FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO--Continued
Parliamentary inquiry: I understand under the agreement, we each have 7\1/2\ minutes; that Senator Gregg has 15 minutes; and the two leaders have reserved 15 minutes each? Mr. President, again for Senators and those staff who are watching,…
Parliamentary inquiry: I understand under the agreement, we each have 7\1/2\ minutes; that Senator Gregg has 15 minutes; and the two leaders have reserved 15 minutes each?
Mr. President, again for Senators and those staff who are watching, now we are on the override of the veto of the farm bill conference report we passed here last week.
To remind everyone, that bill, as you know, passed here overwhelmingly 81 to 15, a remarkable margin for a farm bill. It was widely supported on both sides of the aisle and by regions of the country, so we were very pleased with that outcome and that vote.
Of course it had passed the House with 318 votes; so again a very strong vote on the bill. It went to the President. We were hoping that maybe he would not veto it, but the President did exercise his constitutional right and he vetoed the bill.
The farm bill came back to the House yesterday and the House overrode the veto 316 to 108. So basically what we have before us is exactly what we voted on last week and approved with 81 votes but for one thing: The farm bill is missing a title.
Let me try to be as succinct as I can in this. What happened is when the enrolling clerk on the House side enrolled the bill and sent it to the President, the clerk did not put in title III, which includes the several Department of Agriculture trade programs and food assistance programs for foreign countries, mainly the P.L. 480, Food for Peace Program, the delivery of which goes through USAID, and other programs. So the President vetoed the enrolled bill which is missing that title. Well, I know Senator Chambliss and I and others have had numerous phone calls and conversations with Parliamentarians and others to figure this out. The enrolled bill is properly attested to and fully effective and valid as to all of the provisions it contains. We will have to enact title III in another legislative measure. Again, I remind everyone, its omission was inadvertent. It was an innocent mistake; maybe inexcusable, but nevertheless an innocent mistake that title III was dropped out.
But for that title III, everything else in this bill is exactly what we approved with 81 votes. So I am here to ask Members to vote to override the President's veto and to make this bill the law of the land in accordance with the overwhelming wishes of both the Senate and the House.
This bill is a good bill, as I said earlier. It responds to needs all over this country, from farmers and small towns and rural areas to Americans in urban areas. The largest part of the bill is nutrition and food assistance. Over two-thirds of the total spending in this bill goes to nutrition. This bill does more to strengthen Federal food assistance than any bill we have passed since George Herbert Walker Bush was the President.
This bill does a lot for food assistance for low-income people. Basically all the added money above the budget baseline that we put into this bill goes for nutrition. We increase the food supplies to food banks. Our Nation's food banks are getting hit pretty hard. We put $1.2 billion into supplying them with more food. I might add, one of the reasons we must enact this bill in a hurry is because food banks are hurting. As soon as this bill becomes law with this override, $50 million will get out immediately to our food pantries and food banks across the country.
We also in this bill, as you know, provided more money to help growers of specialty crops, fruits and vegetables, than we ever have before. We include in this legislation a higher level of funding than in any previous farm bill for helping farmers and ranchers in conserving our natural resources, saving soil, cleaning up our water and our streams, protecting wildlife habitat.
Look at it this way: Of the combined total spending in this bill on commodity and conservation programs, 41 percent of that total is devoted to conservation. That is slightly more than double the highest percentage share for conservation in any previous farm bill.
The rural development title helps rural communities through a number of new initiatives, including a stronger broadband program, and by devoting mandatory funding for water and wastewater systems to fund some of the tremendous backlog of qualified applications that are on hold.
We have in this bill several important initiatives and improvements in programs to help beginning farmers. We improve the farm income protection system in various ways, including for dairy farmers, yet attain budget savings in the title of the bill covering commodity programs. We have a new option in here, a new reform, called the Average Crop Revenue Election, or ACRE, Program. This is going to be very significant for farmers to be able to choose whether to stay under the current farm program or do they go to the new program of income protection based on revenue.
I read the editorial in the Washington Post this morning and, of course, they have never editorially, as far as I know, ever supported a farm bill, at least in my time here. I have to take exception to one thing they said in the editorial this morning. They are talking about the ACRE Program, claiming how it will be some kind of boondoggle for farmers. They say here:
[It] means farmers would get paid if prices fall back to
the historical and, for farmers, perfectly profitable norms.
If the prices that our Nation's farmers receive for their grain and other commodities fall back to what the Washington Post calls ``historical norms,'' we will have tremendous economic hardship in the countryside. Here is why I say that: What the Post is missing is that from 2002 to 2009, the production costs for farmers have skyrocketed. The gasoline prices we are paying at the pump, farmers have got to pay even more for the diesel fuel for their tractors, for their combines. For example, fertilizer costs for producing corn are up 141 percent in 7 years. From 2002 to 2009, the cost of production for corn is up 22 percent; soybeans up 28 percent; wheat up 28 percent.
Now, if prices, God forbid, should fall to the levels they were before 2002, farmers will be wiped out all over this country. We will have bankruptcies and families forced out of farming on a huge scale.
That is why we have the ACRE Program to reflect the new realities, the new realities of what farmers have to pay for their fertilizer, their fuel, their equipment, their land. All of these expenses have gone up tremendously. We need a program that helps farmers deal with those higher costs and potential volatility in market prices for commodities, and that is why we put this new program in. It is a reform. It is one of the features of this bill that I believe will help family farms survive in America. So, again, this is a good, solid bill, the same bill we voted on last week minus title III, which we will enact later.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I understand the leader on this side has 15 minutes reserved; is that correct?
