, so if there's a way I can do it, I really look
forward to discussing it with you.
Ms. Long. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I wonder if one of your staff that
works in that area of food stamps would have any indication as to
the progress on the pilot study on food stamp outreach that is
being conducted. Where are we on that?
Ms. CNeil. There's one study that's actually being conducted
now in your home district and is going very well. I think you've vis-
ited it and seen it in operation. I think you may be referring,
though, to the $1 million m appropriations from last year. We have
published solicitations. We have over 900 local grassroots organiza-
tions that asked for copies of the soUcitation, and by May 10
they^re to have their proposals to us, and we hope to make the
award within 30 to 60 days after that.
The Chairman. Good. Thank you.
The Secretary has about 5 minutes, if we could split it up among
five members. [Laughter.]
Secretary Espy. We have good people remaining, thou^, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Mrs. Clayton wanted very much to speak— -well
wait and see if she can get back. But before that, well do it in a
more formal way, but we have with us today the newest member
of our famUv, the replacement of our distinguished Secretary, Con-
gressman Thompson of Mississippi, who very intelligently asked to
serve on the Agriculture Committee. [Laughter.]
He has been assigned to the committee, and we may have to
reshuffle the whole aam structure to get him some subcommittees,
but we're going to work on that.
WeTlyield to you at this point briefly, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. liiOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to be here to wel-
come the Secretary, who I replaced, and look forward to the consen-
sus building and working on behalf of the people of this country.
Digitized by
Google
61
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We welcome you, and we
look forward to working with you.
Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. Clayton. Mr. Chairman, I thank you as well as the Sec-
retary for having this hearing and indicating that he is so commit-
ted personally and explaining why it is important for the adminis-
tration, for the Secretary, to come out to talk about feeding the
American people and providing nutritional programs. It is indeed
refreshing to have a bcdance in that approach.
I also want to ask, if I may, a couple of questions, Mr. Secretary.
One is in terms of— you indicated the increase that we have experi-
enced in terms of the food stamp program. I want to ask you, what
do you feel the expansion of this womd mean for American people?
Secretary Espy. Well, obviously, Eva, the opportunity to receive
nutritious food, the increase in the diet of Americans, the expan-
sion of opportunity. There are a number of changes in this bill that
are rather innovative, and that is to reduce the question that many
Americans have to face every month when thev receive a check as
to whether they should take the bulk of it and pay rent or to buy
food or to maintain their car or to buy food or to maintain their
family or to buy food. I mean, that's the basic question, that there's
an increase in the comfort level of parents at the beginning of the
month as well as the end of the month in providing food for their
families.
Also, through demonstration projects and the incorporation of the
EITC and other mechanisms, there is an ability to nelp the work-
ing poor who work 8 hours a day, a 40-hour week, but at the end
of the month find themselves still falling below the poverty level
move past that point into some degree of independence. Some of
this I've thought about for a long time, but we have worked it in
here in a demonstration context, so at least we can find out wheth-
er or not tiie ideas we propose will work.
So basically 111 tell you that the fundamental promotion here is
food and the ability of Americans to benefit from the largesse that
we have within this Nation, which has an ofTsetting benefit to the
farmers as well, because they grow it and provide it through these
programs and, through a weUare reform mechanism that I call wel-
fare reform, take advantage of EITC and some of the other things
to help them feed tiieir families.
Mrs. Clayton. I want to pledge my support for it and tell you
that I will take an active role and be an advocate for it. Also, the
other advantage I just want to suggest to you — ^this week there was
an extensive report on the impact of nutrition on health, and in ad-
dition to tiie humane and the opportunities for having healthy peo-
ple, I think it also allows for us to combine those resources.
Secretary Espy. Yes.
The Chairman. I thank the lady.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It's nice to see you again.
