Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I will not take the 2 minutes. As indicated, the gentleman's amendment does require that no person can receive food stamps if that person is required by a court order to pay child support, and then dealt with the unpaid liability issue. The gentleman has amended his amendment so that becomes more flexible and certainly more practical. Let me seek the gentleman's assurance that the effective date of this amendment will coincide with the implementation of the new child support enforcement system as described in H.R. 4.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and I support the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding. I thank him for his amendment. I would like to engage him in a colloquy if I might. There could be a situation here when States are able to define the food items that are eligible, that conceivably that could slow down the conversion by States to the EBT system. I know that that is not the outcome that the gentleman anticipates or wants and the body should understand that if it looks like this could occur, that the 2-year time frame can be extended to 5 years. I think the gentleman has stated this, but I wanted to make sure that that was the gentleman's intent.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to note in a debate when somebody starts to pillory another individual, when they do not know anything about the other individual. The new inspector general of the Department of Agriculture is Roger Viadero. He has been on board for 4 months. He is the gentleman who took the tape and provided the House Committee on Agriculture the first hearing on fraud and abuse in years and years and years. It was the 1st of February. Prior to 4 months ago, he spent a career in the FBI and as a street cop; street, street, I would tell the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], he was a street cop. He knows full well what will happen in regard to this particular effort. Let me remind the gentleman that an EBT card is not an ID card. I hope nobody around here is voting with an EBT card. It is not a driver's license. It is not a bank card. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the inspector general's advice, and he is in charge of it, he has indicated that it will not stop the trafficking that my colleagues hope would take place. If you have an EBT card and you cheat, you have to have a willing participant on the other side. It will take more time for States to meet the criteria of an EBT system to provide an audit trail to stop fraud if we put a picture on the EBT card. If we require it, it is an unfunded mandate. States will have to pay half of the cost. In addition, the gentleman's amendment is structured, and he cannot amend it, according to the rule, that the entire family has to be on the card. What do we do with a 10-member family, or 9 or 8 or 7 or 6? The picture would have to be larger than the card. This does not serve any practical, useful purpose. It may send a message in terms of perception, but in terms of food stamp program reform and stopping crime and fraud, we should not use perception, we should use the best advice of a street cop, an FBI expert, and a gentleman who has come to the inspector general's office after it has been absent. The administration did not fill that position for the better part of 2 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself much time as I may consume. gentleman's amendment. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], as every Member knows, is the Buy American amendment champion of the House of Representatives and does yeoman work in that regard. I agree with the gentleman's intent of the amendment. And the gentleman does describe a real problem we have in the Food Stamp Program where approximately $3 billion in expenditures, as itemized by the inspector general of the Department of Agriculture, is going to fraud, abuse, and organized crime. We have stores in big cities that are not stores, they are just clearing houses in regard to using the Food Stamp Programs and the coupons as a second currency to bankroll organized crime. We have a strong antifraud provision in this bill. It is bipartisan. The distinguished ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Agriculture, has contributed to that effort, and the administration has contributed to that effort. We asked the inspector general of the Department of Agriculture whether or not the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], from a practical standpoint, would be of help. I think from a perception standpoint there is no question that gentleman's amendment in terms of intent is very positive, but the amendment requires that the EBT cards contain a photograph of the family receiving food stamps. In the first place, we have a problem here with an unfunded mandate, since the States pay half the cost of the EBT, or that card. By this amendment, they would be required to pay additional amounts for a system that includes the photographs. In addition, in contacting the Inspector General, there is very little if any evidence, there is no evidence that having a photograph of the entire family of the EBT card will stop any kind of trafficking. In order to traffic in Food Stamp Programs with an EBT card, there must be a willing participant and a willing person in the grocery store. Having a photograph on that card will not deter the trafficking, because the grocery store person is a willing participant. That certainly would not stop the