I yield whatever time the Senator from North Dakota desires from the leader's time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How much time remains on both sides?
Eleven minutes.
Mr. President, I understand that, obviously, in a quorum call the time is taken evenly off of both sides. Since we have 11 minutes left, I yield myself 4 minutes of that time.
Mr. President, would the Chair please remind this Senator when his 4 minutes have elapsed?
Mr. President, I want to respond to a couple things my friend from New Hampshire said. He talked about the sugar provisions in the bill and the support price of sugar, that it is over world prices. I always point out to people that when you go in a restaurant, or anywhere you go to eat, the sugar is free. You get these little packs of sugar wherever you go. You go to Starbucks, you get free sugar. You go to the airport, and you go down and get a cup of coffee, or something like that, there is free sugar. It cannot get much cheaper than that.
Does anyone believe if we were to drop these sugar support prices down about 50 percent--which is what would happen with what the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to have happen--do you believe candy prices are going to go down? Do you believe food prices are going to go down? Come on. It just means that the manufacturers, the processors will just make more profits, that is all, and our nation's sugar farmers won't. So you can't get much cheaper than free when it comes to sugar when you go into your restaurants and coffee shops and places such as that.
The next thing the Senator talked about is the $16 billion that the Washington Post keeps talking about in new spending because of this new program, this new option we have, this new reform program. That is a doom's day scenario. Sure, if the bottom falls, if commodity prices fall 40 percent, yes, we could see significant expenditures. But even the Department of Agriculture in this administration has said they don't expect prices to decline much if at all over the next 12 to 18 months. As pointed out earlier, because of the increased prices of fertilizer, fuel, equipment--all of the input costs of agriculture--if these prices drop to where they were 8 years ago, Lord help us. We would have real economic hardship in rural America. So we have this new program in the bill to help farmers deal with the new economic realities in agriculture.
So, yes, you can take a doom's day scenario, but we don't plan our lives around the fact that we have perhaps a 1 in 40 million chance of getting hit by an asteroid. We don't plan our daily excursions by the fact that we face on the order of a 1 in 50,000 chance that we could get hit by a tornado or struck by lightning. Of course you can always have doom's day scenarios. That is not how we crafted this new program nor is it a reasonable way to judge it. We planned it in relation to what is really happening in agriculture.
The last thing the Senator said was something about logrolling, where some members will help other commodities or regions and then in return members who have been helped will support policy for other commodities in a different area. That is a total distortion of how this process works. The fact is, in my area in Iowa, we don't grow cotton and peanuts, let's face it. We just don't. I don't have much expertise in that area, to be honest about it, so I rely upon Senator Chambliss or Senator Cochran or those Members from other parts of the country who know their agriculture. They know those commodities. So we rely upon their expertise. You bet we do. I hope they rely a little bit on our expertise when it comes to crops such as wheat and corn and soybeans and other crops. The same goes for ranches. The distinguished Presiding Officer comes from an area of the country where they have ranches. We don't have ranches in Iowa, so I rely upon the Presiding Officer, who is on the Agriculture Committee and who knows a lot about ranching and what it means in his part of the country and what it means to have livestock and livestock producers who run ranches. The Presiding Officer also knows what it means for this nation to shift to new and renewable forms of energy, including cellulosic energy, which he has been a leader on. So we rely upon each other for this kind of expertise. That is not logrolling; that is just recognizing that different Senators who come from different parts of the country have different expertise, and they can bring that expertise to the Agriculture Committee. That is exactly how we develop these farm bills. It is not logrolling, it is simply recognizing that we want this legislation to work effectively everywhere across the nation, regardless of the commodities grown or region involved, and to cover the whole broad range of issues and challenges encompassed in this bill.
That is why I think we have a very good bill here. As my friend Senator Chambliss said, of course we don't agree with every single thing in it, but that is the art of legislation, which is to compromise and to work things out so that we can get good bipartisan support and multiregional support. We did that in this farm bill. You can't get much more bipartisan than 81 votes in the Senate or 318 votes in the House. When you have that kind of overwhelming support, then you know you probably have a good bill.
So, again, I urge Senators to vote to override the President's veto.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.
Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks made by my good friend from Georgia, Senator Chambliss. This has been a long effort. We worked very hard on this bill. I wish to reassure Senators, this is a good bill. I know there are some editorials out there written about it in the Washington Post and other publications. That is all part of the process of debating and enacting legislation. But you have to think, a lot of those editorials are written by those who likely have never supported a farm bill anyway, so there you go. It is like anything else, is this bill exactly what I would have wanted or Senator Chambliss would have wanted or Senator Conrad would have wanted or anybody else? No. But that is the art of legislation. It requires cooperation, bipartisanship, compromise, and getting legislation through that benefits all of our country.
As I have said many times, this farm bill benefits everyone from farmers and ranchers, people in small towns such as my hometown of Cumming, population of 162, to people who live in New York City.
The fact that we had 82 votes now on the override--81 before on the conference report on the bill--and the overwhelming votes in the House, I believe indicates people understand this is a broad bill that covers every American--not just farmers, not just ranchers but everyone. It is good for our country, good for our future. It is a bill that will make sure we will continue to have an abundant, safe, affordable supply of food for our people in this country, that we help low-income families put food on their tables and that we help farmers and ranchers conserve and protect our nation's priceless resources for present and future generations.