Secretary Espy. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Secretly, you and the administration have rec-
ommended program cuts, a Btu tax increase, the elimination of 0/
92, irrigation and waterway user fees that, when added up in Or-
Digitized by
Google
62
egon and, I suspect, in Greenwood, Mississippi, will cost my aver-
age farmers about $12,000 a year. In addition, we're c^dlin^ for $3
billion in agricultural program cuts — ^that's out of the agriculture
budget, as you know — ana, at the same time, a $7 billion increase
in food stamps. Mr. Secretary, how do I explain that diversity to
my constituents?
Secretary EsFY. I appreciate the question, and it's a little bit off
the direct issue of food stamps, but I can suggest that vou explain
it this way. No. 1, the food stamp program is an entitlement pro-
gram. It's based on a formula, and obviously, if you increase the
number of participants, vou're going to increase tiie amount of
money you have to provide to cover those participants. WeVe had
a 1.5 million-person increase in February of 1993 over February of
1992 because of the anemic recovery that we've been on.
Now, I don't want to get political, but if I were in another place,
I could expound on this to talk about economic theories which have
served to the disadvantage of many Americans. That's why th^
find tiiemselves in this predicament. No one wants to be on food
stamps, but people need to eat, and as they increase in numbers
under this formula, we have to provide it. There are 26.9 million
Americans receiving food stamps. That's why we have to come be-
fore you today to ask for an increase in money.
At the same time, we do have a debt and deficit. We have a $4.1
trillion debt and a $350 billion deficit. I was sitting where you're
sitting last year, and I can tell you I was very unenthusiastic about
some of those proposals that you've mentioned. I can say to you to
tell your farmers, however, that a lot of the specific programs that
you named won't impact tiiem in 1993. This is all in anticipation
of the farm bill discussions that well all enter into beginning next
year.
So many times when you propose something, it goes into the
pipeline and it comes out much differently than it went going in.
So I'm sure that a lot of these proposals will undergo some,
through discussions and debate, great cnanges, and that's not new
to anyone.
Last, even though the Btu tax has been proposed, I would say
to you, Mr. Smith, that the idea is to reduce the debt and deficit
witii an offsetting benefit of reducing the interest rates. If we can
get the interest rates down and allow farmers to cover more of
their overhead costs, that will do more for the American producer
than anything that I can mention — Slower cost on loans, lower cost
on farm maclunery— and that's the idea that we're getting toward.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Secretary, thank you, and I will be loddng for-
ward to discussing some of these taxes that you and I both are con-
cerned about, I know. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, let me once again welcome you to our committee,
and I just want to briefly commend you for the sensitivity that you
have demonstrated toward hunger. The support that you have
demonstrated for nutrition pro-ams and the Mickey Leland Child-
hood Htmger Relief Act I think speaks very, very loudly for your
sensitivity to the human needs of our people as well as those peo-
ple abroad. I commend you for that, and I support it.
Digitized by
Google
63
I want to take the balance of my time, though, to endorse my col-
league, Ms. Long, in her efforts to secure tiie food stamp quality
control amendments as a part of your endeavor. The people of
Georgia have indicated very strongly to me that it would be of
great help to our department of family and children services in
tiieir efforts to feed those people that these programs are designed
to help, our yotmg and our elderly, who have, in increasing num-
bers, begun to take advantage of the programs.
But with somewhat larger rolls, there's been a slight variance in
the error rate, and it has caused penalties, which take away from
the resources available to the State if they have to pay penalties
which tiiey could be making available in services. Fd just like to
add my support to what my colleague, Ms. Long, is attempting to
do in tibe quality control amendments.
Secretary Espy. I appreciate the question. My concern, frankly,
is that if we would forgive States for making errors, that's not a
healthy way to go. You want to try to be as imiform as you can
and not set that kind of precedent. If it's an error and it's an ad-
mission, then there ought to be some penalty, to treat one Stete as
you treat another Stete. But then the question becomes, once you
collect the money under the penalty provision, what do you do with
it?