case. Without a willing partner in the grocery store, there would be no trafficking with the EBT cards. I want to make it clear that the EBT cards are instrumental in reducing the incidences of street trafficking of food stamps, but it does not eliminate the trafficking. However, EBT does provide a trail, so that law enforcement personnel can trace these violations, and then really prosecute all who violate the act. I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that while I admire the gentleman's intent, and I admire the gentleman, the cost of placing a photograph of a family on the EBT card, while unknown, is unlikely to pay off. I think it is going to slow down our efforts to have States adopt a criteria to put in place the entire system is regard to EBT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in charge of food stamp reform.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I had not intended to take part in this debate but the gentleman from Washington indicated that the WIC Program was slashed in regards to the rescission program. Let me point out there was $125 million in that account, and the rescission program cut $25 million. There is still $100 million in the account. That is within the agriculture budget. Most of us on the Committee on Agriculture, if not all, understand that the WIC Program is a very important program. Most of us also understand they have an 86 percent participation rate. They are advertising on national radio to encourage more people to participate. There has to be some level there where you are spending money on advertising hopefully to get it up to all people who are deemed eligible, but there is $100 million in there right now that is not even spent. It was under the WIC Program that we took money from the crop insurance program to spend more on WIC. Nobody is slashing this program; $500 million in authorization, subject to appropriations, more in the WIC Program than last year. This is simply not accurate. I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, can we please end the class warfare argument or discussion or partisan exchange and get to food stamp reform? We have had a lot of discussion about school lunches, which is not even part of this debate, we are talking about food stamps. We have had a lot of talk about the food costs and how we cannot really match the food costs. Only in Washington is a 2 percent increase considered a cut. If food prices go down, food stamps, benefits, will go up 2 percent. It happened in 1990. If the food costs go up, and nobody can predict that, other than the gentleman from Texas Dick Armey the self-declared Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in this body, but if food costs would go up we will appropriate the money with a supplemental, so that deals with the problem of food costs. Quality control, it is out of control. It is over 8.5 percent. The Panetta plan reduces it back in terms of quality control to 6 percent. That is in part how we control these costs. Somebody mentioned the WIC program. We are not discussing WIC here. There is $25 million sitting there in the account of WIC. It was cut $25 million. We had $50 million, it is down to $25 million. They have to advertise on the radio to get more participants. It is a good program, by the way. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Dakota said that some school child in North Dakota was going to go hungry because of school lunches. The Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities has informed this Member $1 million more next year than last year. We will cut the paperwork and the administration and we will give the money to that very hungry child. Let us really talk about food stamp reform. In 1985, 19.9 million people were on food stamps. It went up to 20 million in 1990, 22.6 in 1991, 25.4 in 1992, and in 1993, 27.3. When the economy goes down, the food stamps, that expenditure goes up. When the economy goes up, food stamp expenditures go up. We simply want to control the growth of the program. We will address the needs, if in fact they are needed. The opportunity of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] is a deal but it is not the best deal. We should be supporting this bill.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very valued member of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood]. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, to end the colloquy that was previously discussed, I yield 17.5 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995. We all know the hour is late, but we also know that the debate in regards to welfare reform, if it is a late- burner topic, it is also a front-burner topic in this town, and all throughout the Nation. Last November, the American public spoke very decisively on wanting change, and welfare reform was a central theme in the election, was a central theme 2 years ago in the President's election. The component in regards to food stamp reform that comes under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee is in reference to food stamps. I would inform my colleagues that food stamp spending has increased almost every year since 1979. We are all familiar about the good work that the food stamp program has done in terms of workers who have been unemployed or of families that have had real tragedy. The food stamp program provides that needed bridge during a time of hardship and when the economy slipped into recession. We must maintain that bridge, and H.R. 4 does just that. It provides a Federal safety