This bill helps us move ahead to producing energy from cellulosic materials--we have laid the foundation for having that in the future. Just as we laid the foundation before for grain-based ethanol, now we have laid the foundation for cellulose-based ethanol in the future.
It is a good bill, good for America. Again, I thank Senator Chambliss, first, for when he was chairman actually starting this process and then working together to get this bill through to its conclusion; Senator Conrad, who has been such a valuable ally in this effort, bringing the expertise that he has as the budget chairman and, as I often said, making sure we keep on track. I have often said, in writing legislation if you do something here that affects something there and that affects something else, the Budget Committee and the budget chairman have the knowledge and the expertise to know the budget impact of such actions. It has been an invaluable resource to us, to have that expertise of Senator Conrad on this committee and during this whole debate and development of this farm bill.
I will also thank, again, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, our chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, who worked so closely with us to develop this legislation and make sure we had the proper funding so we could get this bill through. They were invaluable helping us to get this bill finally through.
I wish to make sure there is no doubt in anyone's mind now--14 of the 15 titles in the farm bill conference report are now law. We do not require anybody else's signature; 14 of the 15 titles are now the law of the land. As Senator Chambliss said, we do have this one little glitch--evidently an innocent mistake, a clerical error that title III was not included. We will deal with that at some other point. I don't know exactly when, but that should not be much of a problem, since it was simply a clerical error. We will take care of that.
I want people to know we have been in contact with both USDA and USAID, the Agency for International Development. They told my staff basically they could get by for a couple of weeks without our having to do more today. We will have to move ahead as soon as we can, perhaps that will not be until right after the recess, so our Pub. L. 480 programs and our development assistance programs, our market access program, which is so important for our fruits and vegetables, specialty crops and other programs in the trade title are taken care of.
Again, I thank everyone. As Senator Chambliss said, we have already thanked our staff, but I don't know if we can thank them enough. They have hung in every day on this.
I was going to say now they can take a vacation, but they have to wait until this other title gets taken care of; but sometime soon our staffs will be able to take a break.
Mr. President, I would like to expand upon my remarks on the nutrition title
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 so that I may provide my colleagues with more information about the very important changes made in the nutrition title, particularly to the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp Program is the single most important antihunger program in our Nation, helping millions of families, seniors, and people with disabilities afford an adequate diet. It is our country's largest child nutrition program and serves as a critical work support program, enabling low-income working families to make ends meet and put food on the table every month.
I know that many Senators have not had the opportunity to pore over the details of the legislative language and conference report for the nutrition title. So let me take this opportunity to provide some background on what has been accomplished in the nutrition area of this bill.
The conference report makes major investments and improvements in the Food Stamp Program in this bill--starting with changing the name of the program to the ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program'' or ``SNAP.'' The change reflects the reality that food assistance benefits are no longer ``stamps'' but have been updated and modernized and are now provided on special cards, like the debit or credit cards that most Americans carry in their wallets. For the purposes of my remarks today, I will use the term ``Food Stamp Program'' throughout my comments one last time before this historic change is made.
One of the primary goals for the Food Stamp Program was to end the decades of erosion in the purchasing power of food stamp benefits. Because of harmful cuts to the program enacted in the midnineties, with each passing year the purchasing power of most households' benefits has actually decreased. The biggest annual cut, which has so far cumulated in about $25 less in food assistance each month for the typical working family, was from a freeze to the program's standard deduction. This cut has affected about 10 million people a year, including many low-income working families with children, senior citizens living on a fixed income, and persons with disabilities.
The largest benefit improvement in this bill is an increase in the standard deduction, which has been frozen for households of three or fewer people for over 10 years, and end any future erosion in its value by inflating the deduction each year. The inflated amounts will be calculated based on the previous year's unrounded amount, so over time we will not lose any more ground to inflation. This change will improve benefits for about 13 million people and provide a typical working family an additional $6 a month in food assistance in 2009, rising to $17 a month by 2012.
Similarly, because it was not adjusted for inflation, the $10 monthly minimum food assistance benefit purchases only about one-third as much food today as it did when it was set more than 30 years ago. The minimum benefit is set at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan, rounded to the nearest whole dollar. This will mean it will be about $14 per month in 2009--almost a 50-percent increase. The Thrifty Food Plan is automatically indexed for inflation. As a result, the minimum benefit will maintain its purchasing power. And, because the Thrifty Food Plan is set at different levels for high-cost areas like Alaska and Hawaii, a new and slightly higher minimum food assistance benefit will be provided in those areas. For example, in fiscal year 2009 the Hawaii minimum benefit level will be $22 a month. Additionally, about 15 States have special combined application projects where SSI recipients receive standardized benefits. I expect USDA will reevaluate the cost- neutrality of these projects so that these households also can receive higher standardized benefit amounts to account for the higher monthly minimum benefit and standard deduction levels.
The conference report ends erosion in other areas as well, including the dependent care deduction and asset limit, about which I will speak more briefly, but also the commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, and grants for community food projects and fruits and vegetables in schools. For the first time since I have been working on farm bills, we have clearly established the principle that the value of benefits in our nutritional help for low-income families and individuals should not erode over time, just as they do not in our income tax code or the Social Security and Medicare Programs. This is a remarkable achievement.