What I'm saying to you, as I said to Ms. Long, is that we don't
want to receive the money. If it's an admission, if ifs an error,
don't send it to USDA. I would much rather help the State fix the
problem by allowing them to take the penalty and reinvest it in
maximizing and ms&ing more efScient tJieir program. That's what
we are proposing withm this bill. I don't want to just forgive an
error, because an error is an error. But then we want to return the
money through the tightening of the program.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate tiiat, Mr. Secretary, and I think that's
an enlightened approach to it. However
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I'm sorry for interrupting
him.
Mr. Bishop. I thought I still had a green light.
Tlie Chairman. We're not going tmder the 5-minute rule at this
point, and I've got two more— 111 let the gentleman conclude at this
point.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was just hoping that at least you could look at the rate of the
penalty and the size of the margin of error in terms of the imposi-
tion of penalty. I think that's the most important provision.
Secretaiy Espy. Mr. Chairman, on my time, could I turn to Ms.
CNeil and ask her to answer some of the general quality control
mechanisms that we're considering in this bill?
The Chairman. Yes, of course, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. CNeel. 111 be very brief. We have a number of concerns, but
some of the specific ones are that the bill would forgive en toto the
fiscal year 1992 liabilities. As the Secretary said, those liabilities
would go into investmente that stey within the Stete to fiirther im-
prove zne food stamp program. That's obviously a concern.
Second, under the proposed bill, it would be based on Stete-re-
ported error rates. We have some concern about keeping uniformity
Digitized by
Google
64
among the various States, because penalties are based on a na-
tional average.
A third provision we're concerned about has to do with
underissuances. Under the oirrent system, you add underissuances
and overissuances to determine how well the program is operated.
Under this bill, it deals strictly with overissuances.
These are all the kinds of things I think the Secretary is refer-
ring to as items that need further discussion and that we would
like to work with you on.
The Chairman. Very briefly, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Ewing, and
then the Secretary must leave. But I understand you will leave
your professional staff here to answer any auestions on the pro-
grams, and then after the Secretary leaves, I will turn the gavel
over to Mr. Stenholm, who will proceed with the subcommittee
hearing that will be a continuation of what we have addressed
here.
I appreciate very much your offer to work with us and counsel,
with us on H.R. 1195, Mr. Secretary, and we will be working with
Ms. LfOng, who is the lead author, and all of the other — ^I think
there are about 37 or 38 cosponsors. Maybe more now.
Ms. Long. There are 47.
The Chairman. Well be working with you on that.
Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Espy. Thank you.
Mr. Barrett. Very brieflv following up on your written testi-
mony, you indicated in implementing food for progress that there
is a $30 million-per-year ceiling, and I guess, initially, can you tell
us if that has been exhausted at the present time?
Secretary Espy. Yes.
Mr. Barrett. It has. You also mentioned to Mr. Allard, I believe,
that you have other options that you're working with to perhaps —
I hate to use the word "exceed" or "get aroimd, but you can move
money within the agency?
Secretary EsPY. Well, the $30 million has been exhausted, and
in order to consider other options, we could certainly come to the
Congress to ask for that freight cap to be lifted. We could do that,
but that, of course, would lead to a debate that I think would be
rather protracted, but might be a debate that we should consider
engaging in.
m the meantime, certain promises have been made. In the mean-
time, certain people are going hungiy. In the meantime, certain
farm yields are accimiulatms, and in the meantime, our outlays are
increasing. So we have to do something now. Within the food for
progress program, we have a number of options that the Secretary
of Agriculture can use. You perhaps know as much about this as
I do, and I don't want to announce anvthing today, but before I an-
nounce anjrthing, I must consult with the agricultural leaders in
the Congress on the options that I can use, and there are certain
members that can attest here today that IVe begun to make these
calls, because Fm considering exercising some of our options.
The options include transfer of certain money under finding-of-
emergency authority, and there are other things. But we must corn-
Digitized by
Google
65
ply w ith the 75 percent standard of transportation through the
FPP program on me U.S. flag freight vessels. Within that avenue,
there are certain things I can do as well, but we will comply with
the spirit as long as rm allowed to also consider compliance with
the spirit of feeding the hungry in Russia, and you can't do that
through anything other than food means.