net, but it eliminates food stamps as a way of life. However, I would point out that during the last 15 years the economy has not always been in a recession, and we have had record growth in regards to the economy. But food stamp spending kept increasing. Now common sense would suggest that food stamp spending should go down when the economy is strong, but that has not been the case. Why? Because our Congress kept expanding the benefits, and the American taxpayer, who really foots the bill for the program, has said enough, and that is why welfare reform strikes a chord with the American public. The food stamp program provides benefits to an average of 27 million citizens in this country, upward of maybe 28 million each month at an annual cost of more than $25 billion on an annual basis. For the most part, these benefits really go to families in need of help and are used to buy food to feed these families, and there is no question in my mind that the food stamp program helps poor people and those who have temporarily fallen on hard times. However, there is also no question in my mind that it is in need of reform. Recently, I reviewed a September 22, 1981, subcommittee hearing. Let me repeat that, 1981. And the hearing was on fraud in the food stamp program. I reviewed that 14-year-old record with some degree of concern and dismay. In both hearings, and we just held a hearing in the Committee on Agriculture as of this year on February 1, and in both hearings the reports were almost identical, the one in 1995 and the one in regards to 1981. There were reference to food stamps as a second currency, food stamps being used to buy guns, drugs and cars. It is discouraging that these events have not changed. On September 3, 1981, the TV investigators and the news reports talked about the great food stamp scandal. In January of 1995 and again in March of 1995 various news teams did similar stories and picked up on the film, the tape we have from the new Inspector General from the Department of Agriculture. As I said, it is very discouraging. The good news is we have a very strong fraud provision, anti-fraud provision. It is bipartisan. It is backed by the administration and by the minority and the majority. However, the situation is much worse today in 1995 than it was in 1981. Abuses in the food stamp program involve selling food stamps at discount grocery stores. They are not grocery stores. It is a sham. They are set up to launder food stamps, even abuse of the Electronic Benefit Transfer system. Also, the Department of Agriculture reports that for the most recent year $1.8 billion in food stamps was issued in error, meaning that the eligible families receive too much in food stamps or people who are not eligible receive these benefits. That is $1.8 billion. That is a combination of errors, some on the part of States that administer the food stamp program, some on the part of the participants receiving food stamps and some, unfortunately, willful and intentional violations of the act. That is $1.8 billion of taxpayer money lost to fraud and error. It is also lost to the recipients, the true recipients of the food stamp program. Unfortunately, the food stamp program does not always really deliver the benefits to eligible people, and for food, and so others really participate in this activity including grocery store personnel, middlemen and criminals involved in illicit behavior. Let me quote from one report. ``In September, 1994, the U.S. Justice Department indicted a couple on charges they used their restaurant supply business to illegally acquire and redeem $3.5 million in food stamps.'' $3.5 million, one couple. ``Undercover agents say they watched family members carting shopping bags of cash to the banks in $2,000 bundles of $20 bills. Once deposited, the money was almost immediately transferred to accounts in Hong Kong,'' Mr. Chairman, ``where it was withdrawn, usually by relatives within 24 hours.'' Or another report, ``a USDA undercover officer got a taste of how complacent the big-time traffickers can get when he investigated an Orange, NJ, family that used their little store to fence stolen goods and traffic in food stamps. And the undercover officer used the food stamps to buy cars, TV sets, children's toys, cocaine, microwave ovens, and a video camcorder from the family. Then he used the video camera, one to test it, then filmed the roomful of stolen goods and the agreeable family of crooks.'' This bad reputation has undermined the public support for the Federal food stamp program and for welfare. It is unfortunate. It is wrong. Polls indicate that half of the American public support cuts in the food stamp program, and I believe this is due to the flagrant abuses that are seen on the street almost any day. We don't want this. As I indicated before, the food stamp program is a bridge. It is a needed program. It has helped the poor. And so the commitment in regards to the anti-fraud provision is a good one, and it is bipartisan. After careful deliberation, the Committee on Agriculture determined that the food stamp program for the present should remain a Federal program for the following reasons: First, States will be undergoing a transition to State-designed welfare programs. During this period, the food stamp program will remain the safety net program and able to provide food as a basic need while this transition is taking place. The food stamp program will be reformed, costs will be controlled, and we will ensure that every American in need will have access to food. Now, given