Another core principle that is addressed in this bill is that building savings and accumulating assets is an important path to financial independence. And here I want to especially thank the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, for his leadership. Many agree that it is counterproductive to discourage savings by forcing people to liquidate their retirement savings or other financial assets when they lose their jobs and need to turn to food assistance to feed their families. Policymakers from across the political spectrum agree that asset development is important to helping low-income Americans make a permanent transition out of poverty as well as avoiding it in their later years. After all, a family does not spend its way out of poverty. Quite the opposite, most families build a path to financial security on the foundation of assets, whether it be a home, a small business, or retirement savings.
This bill ensures that all retirement accounts and education savings accounts are excluded from a household's financial assets when determining whether or not they are eligible for food assistance. And for the first time in nearly two decades the $2,000 and $3,000 asset limits will be adjusted for inflation each year.
It is also important to note what the Congress did not do in the asset area. The administration proposed eliminating a State option called expanded categorical eligibility which allows States to conform the food stamp asset rules to those used in a TANF-funded benefit, and proposed using those savings to finance the exclusion of retirement accounts from eligibility determinations. Both the House and Senate rejected that approach because of a belief that some assets, such as retirement funds, should be excluded from the program on a national basis.
In addition, by leaving the existing State option on categorical eligibility in place, States have the full flexibility to set their own asset policy. I strongly encourage USDA to work with States to expand the use of this State option beyond the 15 States that thus far have expanded categorical eligibility. States with nearly 40 percent of the food stamp caseload do not currently use the national asset policy. I hope that in the coming months and years we will see more and more States take the option.
Another major improvement in this bill supports working families by allowing them to deduct the full amount of their childcare expenses from their income for purposes of food assistance eligibility and benefit determinations. The current cap on the dependent care deduction has not been raised in 15 years, but child care costs have continued to grow. Even when a low-income working family gets help paying for child care, the family's share, or copayment, can be substantial. Now, because of changes in this bill, the amount of food assistance that a family receives will reflect the actual child care costs families pay to be able to hold down their jobs. By lifting the cap, families eligible for the deduction will be able to deduct the full value of their childcare costs, rather than just a portion of the costs. The change would provide an average of almost $500 a year--more than $40 a month--to approximately 100,000 households that pay high childcare costs.
This change was made cognizant of current USDA policy on the childcare deduction, which takes a broad view of what constitutes a dependent care cost, defers to parents about what is appropriate childcare, and lets States determine how to set verification policy. This proposal was part of USDA's original farm bill proposal and they have given us every reason to believe they will continue these policies and do nothing that would limit what is deductible or the amount families may deduct.
For households that apply or recertify their eligibility after October 1, 2008, the dependent care cap will no longer be in effect. We expect that States will notify households already participating in the program with dependent care expenses at or above the
current cap about the policy change. These households should be given the opportunity to receive the higher dependent care deduction that corresponds to their full costs as soon as the provision takes effect. A benefit increase for these households however, is their option. In no case should a household have its benefits terminated or reduced for not responding to paperwork requesting verification for the amount of childcare costs they have above the current cap. In two areas, this bill builds upon the very successful State options provided in the 2002 farm bill. These simplifications have made the program less burdensome on States agencies and families alike, have helped to keep low-income households connected to the Food Stamp Program, and have been a major factor in the sustained drop in State food assistance error rates.
The 2002 farm bill allowed States to extend ``simplified'' reporting rules to most households. Some 48 States and the District of Columbia have adopted this popular State option, which dramatically simplifies the rules for how many food stamp participants inform the State about changes in their income and other circumstances.
Unfortunately, due to an oversight in the 2002 bill, States are not allowed to apply simplified reporting to several categories of households, such as households with only elderly or disabled members. USDA wisely, through guidance and in its proposed regulation, allowed States to extend the option to some households that might be excluded, such as homeless households and migrant and seasonal farmworkers. This bill specifically allows these households to be included in simplified reporting and extends the State option to households with only elderly and disabled members, so long as States extend the simplified option for 1 year rather than 6 months for such households to reflect the fact that many of them live on fixed incomes and have stable living situations and thus do not have many changes to report. In fact imposing 6 month reports on these households would make them worse off by putting their food assistance at risk more often than is now the case.
This change will allow States to simplify their operations and reduce confusion, by having just one reporting system with common forms, staff training, and other rules. I urge USDA to implement this provision and the underlying simplified reporting option in a way that allows it to achieve its full intent of minimizing the number of changes that households need to report and that States need to respond to, whether those changes are for food stamps or for another program that the State administers along with the Food Stamp Program. Simplified reporting cannot be simple if USDA allows exceptions to our basic principle that changes should only be made to the case if a household reports that their income exceeds the gross income limit.
Another popular and successful provision from the 2002 farm bill gave States the option to provide 5 months of transitional food assistance to families that leave welfare. We did this not only because we wanted to reduce the paperwork burden but also to keep eligible families connected to food assistance when they left welfare for work. This is important because we know that, for families who are leaving welfare for employment, the first couple of months are particularly vulnerable. Having work supports such as food assistance help them to weather this period and actually decreases the likelihood that they will return to cash assistance.
The 2002 farm bill made this State option available to families that leave Federal TANF-funded cash assistance programs. Since then, some States have established separate State-funded cash assistance programs for certain groups of poor families with children. These State programs give greater flexibility to States to develop services and supports that can serve these families appropriately.
This bill extends to States the option to provide transitional food assistance to individuals participating in these State-funded public assistance programs. Several States have specifically indicated that this change will be beneficial to them and the families with children that they serve.