So we're considering all of these options. That's the best
nonanswer I can give you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Barrett. Well, let me ask, in the interest of time, one more
Quick one. Do you have the power within USDA under extraor-
dinary circimistances, an extraordinary emergency, to waive any of
these caps rules? Does the administration have that power?
Secretary Espy. The President of tiie United States has the au-
thority to waive cargo preference. The Secretary of Agriculture does
not.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Ewing.
Mr. EwiNG. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. You
have introduced some provisions in this legislation on food stamps
and addressing some of the problems with fraud, which I strongly
endorse and come out of— not come out of, but are similar to legis-
lation I've introduced. There are two things, though, that this bill
doesn't have that I think are very good ideas, and I'd like to bring
tiiem to your attention.
One, when dealing with the sharing of information between
agencies that could help lead to apprehension of fraud, there's no
safeguard against unauthorized use of application information. We
have found through the business commimity that theVre very con-
cerned about this, and they would like to see some safeguards built
into that so that if this shared information is improperly used, then
those who improperly use it could be subject to fines.
Two, disqualification of recipients who use food stamp programs
for trading food stamps for firearms, ammimition, explosives, or
controlled substances, my suggestion was that we should disqualify
them after one incident. The law currently is three incidents; your
bill doesn't address that.
Would you have any comments or would you be interested in
those suggestions?
Secretary Espy. Let me turn to Ms. O'Neil for an answer on that.
Ms. O'Neil. In terms of penalties for misuse of information, we
would be happy to include language appropriate to that.
The second issue has to do with individuals, and our particular
concern in not including that was, for example, a reformed drug ad-
dict. The way your biU is drafted, that individual would be dis-
qualified for life from the food stamp program, and we thought per-
haps that was overly harsh.
Mr. EwiNG. But only if the drug addict or the person had done
it before he was reformed. Is that tiie problem?
Ms. O'Neil. That's correct. It's a life disqualification, though, in
your bill, so if later on they become reformed, they would still be
disQuaUfied from the program.
Mr. Ewing. I guess my concern — and maybe there is some room
for compromise at two times — ^we wonder how many times they get
by with it when they're never caught, and I think everybody is en-
Digitized by
Google
66
titled to one mistake, but maybe two mistakes, particiilarly in
something as bad as controlled substances, ammunition, firearms,
we should take another look at. We'll be in touch with you. Thank
you.
Secretary Espy. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
At this point, the full committee will recess, subject to the call
of the Chair, and tiie hearing will continue with Chairman Sten-
holm.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the committee adjourned, to recon-
vene, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Digitized by
Google
67
TESTIMONY OF
THE HONORABLE MIKE ESPY
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
APRIL 28, 1993
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
It is indeed a pleasure to be back here among so many friends and
former colleagues to consider H.R. 529, the Mickey Leland
Childhood Hunger Relief Act. I welcome this opportunity to
conment on this outstanding and long overdue legislation, named
in memory of our beloved friend, the late Mickey Leland of Texas,
and to present the Administration's legislative proposals for the
Food Stamp Program.
Before I begin today, I would like to thank Chairman de la
Garza, Chairman Stenholm, Congressman Emerson, Members of this
Committee, and OMB Director Panetta for taking a leadership role
in shaping our nation's food assistance programs and for fighting
to protect the benefits these programs provide to millions of
low-income families and individuals in desperate need. As our
country struggles to make hard choices in the budget, millions of
Americans — including more than 13 million children and 2.8
million elderly and disabled adults in the Food Stamp Program —
depend upon us to preserve a safety net of food assistance. As
Digitized by
Google
68
Secretary of Agriculture, I pledge that this Administration will
work with you in a harmonious partnership to pass this vital
legislation, and send it to the President in the near future.