the hearing record, the lack of public support and the dollars involved, the committee could not continue the program without significant reforms. Our five hearings held between the 1st of February and February 14 of this year dictated the course of the changes needed in the food stamp program. The food stamp program is taken off automatic pilot, and control of spending for this program is returned to the Congress. We are going to hear a lot of rhetoric, have heard a lot of rhetoric. It has been said in the press over and over again and by certain critics of reform that, for goodness sakes, there might be a problem with food stamps down the road because we only allow for a 2 percent increase. Used to be before we had it as an entitlement program and before 1990 when we had a spending cap that the Congress had that responsibility, we would come back every year and determine whether or not additional funds were needed. That is the responsibility of the Congress. The food stamp deductions are kept at 1995 levels instead of being adjusted automatically. Again, it is off of the automatic pilot for increases in the Consumer Price Index. Food stamp benefits will increase, increase, not a cut, increase, increase up, not down, not a cut, at the rate of 2 percent per year to reflect increases in the cost of food. Food stamp spending will no longer grow out of control. Oversight from the committee is essential so that reforms are needed or the committee will act. And, yes, if we would have a recession and, yes, if food prices would go up and, yes, if in fact it were needed I am sure the Congress would support a supplemental appropriation. States are provided the option of harmonizing their new AFDC programs with the food stamp program for those people receiving assistance from both programs. Since 1981, the committee has authorized demonstration projects aimed at simplifying the rules and regs for those receiving assistance from AFDC and food stamps. States have complained, recipients have complained for years about the disparity between AFDC and food stamp rules. We need one-stop shopping, one-stop service. This bill provides them the opportunity to reconcile these differences. It is now time to provide all States, all recipients with this option. H.R. 4 contains a tough work program. We have heard a lot about that. Able-bodied persons between the age of 18 and 50, with no dependents, no dependents, will be able to receive food stamps for three months. Eligibility, however, would cease at the end of the 3-month period if they are not working at least 20 hours per week in a regular job. This rule will not apply to those who are in employment or training programs, such as those approved by a governor of a State. A State may request a waiver of these rules. Let me repeat that. A State, a governor, may request a waiver of the rules if the unemployment rates are high or if there are a lack of jobs in the area. We have that waiver. We just expect able-bodied people between 18 and 50 years who have no one relying upon them to work at least half time if they want to continue to receive the food stamps. It is essential to begin to restore integrity to the program. Abuse of the program occurs in three ways: fraudulent receipt of benefits by recipients, street trafficking in food stamps by recipients and trafficking offenses made by retail and wholesale grocers. H.R. 4 doubles the disqualification periods for food stamp participants who intentionally defraud the program. For the first offense the period is changed to 1 year. For the second offense the disqualification period is changed to 2 years. Food stamp recipients who are convicted of trafficking in food stamps with a value over $500, they are permanently, permanently disqualified. Also, H.R. 4 requires States to use the Federal tax refund offset program to collect outstanding overpayments of food stamp benefits. The trafficking by unethical wholesale and retail food stores is a serious problem. Benefits we appropriate for needy families are going to others who are making money illegally from the program. That is wrong. Therefore, H.R. 4 limits the authorization period for stores and provides the Secretary of Agriculture with other means to ensure that only those stores abiding by the rules are authorized to accept the food stamps. Finally, H.R. 4 includes a provision that all property used to traffic in food stamps and the proceeds traceable to any property used to traffic in food stamps will be subject to criminal forfeiture. Big step in preventing fraud. The Electronic Benefit Transfer systems have proven to be helpful in reducing the street trafficking in food stamps and to provide better administration of the program. They have provided law enforcement officers a trail through which they can find and really prosecute. The EBT systems do not end the fraudulent activity, but they are instrumental in curbing the problem. Additionally, the EBT is a more efficient method to issue food benefits for participants, States, food stores and banks. For all of these reasons, H.R. 4 has included changes in the law to encourage States to go forward with the EBT systems. Mr. Chairman, this bill and the contribution of the Committee on Agriculture to the bill, I think, represent a good policy decision. We have kept the Food Stamp Program as a safety net for families in need of food. We have taken the program off of automatic pilot and placed a ceiling on spending. We save approximately $20 billion over 5 years. Congress is back in control of spending