For all of these benefit improvements, I expect USDA to implement the provisions in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the State agencies that administer the program. It is with some disappointment and disbelief that I note that the administration still has not yet issued final regulations for the 2002 farm bill's food stamp provisions. In implementing this bill I urge USDA to provide sufficient, flexible guidance to States in a timely manner. One of the helpful implementing policies USDA allowed in 2002 was to extend the 120-day quality control hold harmless protections to provisions that are State options, such as simplified reporting and transitional food stamps. I expect USDA to allow that policy for this farm bill as well.
In addition to major improvements in the benefit levels and rules, the nutrition title contains numerous program oversight and integrity provisions, as well as provisions that address basic program operations.
As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, this bill finalizes the replacement of paper coupons in favor of the electronic benefits on plastic cards that are now the way people access their food assistance across the country. The bill prohibits States from issuing any new coupons and provides that existing coupons shall be redeemable for only 1 year from the date this bill is enacted. This is a minor change in the operation of the program, since no State currently issues coupons and fewer are redeemed each month. Nonetheless, the change required numerous technical and conforming revisions in the statute to purge the act of ``coupons'' and other trappings of the old system. No policy changes are intended in making these revisions other than to reflect the existing reality. For example, in replacing the word ``coupons'' with ``benefits'' Congress did not intend to change policy beyond simply recognizing that coupons do not exist anymore. The term ``benefits'' refers to the food voucher-like benefits that households receive on electronic benefit transfer cards, EBT, but does not include auxiliary activities under the act, such as nutrition education or food stamp employment and training services.
Despite the overwhelming success of electronic benefits in modernizing benefit delivery, reducing retailer fraud, and removing a large source of stigma for recipients, there is one area where there remain concerns about EBT benefits, and this bill has tried to address the concern. Under the old food stamp coupon system, some households, especially seniors who qualify for small benefits, could store up those smaller amounts and use several months' worth in one shopping trip or for a special occasion, such as a holiday gathering. With food stamp coupons there was no deadline for how long they were good for.
Under EBT systems, however, some States have moved households' benefits ``offline'' after as few as 3 months if there is no activity in the account. This can be a problem for households that receive small benefits and want to store them up for a special supermarket trip.
So this bill strikes a balance. It allows States to move a household's benefits offline if the household has not accessed the EBT account for 6 months. But the State will be required to notify the household of this step and to reinstate its benefits within 48 hours if the household makes a request.
I expect States to make the process for recovering benefits after they have been moved offline easy for households. Any inquiry about food assistance, or general request for assistance from a household that has had benefits moved offline, should be considered a request for reinstatement of lost benefits. In other words, households should not have to contact a particular phone number or ask for some complicated reinstatement option in order to get benefits restored to their accounts. Rather, eligibility workers and local office or call center employees should assist households and should help them to initiate the process of reinstating their benefits.
I recognize that some States may need to renegotiate the terms of their EBT contracts, and I urge USDA to work with States to implement the provision as quickly as possible given the time constraints set by the effective date constraints.
This bill also responds to another benefit issuance matter that has come
up recently in Michigan and in other places over the years. States currently issue food stamps in one monthly installment for each household. They may, and usually do, ``stagger'' food stamps by issuing the month's food stamps to different households on different days of the month, for example, based on the last digit of the household head's Social Security number. This practice spreads out the state's workload and helps supermarkets smooth out the demand for food.
Some States--most recently Michigan--have faced pressure from retailers and others to divide each individual households' monthly allotment into two or more issuances over the month. I do not support such a change and was surprised to learn that the law permitted it. Dividing households' monthly food stamp allotments could prevent some households from making large buying trips or from purchasing large, economy-size containers of staple foods. It also would be burdensome on households with small benefit amounts--such as seniors--because they would have to use their food assistance EBT card at multiple shopping trips during the month instead of only one. In fact, the Michigan Department of Human Services polled current food assistance recipients about such a potential change and learned that recipients strongly opposed splitting food assistance benefits into a twice-monthly allotment.
The bill includes a provision that would prevent States from dividing monthly allotments. No other policy changes are envisioned. The bill does not intend to change the rules with respect to the issuance of expedited benefits, the proration of benefits for partial months, the issuance of supplemental benefits in the event a benefit correction is needed, the way that people who reside, or formerly resided, in drug or alcohol addiction treatment facilities receive food assistance, or any other area.
The nutrition title also clarifies a provision that has inadvertently denied food assistance benefits to innocent people. Individuals who are being actively pursued by law enforcement for outstanding felony charges or for violations of probation or parole are not eligible for food assistance benefits. This rule appropriately ensures that fugitives do not receive public support.
However, in practice, this rule occasionally denies food assistance to the wrong people--innocent people whose identities may have been stolen by criminals or those whose offenses were so minor or so long ago that law enforcement has no interest in pursuing them. If the issuing authority does not care to apprehend the applicant when notified of his or her whereabouts, there is no public purpose served by denying food assistance benefits.
Unfortunately, inadequate guidance to States has resulted in exactly that. This provision would correct this by requiring USDA to clarify the terms used and make sure that States are not incorrectly disqualifying needy people who are not being actively pursued by law enforcement authorities.
One important area of the bill has not gotten a lot attention. It has to do with our own, as well as USDA's oversight of State administration of the program. Several provisions in the nutrition title are included to improve oversight of States with respect to computer systems, eligibility processes, and access to benefits.
For example, the bill requires States to adequately test and pilot new computer systems. I do not wish to see another instance of a State implementing a multimillion dollar computer system that does not work, and which USDA knew would not work. Time and time again, I have read about computer systems that do not work and either cause families to wait 3 months for food stamps or that issue benefits inaccurately. That is unacceptable management of the program. USDA must demand adequate testing and hold States, not clients, accountable for any mistakes in benefits when there is a major systems failure.