It is fitting that food assistance legislation in recent
years has been named in memory of Mickey Leland. I had the honor
of working side-by-side with Mickey in our years together serving
on the House Select Committee on Hunger. He was a wonderful
friend and an inspired anti-hunger activist. Mickey's vision,
determination and wonderful personal style made him the kind of
man whose leadership brought about changes in hunger policy that
touched the lives of millions of people worldwide and shapes our
view of "what's possible** yet today.
I would also like to recognize and thank another close
friend and former colleague on the House Select Committee on
Hunger, Rep. Tony Hall, for his dedication and tireless efforts
to call attention to the world's hunger problems following Mickey
Leland 's death.
Tony's profound sense of mission and moral imperative — as
evidenced in his fast — is deeply heartfelt and expresses a unique
and truly spiritual commitment to providing food security for his
fellow men and women here and abroad.
Digitized by
Google
69
DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE! The Food Stamp Program
The Food Stamp Program is our nation's foremost food
assistance program serving needy families. It is administered
federally by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) , and by State and local welfare depart-
ments. Eligibility and benefit levels are set by law and are
uniform in the contiguous States.
The recession of 1990/91 and a weak economy since then have
brought millions of Americans onto the program, and the surge is
continuing. The latest national food stamp participation data
show a new record-breaking 26.9 million people — more than one in
ten Americans — turned to the Food Stamp Program in February.
That is up nearly 1.5 million over February of the previous year.
This unprecedented need for food assistance clearly shows that
the recovery still has produced no major increase in jobs or
family income.
One in ten Americans. At first, it might seem hard to grasp
that there can be so much need in our land of plenty. Yet,
regrettably, the need is painfully real.
Nine out of every ten households receiving food stamps have
gross incomes at or below the poverty line (currently $14,350 for
a family of four) . More than eight out of ten food stamp
Digitized by
Google
70
households have children or elderly and disabled members. The
Food Stamp Program currently provides households with average
monthly benefits of just $68 per person. This amounts to just
over $2.25 a day, or 76 cents a meal for each person.
As you know. President Clinton has asked Congress for $585
million in 1994 outlays and $7.5 billion over the next five years
in his budget request to increase food assistance and reduce
hunger among low income American families through the Food Stamp
Program, and help offset effect of the Administration's proposed
energy tax on low-income households. Mr. Chairman, if I may, X
would like permission to submit the Administration's legislative
proposal called the "Mickey Leland Hunger Prevention Act" for
the record.
I would like to summarize these proposals this afternoon and
describe how they tie in with provisions contained in the Mickey
Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act, and how they reflect the
President's budget request.
Like H.R. 529, the Department's package is intended to
ensure adequate food assistance, promote self sufficiency, and
simplify administration of the Food Stamp Program. In addition,
the Department's package contains a number of provisions designed
to improve program integrity.
Digitized by
Google
71
All Of the food stamp provisions of H.R. 529 have been
incorporated in the Administration 's legislative proposals either
verbatim or in a modestly revised version. Identical provision
include:
• increasing funding for Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance
Program by $20 million in FY 94 and $25 million per year in
the following four fiscal years,
• increasing the resource limits for households containing
disabled members from $2,000 to $3,000,
• increasing the maximum dependent care deduction,
• allowing food stamp households who have a break in
participation of 30 days or less to receive a full month's
allotment when they return to the program,
• excluding vehicles as resources necessary to transport
fuel and water for households (a provision which I know, as
a person from rural America, will provide a real benefit to
needy people) ,
• excluding as income transitional housing vendor payments
for homeless people who need special help, and
Digitized by
Google
72
• eliminating procedures for reducing allotnents when there
is inadequate funding available for the Food Stanp Program
because these procedures are not necessary and serve only to
add unnecessary anxiety to recipients who may not have
confidence in our commitment to assure that their benefits
are uninterrupted.
The Department has made only minor changes in five other
provisions drawn from H.R. 529. They are:
• the income exclusion for high school students age 21 and
younger. (This addresses a concern of Chairman de la Garza
that some high school students, because of language or other
barriers, may continue to be pursuing a high school diploma
beyond the traditional age of 18.)