on food stamps on a periodic basis. If additional funding is needed, as I have said before, Congress will act to reform the program so that it operates within the amount of funding allowed, or it will provide the additional funding as necessary. States are provided with an option to really harmonize AFDC programs. We take steps to restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program by giving law enforcement and the Department of Agriculture additional means to curtail fraud and abuse. We encourage and facilitate the EPT systems. We begin a tough work program so able-bodied people with dependents who are between the ages of 18 and 50 can receive food stamps for a limited amount of time without working. I think this represents good food stamp policy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I would like to first express to all of my colleagues the fact that I do not consider this entire legislation in any part welfare reform, although we have a strong section on fraud and abuse. Otherwise, it is merely a reduction in funding over $21 billion, and it will cause hungry people to no longer be able to attain a nutritionally adequate diet. I know there is great controversy about the Food Stamp Program in the abuses, in the fraud, but the fact is that the average, or more than 40 percent of the recipient households have income below 50 percent of the poverty guideline and only 20 percent have significant earnings. The program has always been responsive to the needs, and in this year of our lord, 1995, in the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world, we should not have to admit that there is hunger in the countryside, that there is hunger in the cities. I know that there is great policy debate and disagreement, but the fact that you cannot deny is that there are hungry people. There are children who go to bed hungry at night. That cannot be denied. That cannot be covered by policy. That cannot be covered by saying Democrat or Republican. That is a fact. That is a fact that cannot be denied. And my concern here this evening is that we go solely on cutting. We should not have to do that, because this committee, and the distinguished chairman has worked on this effort, has reduced by over $65 billion in the past 12 years, more than our share of responsibility in the budget. Had every committee in this House done what the Committee on Agriculture has done, you would not have to worry about a deficit. You would not have to worry about deficit reduction if everyone had done what we have done. So our concern here is that each year the size of a household food stamp allotment is adjusted to reflect any changes in the cost of food. This goes back to the old policies for 40 years. We have not had the Food Stamp Program for 40 years, but nonetheless, the old policies, the old policies took care to see that this was accommodated for. Under the present bill, it cannot be. It cuts 2 percent annually of increase, but if the food prices go beyond that, then it does not cover. Then you will have a problem, and there are those who would say, well, you can always come back and ask for more. Under the Budget Act and the atmosphere around here today, you cannot come back for more. What this bill does, it places a cap on annual food stamp expenditures, and that gets into some, and I have never seen it before, and I feel maybe that we may be yielding to outside factors, but the way that the dollar levels would be arranged in that will be the CBO projects low unemployment, assumes no recession in the next 5 years. But if that assumption is not correct, then we have a problem that we have here somehow that we will act according to what the CBO projects, and that figure, that CBO gives, will be the figure used, and I do not know how that works. That has never been tried before. That does not mean that you do not do something that has never been tried before. That would not be right to say that. But in this case, we know how it has worked, and it would be virtually impossible under the Budget Act since to get an added expenditure you would have to have offsetting tax increase or offsetting cuts someplace. So the fact is that you have to go take from the poor to help the poor. And those that would lose jobs during a recession will not have food benefits adequate for their families to have a healthy diet. We do not accept the majority's assumption that there are plenty of jobs available, and if hungry people are denied food benefits, they will get a job. The fact is that there is little welfare reform in this bill. There are no job-training requirements in the bill. It only says that States will provide employment and training to food stamp families. That is deleted, and funding for this activity is eliminated, and so we have to look at what it is that we are doing, and if given adequate job training and employment counseling, I know people will work. I know that they will work. There are those that say, ``Well, they don't want to work. I can't find anyone to cut my lawn.'' There are people who would like to work even if it is cutting a lawn, but if you only have one of those in a month, what would you do? And in my area, I see a lot of people doing that with this help. In other areas, also, AFDC, the WIC, school lunch, we are making radical reforms that, when coupled with changes in the food stamp provision in H.R. 7, greatly compromise our Federal food safety net. Reason argues for leaving one program as a backstop in case reforms in other programs falter or fail. We