The bill also includes a provision that was proposed by USDA to increase the penalties on States if, despite these measures, a ``major systems failure'' nonetheless occurs. If the Secretary determines that overissuances have occurred because of a ``major systems failure,'' the States, rather than households, as is usually the case, are to be liable to repay the Federal Government for the cost of the overissuance. This is entirely appropriate because the mistake is clearly not the household's fault, and their ability to purchase food should not be compromised because of the State's egregious mistakes. When major State problems occur, the State's energy and resources should be focused on fixing the problem, not on collecting from low- income households that had no role in the mistake.
New automated systems are not the only program area that requires more oversight, monitoring, and enforcement of standards. States are now using online applications, conducting business with clients over the phone, and in some cases closing local offices and reducing staff as a result of these changes. New technologies present enormous opportunities to improve customer service, but they also carry risks if the technology does not work or the State agency lacks sufficient oversight. The bill is, in part, responding to a recent GAO report that found that USDA has not collected sufficient information on the effects of alternative methods of benefit delivery on program access, payment accuracy, and administrative costs. The bill requires USDA to set standards for identifying when States are making major changes in their operations and for States to notify USDA and report on the effect these changes have on program integrity and households' access to benefits.
Though the provision of which I am speaking, section 4116 does not specifically pertain to the privatization of the Food Stamp Program, it does have particular relevance given recent efforts by two States, Texas and Indiana, to privatize major components of their food assistance delivery mechanism. Prior to the approval by the Food and Nutrition Service of both the Texas contract and the Indiana contract, I communicated extensively with the Food and Nutrition Service by letter as to the kinds and manner of data collection that I deemed critical in each instance. I continue to be extremely concerned that USDA is not properly monitoring those projects, as well as other State efforts to transform the way that services are delivered with respect to how these new systems are affecting the most vulnerable members of our society. Because that correspondence was extensive and because it is in the records of USDA, I will not submit it here for the record. I would note however, that in implementing section 4116 of the conference report, I expect USDA to closely review my prior correspondence regarding the Texas and Indiana contracts regarding what kinds of information should be collected. In particular, I expect USDA to review my letter to Secretary Johanns sent on January 19, 2006. That letter in particular clearly laid out expectations as to proper evaluation criteria, especially as they pertained to program access for certain vulnerable populations, such as individuals with disabilities and those with limited-English proficiency.
I would also like to note that USDA has thus far refused, both in the case of Texas and the case of Indiana, to gather appropriate quality control data in the specific geographic areas that were initially rolled out for testing. In those cases, I asked USDA to gather quality control data that was specific to the geographical area that was being initially rolled out so that a comparison could be made to the rest of the State that was still operating under normal parameters, and I asked USDA to gather data that would allow for a timely evaluation of the pilot area. USDA responded that this was not possible because quality control data is not gathered for substate geographical areas and quality control data is not available for evaluation until many months after it is first gathered.
This provision allows USDA to rectify this situation and, in addition to other reporting measures, I fully expect USDA, in implementing this provision, to ensure that quality control data is gathered when there are major changes in program design that allows for comparison of substate areas that are being tested and which allows for the timely use of the State-reported data in evaluation prior to moving ahead with later phases of a project.
Another provision of the bill creates an explicit State option for accepting food assistance applications over the
telephone. As I previously mentioned, innovative States have experimented with online applications and telephone interviews as a way of streamlining the process for people who have difficulty coming to welfare offices, such as working families with busy schedules and senior citizens.
The nutrition title would allow households to apply for food assistance over the telephone and have their benefits date back to the date of the telephone application. This is important to ensure that households that apply over the telephone do not have a delay in their benefits and receive smaller benefits for the first month. We have provided that a telephone signature should be accepted as adequate for all purposes. No subsequent mail-in application should be required in order for the application to be considered filed by the State agency.
Throughout the history of the Food Stamp Program, the courts have played a positive, constructive role in ensuring that congressional intent is carried out. The program has not been overrun with litigation because both Congress, in writing statutes, and USDA, in writing regulations, have taken great pains to be clear and specific. On those rare occasions when courts have misunderstood our intent on an important matter, Congress has amended that statute accordingly. Because USDA keeps the Agriculture Committees closely apprised of its regulatory actions, Congress also has been comfortable with--indeed supportive of--litigation to enforce the Department's regulations. On numerous occasions when we leave a matter open in the statute, it is because USDA has told us exactly how it plans to address the matter in regulations. Congress has always operated on the assumption, and with the intent, that the program's regulations would be fully enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute.
I was disturbed to learn of two recent cases in which courts disregarded the longstanding history of judicial enforcement of the act and regulations. A district court in Ohio refused to entertain a suit brought to enforce the Department's regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English, and an appellate court in New York held that States are less responsible for compliance with the act and regulations when the program is administered by local governments than when the State administers the program itself.
Accordingly, this legislation clarifies that States must comply with the Department's rules on service to non-English-speaking households as well as with the statute. The regulations, no less than the statute, create rights for households to ensure that they can receive benefits.
Responding to the New York case, the legislation clarifies that States' responsibility is no less in locally administered systems. Congress has granted States the option for local administration as a convenience; nothing in the law reduces States' responsibility if they take this option. If the State could not be held fully accountable for strict compliance with the act and regulations in these cases, local administration would not be permitted. These amendments correct that problem.