• the income exclusion for the energy /utility cost portion
of General Assistance vendor payments,
• the income exclusion for up to $50 in child support
received by households, a provision which the States have
long championed because it provides consistency with Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and provides an
additional incentive to single parents both to pursue and
make support payments.
Digitized by
Google
73
• allowing States to nake reimbursements to participants in
Employment and Training programs at the same level provided
for in AFDC's JOBS program,
• the simplification of the household definition. Our
household definition provision clarifies the status of
children up to age 21 who are under the parental control of
household members, and
• the provision of H.R. 529 that would exclude legally-
obligated child support paid to nonhousehold members has
been revised to provide the Department authority to
establish the method of determining the amount of the
exclusion. This provision encourages timely payment by the
absent parent and recognizes that this money is not
available to the parent for his or her living needs.
The Administration's legislative proposal also contains
three provisions which are revisions of similar provisions in
H.R. 529. We propose increasing food stamp benefits more quickly
by increasing maximum benefit levels to 104 percent of the cost
of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) on October 1, 1993. This needs to
be done to assist households in purchasing the Thrifty Food Plan
through most of the year.
Digitized by
Google
74
In recent years, there has been a great deal of concern
expressed by this Committee over how difficult it is for families
to feed themselves on benefits tied to the Thrifty Food Plan.
Historically, the average cost of the TFP over the course of a
year is about four percent higher than the cost in the preceding
June. This change will better ensure that benefits will be
sufficient to enable people to keep up with food prices.
We also propose to remove the cap on the excess shelter
expense deduction more quickly— Fiscal Year ISSS—than would H.R.
529. The current cap on the shelter deduction results in an
unrealistically low benefit level because it assumes that some
households have money available for food which must really go for
rent and utility bills. The cap most severely burdens families
with children because it is fixed with no allowance for household
size.
The Administration's proposal would raise the fair market •
value of vehicles that is excluded in determining households'
resources so that, initially, the limit would rise more
substantially than would H.R. 529. The fair market value limit
of $4,500 has been in place since enactment of the Food Stamp Act
in 1977. Clearly, over the years, the relative quality of a
vehicle that households could possess under this limit has
seriously eroded. We believe that this is a barrier both to
working poor families in trying to come on the program and to
8
Digitized by
Google
75
current participants who aay need a car to get to a job.
While the Department shares the goals embodied in H.R. 529
and other bills proposed to improve the Food Stamp Program and
better serve the needs of low-income families with children, and
has included provisions in this bill to attain those goals, we
have proposals to further several additional goals.
In addition, the bill empowers food stamp recipients to
better their own lives and escape their reliance on Federal
assistance. To attain that goal, the Department recommends three
additional provisions that are not included in H.R. 529. First,
for current participants, earned income tax credits (EITCs) would
be excluded from the calculation of resources for one year after
their receipt; EITCs are currently excluded as income and as
resources in the month received and the next month. The current
treatment may cause low- income working families to spend their
EITCs quickly to avoid losing food stamp benefits — a result
contrary to prudent public policy.
Second, a provision has been added authorizing demonstration
projects to test allowing participating households to accumulate
up to $10,000 in resources in order to improve the education,
training, or employability of household members or to purchase or
repair a house for the household's use or to enable the household
to relocate.
Digitized by
Google
76
Third, the educational income received by students that
enables them to further their education or otherwise become more
self-reliant would be excluded for food stamp purposes. This
conforms more closely with current AFDC policy.
Finally, because improving the integrity of the Food Stamp
Program will always be an important goal of this Administration,
our proposal includes two full titles containing good management
and integrity proposals. These proposals coincide with the
Department's ongoing efforts in the areas of expanding electronic
benefit transfer as an issuance alternative and retaining a
strong quality control system. In terms of quality control, we
believe that changes must be approached very cautiously to assure
that incentives for error reduction are not weakened. For this
reason and others, I can not support H.R. 1195.