have now learned that the CBO estimates that the reduction in food stamps, as I have said before, will equal over $21 billion over 5 years. If this savings was the result of people moving from welfare into jobs, this bill would have the support of every Member of this House, I am sure. However, 4 saves money simply by reducing benefits and kicking people off the program who cannot find jobs on their own. And let me tell you, I can categorically state to you, because I hear this at home, I mean, these moneys that we use are hard-earned dollars paid to the U.S. Government in taxes, and we have a moral responsibility, we have a sacred responsibility to see that these funds are used adequately, and there is no way to reform a program that is designed to keep our children from going hungry. How do you reform that? Make more people go hungry? But we are responsible. We have been responsible. But you do not do your responsibility, as we have done, to the tune of $65 billion for 12 years, a little over 12 years. We have done it, but not by reducing benefits and kicking people off programs where they get food or in some other areas attention for their needs. So the reduction in spending resulting from implementation of this bill, also, we insist if it is to be done, it should go for deficit reduction. That is what people are speaking on throughout the countryside, ``Reduce the deficit.'' I just heard it before I boarded the plane this morning, ``Reduce the deficit.'' This we must do, that the reduction be used to address the deficit. And I urge my colleagues to commit themselves to true welfare reform. Welfare reform does not mean saying it. Welfare reform does not mean 30-second sound bites. Welfare reform does not mean saying there are no-account, lazy people out there. Welfare reform is what we have been doing, what we have done before there was a contract, before there were many of the new Members that are here. We have done that. We have been doing that. We did it in 1977, we did it in 1981, we did it in 1985. We have addressed these issues, not necessarily only in the Food Stamp Program. But we have. We have had chairmen of the subcommittee that have worked diligently and throughout that process. The distinguished chairman, our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], has been a part of this. So no one can say that we did not address the issue. Not one can say that we were not responsible. No one can say that in any way we reduced simply for the sake of reduction. We reduced because it was the right thing to do. We went to areas where the program needed change. We have made those changes. So what we do today is for other reasons besides welfare reform. It is for other reasons besides doing the right thing. It is for other reasons, and you, all of my friends, know what the other Mr. Chairman, the food stamp provisions of H.R. 4 cause me great concern. Although I am relieved that the Food Stamp Program, unlike the National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition programs, including the WIC program, will not be immediately turned into a block grant by this bill, the enormous reductions in funding, over $21 billion, will cause hungry people to no longer be able to attain a nutritionally adequate diet. As we strive to find the most effective ways to help poor parents achieve self-sufficiency, there is no excuse for limiting their ability to adequately feed their children. The Food Stamp Program is the country's largest provider of food aid and one of its most extensive welfare programs. In fiscal year 1994, it helped feed more than 1 in 10 people in this country. Half of the beneficiaries are children, and over 15 percent are elderly or disabled. More than 40 percent of the recipient households have monthly income below 50 percent of the poverty guideline, and only 20 percent have significant earnings. The program has always been very responsive to changes in the economy in two major ways. In the first instance, each year, the size of a household's food stamp allotment is adjusted to reflect any changes in the cost of food. Here is how that works: Maximum monthly food stamp allotments are tied to the cost of purchasing a nutritionally adequate low cost diet, as measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, plus 3 percent. Food stamp benefits are based on 103 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan to acknowledge the fact that food prices usually have increased between the time that the cost of the TFP is determined and the time that benefits are adjusted and distributed. (The cost of the TFP is determined in June, and benefits adjusted beginning the following October. Those adjusted benefits are not adjusted again until the next October, 15 months after the TFP adjustment.) This formula helps assure that families receive benefits reflective of the cost of food at the time they are purchasing the food. This diet is called the Thrifty Food Plan [TFP], and it is the cheapest of four food plans designed by USDA. USDA determines the cost of a market basket of low cost food items necessary to maintain a nutritious diet. The TFP is priced monthly, and food stamp allotments are adjusted, up or down, each October to reflect the cost of the TFP in the previous June. The October adjustment in 1995 is expected to be an increase of approximately 3.5%, reflecting the percent of increase in the cost of food. This mechanism assures that no family will get less than what it needs to maintain its ability to purchase a nutritionally adequate, albeit