I have been a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee or the House Agriculture Committee for over 30 years. I have always operated on the assumption that the act and regulations create enforceable rights for actual and prospective participants and that litigation may properly arise under provisions of either. When I have heard of examples where applicants or clients were not provided with the service that the act and rules provide, such as timely and fair service, assistance for those who need it by the State agency or 10 days to turn in requested paperwork, I have supported the right of an individual to file a claim against the State to enforce the rules established by Congress and the regulations stemming from the statute.
With very few exceptions, the old Food Stamp Act and the new Food and Nutrition Act are based on the principle of individual rights. Much of that stems from a history in the 1960s and 1970s of clients not being able to gain access to the program. To be sure, section 2 has little in it to enforce: subsections (a) through (g) of section 7 do not affect individual households, and sections 9, 10, 12, and 15 focus on retailers and wholesalers. Within section 11, paragraphs (e)(19), (e)(20), (e)(22), and (e)(23), as well as subsections (f) through (h), (k), (l), (n) through (r), and (t), regulate state agencies rather than households. The same is true in section 16 of the beginning of subsection (a) as well as of subsections (c), (d), and (f) through (k). Sections 14(a), 18(e) and (f), 19, 23, 25, and 27 similarly do not convey rights to households. A few other provisions by their terms no longer apply to anyone. But by and large, the Agriculture Committees, and Congress as a whole, have consistently intended that the Food Stamp Program be administered in strict conformity with the Food Stamp Act and with regulations the Secretary has duly promulgated under this act and that prospective and actual participants be entitled to enforce these provisions legally.
The legislation also clarifies the act's privacy protections to ensure that those receiving confidential information for legitimate reasons are not free to make other uses of that information or to retransmit it to third parties. Any decisions about releasing or using information should be made in advance by the Department or State food stamp agencies. The focus was on retransmission of information. Other than the provision explicitly allowing these records to be accessed in households' litigation, the bill does not expand initial access to confidential information. Confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration.
In the program integrity area the bill responds to USDA's request for more flexibility in how they penalize retailers who have committed fraud against the program. Electronic benefits have greatly reduced the occurrence of clients converting their food assistance benefits into cash, but there sometimes remain problems with stores finding ways to enrich themselves at the expense of the Federal Government and low- income households. Under this bill USDA will have more flexibility in the types of penalties it can impose on such stores. USDA will be able to disqualify an offending retailer, subject the retailer to financial penalties, or both.
Elsewhere in the bill, the Secretary is provided expanded authority to penalize individuals and companies that defraud USDA programs. While that provision does not apply to any of the individuals and families who receive food assistance it could be used with respect to retailers and other program operators. Given our history of collaboration with the Department on crafting this retailer fraud provisions as well as fraud detection and enforcement systems in the other nutrition programs, it is not my expectation that the Secretary would ever use that authority without extensive consultation with the Agriculture Committees.
The bill also adds two new specific disqualifications for recipients who have intentionally used their food assistance benefits inappropriately. I do not think these kinds of behaviors are common among food assistance recipients, but they are nonetheless inappropriate, and people who engage in them should be penalized. The first came up because of a story in my State. Apparently someone used their food assistance benefits to buy water in returnable containers. The individual's real goal, however, was to discard the water and return the container for the cash deposit. This kind of activity is obviously not consistent with the purpose of the program and States will now have specific authority to deal with it when it occurs.
The second would address instances where food assistance recipients intentionally resell food that they have purchased with food assistance benefits. This is a little bit of a grey area, and I want to be clear about what we do and do not intend with this provision. It is not consistent with the goals of the program for individuals to resell large quantities of food for a profit that they have bought with food stamp benefits. However, I recognize that food stamp households may occasionally buy a cake mix which is used to make cupcakes for their child's elementary school bake sale or they may shop for one another and reimburse each other for food. Two families who share an
apartment may sometimes share or swap food, even though they generally purchase and prepare their meals separately. These are not fundamental affronts to the integrity of the program. In fact, these are facts of life for honest low- and moderate-income families. USDA and States should only treat the egregious cases--where recipients intentionally sell food that was clearly purchased with food assistance benefits for a cash profit--as fraud. Innocent, well-intentioned low-income individuals should not be disqualified under this new provision.
The bill also includes $20 million in the nutrition title for pilot projects to test innovative ways of using the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to improve the diets and overall health of recipients and to especially reduce the problems of obesity and the related bad health outcomes. Particularly, this funding is provided for USDA to carry out a pilot program that would test whether certain incentives can be effective in helping food stamp households to purchase healthier foods. The funding is intended to be used for a pilot program using the existing EBT infrastructure. For example, a participating household that purchases fruits and vegetables with their food stamp benefits would receive a discount on the portion of their purchase that is deemed healthful. Or alternatively, the household would have extra benefits added onto its EBT card for the component of their grocery store purchases that are healthful.
This provision is an investment in a very important area. But I must be clear that it is very important for these pilot projects to be rigorously evaluated and that the evaluations be independent, so the Agriculture Committee can have reliable information on what really works and does not work to change people's food purchasing behavior, diets, and health status. To provide USDA with maximum flexibility in implementing this provision, the statute does not go into great deal about the structure of the pilot program. However, I have every expectation that USDA will consult closely with the Agriculture Committee as it works to implement this provision.