The President's Budget includes significant increases in
benefits provided by the Food Stamp Program. The increased
benefits provided by the Administration's legislative proposal
would overwhelmingly assist low-income families with children.
The estimated cost of the Administration's bill falls within
the House Concurrent Budget Resolution.
10
Digitized by
Google
77
TEFAP
While the Food Stamp Program is the Nation's foundation
program in addressing the hunger and nutrition of its low income,
vulnerable population, the Department also provides assistance
through a number of other programs. One of these programs, which
falls under the jurisdiction of this Committee, is the Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) . TEFAP provides commodities for
households in need of immediate, short-term assistance. Through
TEFAP, in addition to donating surplus commodities, the Federal
government purchases and donates to the States a variety of
wholesome commodities, which are distributed to needy persons via
a network of largely volunteer organizations. They, in turn,
distribute these commodities and, in some cases, foods from other
sources to those in need of assistance.
The President requests an increase of $40 million over
current services for TEFAP in FY 1994. This increase will permit
additional commodities to be purchased and allocated to States
based on the number of unemployed persons and the number of
persons under the poverty line in each State.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
Even as we grapple with the issue of hunger here in the
United States, Americans continue to work to address the serious
11
Digitized by
Google
78
hunger probleas that exist in other countries around the world.
Last year, a United Nation's Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) study estimated the number of chronically
undernourished people in developing countries at about 790
million. FAO noted that this number, covering 1988-90, has
dropped by about 150 million since the early 1970 's — a period, I
might add, during which total world population grew by some 40
percent.
So, perhaps, there is reason to be hopeful... to believe that
the world has made some headway in combatting hunger through
developmental efforts, technology, trade, economic reform, and
all those things that help produce growth, reduce poverty, and
improve the supply and distribution of food.
We should also recognize that the United States remains the
world's largest food aid donor, providing 55-60 percent of annual
cereal grain donations by all countries. And private aid in
various forms by Americans through religious, voluntary, and
business groups is even greater than official U.S. government
aid.
Yet these efforts must be acknowledged with more humility
than pride, because the magnitude of the problem remains
enormous. With more than three-quarters of a billion people
12
Digitized by
Google
79
going hungry every day — with lives being lost to hunger and
Malnutrition — we are still a long, long way from the world we all
seek. And every year, in addition to chronic problems related to
poverty, the world faces new hunger energencies. Whatever other
issues we are dealing wit, these realities must never be far from
our minds.
USDA Food Aid Programs
USDA provides humanitarian food aid through three programs:
Title I of P.L. 480, Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of
1949, and the Food for Progress Act of 1985.
P.L. 480 focuses on the needs of developing countries and
emerging market economies. Its goals are to help meet
humanitarian needs, provide needed calories and nutrients, and
establish a U.S. market presence abroad. The Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 assigns specific
responsibility for Title I concessional credit activities to
USDA. The Agency for International Development (AID) administers
Title II, covering emergency and private assistance donations,
and Title III, covering food aid grants to support economic
growth in least-developed countries.
Title I provides government-to-government financing for
sales of U.S. agricultural commodities at below-market interest
13
Digitized by
Google
80
rates, with repayment terns of up to 30 years. USDA expects to
provide about 2.6 million metric tons of commodities under Title
I this fiscal year to about 25 countries, compared with 2.3
million tons to 24 countries last year.
Under Section 416(b) authority, USDA provides donations of
uncommitted Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) stocks to needy
people overseas. A substantial portion of this aid is being
distributed through the multilateral World Food Program. In
total, we expect to provide nearly 2 million metric tons of food
to 38 countries this year under Section 416(b).
The Food for Progress program is implemented using either
funds appropriated to carry out Title I of P.L. 480, or the
authorities of section 416(b). Under this program, USDA provides
commodities on grant or concessional credit terms to needy
countries and emerging democracies to reward effort toward
agricultural reform and free enterprise. A significant portion
of the aid is provided through private U.S. voluntary
organizations (PVO's) .