The bill also requires USDA to study the cost and feasibility of reinstating the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico into the national Food Stamp Program. Since 1982 Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50 States, District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This block grant does not take into account changes in economic or demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people who are in need of food assistance. Puerto Rico operates their Nutrition Assistance Program with rules very similar to the Food Stamp Program, except that it has been forced to impose much lower eligibility criteria as a result of capped funding. For example, a Puerto Rican household has a maximum net income limit of only 23 percent to 34 percent of the poverty level, instead of the 100 percent cut off used in the Food Stamp Program. It is important that Congress gain a better understanding of whether we are meeting the food needs of U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico and whether inclusion in the Food Stamp Program would be appropriate in the Commonwealth. With this study I hope to get a better understanding of what the local conditions are in Puerto Rico and how to address the issues in the next farm bill.
Another provision of the bill seeks to ensure that all children who live in households receiving food stamps are getting the free school meals to which they are entitled. Forty percent of all food assistance recipients are school-age children and about 45 percent of food assistance benefits go to families with school-age children. Food assistance benefits are a critical factor in reducing food insecurity amongst families with children. All children in families receiving food assistance get another important benefit--automatic enrollment for free school meals provided through the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Such children have been eligible for free school meals for some time, but the requirement that they be automatically enrolled without completing a duplicative paper application was enacted in 2004 and will be effective nationwide for the first time in the 2008 to 2009 school year.
The goal of the direct certification requirement is to move to a system that seamlessly enrolls 100 percent of school-age children in households receiving food assistance benefits for free school meals without imposing any additional paperwork on already stressed families. Unfortunately, it appears that some States are not implementing this provision effectively. As a result, families and schools must fill out and process needless paperwork that was already processed by the food stamp agency. I strongly encourage USDA to work with States to ensure better implementation of direct certification. Government need not and should not be unnecessarily redundant and wasteful. This legislation requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's progress toward that goal and to identify best practices. The report can thus be used to help States assess their own progress and expand the reach of direct certification.
The farm bill nutrition title makes a significant new investment in food purchases for emergency food organizations, increasing the Federal mandatory funding that is available from $140 million per year to $250 million, adjusted for annual food inflation. Because the amount has been flat since 2002 it has lost purchasing power, while food prices have climbed by more than 15 percent. TEFAP also will receive $50 million in additional funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2008 to deal with the short-term immediate needs of food banks in light of the recent economic downturn and high food price inflation.
I would also like to highlight some of the changes we made to the Food Distribution Program on Indian reservations. As my colleagues may know, under the Food Stamp Act, tribal governments have the authority to run a commodity program for their tribal members who would prefer commodities to food stamps. The program helps ensure that low-income Native Americans who live in very remote areas and for whom food stamps are not an option have access to nutritious foods. Currently, there are approximately 243 tribes receiving benefits under the FDPIR through 98 Indian tribal organizations and five State agencies.
The bill makes a number of changes to the program. First, the statute is clarified to ensure that individuals disqualified from the Food Stamp Program are also disqualified from FDPIR. Second, the bill provides more authority to ensure that traditional and local foods are included in the food package based on input from program participants. Finally, and perhaps most important, Congress is requiring USDA to submit a report on the FDPIR food package and its ability to meet the food and health needs of low-income Native Americans. I am deeply concerned that FDPIR may be failing as a substitute for the Food Stamp Program. Unlike food stamps, it does not differentiate between the food needs of the poorest versus those with more income. Moreover, I am concerned that the quality of the food provided in the food package is not as healthy and nutritious as it ought to be, nor does it respond to the diet and health challenges of Native Americans. The Secretary has open ended authority to improve or expand FDPIR, which is an entitlement to Native Americans in lieu of the Food Stamp Program. I look forward to hearing from USDA about if or how FDPIR needs to be modified to respond to the food security needs of its participants.
The nutrition title also make a very significant investment in the health of our Nation's children by expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which will receive $150 million annually within 5 years and thereafter be indexed to inflation. Several important policy changes are also made to the program. First, because eating habits are established early in life, we limit the program to just elementary schools, with an appropriate transition period for currently participating secondary schools. The bill also includes significantly strengthened targeting of program funds to low-income children by specifying that priority be given to applicant schools that have the highest proportion of children who are eligible for free or reduced- price meals. I expect USDA and states to take this income targeting very seriously. The
statute is very clear. It does not suggest that the prioritization of low-income schools is optional but clearly indicates that first priority be given to the schools with the greatest proportion of low- income children. The statute also removes any reference to dried fruits that previously existed. The program is intended to provide fresh fruits and vegetables only.
As my colleagues may gather from my remarks, I am extremely proud of what we have accomplished in the nutrition title of this farm bill. We have made the title a top priority within the bill and taken pains to ensure that we strengthen our Federal nutrition programs for the tens of millions of children, seniors and families they serve. Of course, we still have a long way to go before we end hunger in this country. But with this legislation we will be moving in a direction of reducing hunger, strengthening our people and building healthier, stronger communities.
Mr. President, in addition to the more than 1,000 farm, conservation, nutrition, consumer and religious organizations who urged us to override this veto, more than 2,700 Americans signed an online petition, which said the following:
We urge Congress to override President Bush's veto of the
2008 farm bill . . . It protects the safety net for all of
America's food producers, increases funding to feed our
nation's poor, enhances support for important conservation
initiatives, and helps make America more energy independent .
. . Please vote to override President Bush's veto and enact
the 2008 Farm Bill into law.
I will not enter all the names into the Record because there are e- mail addresses listed here, and I don't want to make all those public.
I ask consent to have the petition printed in the Record.