As you know, in implementing Food for Progress, the use of
CCC funds for freight and other noncommodity costs is limited by
law to $30 million per year. The annual 500,000 ton limit on the
quantity of commodities that may be provided under Food for
Progress does not apply to commodities furnished to countries of
14
Digitized by
Google
81
the fomer Soviet Union (FSU) during Fiscal Year 1993. Assuming
a resolution of the freight issue, USDA expects to provide nearly
2.3 million tons (plus an as yet undetermined tonnage for the
$700 million program announced by President Clinton in Vancouver)
of commodities under Food for Progress this year, with all but
about (450,000) tons going to the FSU.
USDA's aid programs are designed primarily to meet chronic,
predictable food deficits rather than emergency situations.
These programs complement the AID-administered titles of P.L. 480
that are targeted to food aid emergencies and providing food for
very poor countries. USDA and AID work closely together in
planning food assistance, and USDA tries to allocate resources to
help meet emergency situations.
In this context, it is important to note that we have faced
increased worldwide food aid needs in the last few years, coming
at a time of tight resources and a serious economic slowdown in
the United States and in other food donor nations. These growing
needs have reflected not only natural disasters, but to a greater
extent civil strife, ethnic conflicts, and major geopolitical
changes. This has resulted in a significant shift in dollar
coverage over the last few years to respond to the needs of
emerging democracies in the FSU and Eastern Europe, as well as to
urgent situations in other parts of the world, such as last
year's severe drought in southern Africa.
15
Digitized by
Google
82
Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to how USDA is using
its food aid programs to help meet the critical needs in some of
the most vulnerable areas. USDA is primarily using Section
416(b) donations through the World Food Program (WFP) to meet the
more critical needs in several African countries. For example,
of the planned 745,000 tons of U.S. commodity donations through
the WFP, more than 560,000 tons — or about three-fourths of the
total — are targeted to Africa. Most of this is corn.
Another part of the world where we are focusing USDA
attention, of course, is the FSU. As you know, U.S. government
food assistance is being met primarily under the USDA-
administered programs through government-to-government agreements
and through U.S. private voluntary organizations (PVO's) . In the
Transcaucasus we are providing assistance to two of the three
republics — Armenia and Georgia. We also are providing assistance
to all five central Asian republics, but the greatest needs are
in Kyrgyzistan and Tadjikistan.
Limited Resources for Increased Needs
Mr. Chairman, the United States has maintained a strong
commitment to combat world hunger, both as a moral obligation and
for national self interest in a peaceful, prosperous world.
Today, USDA and AID together are providing food assistance to
help meet emergency situations and chronic food deficits in about
16
Digitized by
Google
83
80 countries around the world. He anticipate increased needs
relating to continuing geopolitical change, a growing tide of
nationalism in many regions, and the increased potential for
civil strife.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize the increased magnitude of the
problems we face — and their human dimensions — and we will
continue to work with AID, other U.S. agencies, and the world
community in a concerted effort to make the most effective use of
available resources to alleviate hunger and suffering around the
world.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, hunger is a global problem which we must all
work to alleviate. However, world hunger is not an easy problem
to solve, but it is a problem we must embrace; for I know that
hungry people do not just exist in Somalia.
Mr. Chairman, the true measure of our food policies is how
they change people's lives. A decent society cannot close its
eyes to hunger in its midst. I hope I have succeeded today in
giving you a good idea of the magnitude of the Clinton
Administration's commitment to food assistance for America's
needy. No one should go hungry in America for lack of means.
That was Mickey Leland's dream. That is our dream.
f
17
Digitized by
Google
84
Mr. Chaiman, this concludes ny remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you or the Members of the Committee
have at this time.
18
1 DEPOSIT
JUL I 9 1993
SHIPPED
ISBN 0-16-041111-4
9 780160%! 11
90000
Digitized by
Google
DATE DUE 1
STANFORD UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305-6004
©AW
Digitized by Vj
oogle
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11