low cost, diet. H.R. 4 will limit any increases in the food stamp allotments to 2 percent annually, even if food prices increase nationally more than 2 percent. While the majority can argue that nominal benefits will not be reduced under their bill, benefits will no longer keep pace with the cost of food. Given current estimates of what will happen to food prices in the future, it is expected that in 2 years food stamp families will no longer receive benefits adequate to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet. Allotments will have fallen below 100 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan. Each year thereafter, under the majority's bill, benefits will be further eroded. We cannot stress enough the importance of maintaining a nutritionally adequate diet. It is the linchpin upon which this program is based and upon which all changes to the program must be measured. This bill completely abandons the principle that poor and hungry families deserve, at minimum, a nutritionally adequate diet. I am submitting for the record a chart showing that in two years H.R. 4 will begin to deny hungry families the chance to purchase a healthy diet. In the second instance, the bill becomes even more unresponsive to economic fluctuations by making it extremely difficult for the program to respond to increases in need during recessions. H.R. 4 places a cap on annual food stamp expenditures at the exact dollar levels that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the program will cost given implementation of the provisions in the bill. The CBO projects low unemployment and assumes no recession in the next five years. We hope that this assumption is correct, but if it is wrong and the Nation faces a recession, benefits to poor and hungry families will be reduced. There is no provision for an upward adjustment of the cap if the number of beneficiaries rises during a recession. Any effort under those circumstances to raise the cap, under the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, would be virtually impossible, since it would require an offsetting tax increase, a cut in another entitlement, or an emergency designation. At exactly the time when poor people need help most, they will receive less food assistance. The working poor, those most likely to lose jobs during a recession, will not have food benefits adequate to feed their families a healthy diet. Everyone can agree that we need additional budgetary controls on our federal budget. However, this is a most inhumane way to achieve such control. Hunger cannot be capped. We must allow the one program that provides a minimal safety net to keep hunger at bay to respond to recessionary times. We must conclude that the majority's bill is a cost savings bill, nothing more. There is little welfare reform in this bill. For example, there are no job training requirements in this bill. The current requirement that states provide employment and training to food stamp families is deleted, and funding for these activities is eliminated. Instead, the same level of funding is provided to states that choose to operate a program requiring that families work in public service jobs in return for their food stamp benefits; but, only 6 states operate such programs, and none of them are statewide. We do not accept the majority's assumptions that there are plenty of jobs available, and if hungry people are denied food benefits they will get a job. People do not prefer poverty over self-sufficiency. If given adequate job training and employment counseling, and if jobs are available, people will work. This bill provides no such incentives. This process has not produced true welfare reform. Merely cutting the Food Stamp Program at some arbitrary level is not reform and no one should mistake it as such. This bill simply goes too far in undermining our federal food assistance safety net and leaves our poor families vulnerable to hunger. In other areas, AFDC, WIC, school lunch, we are making radical reforms that when coupled with the changes in the food stamp provisions of H.R. 4 greatly compromise our federal food safety net. Reason argues for leaving one program as the backstop in case reforms in the other programs falter or fail. For those who have worked on far-reaching and comprehensive legislation in the past, the process of reforming welfare in this Congress has been most disturbing. The frantic pace at which we are required to move has assured that very little thoughtful consideration and deliberation can take place. The Committee on Agriculture, over Democratic objections, marked-up this bill without a CBO estimate. It is impossible to know the full implication of the bill's benefit reductions on the poor and hungry of this country without the CBO estimate. The majority many times during mark-up stated that the bill they presented for approval was believed to save $16.5 billion over 5 years. We have now learned that CBO estimates that the reductions in food stamp benefits that will result from the food stamp title of H.R. 4 will equal over $21 billion over 5 years. The concerns of the minority over $16.5 billion in benefit reductions are magnified several times when the reductions exceed $21 billion. If these savings were the result of people moving from welfare into jobs, this bill would have the support of every member of Congress. However, H.R. 4 saves money simply by reducing benefits and kicking people off the program who can't find jobs on their own. This is no way to reform a program that is designed to keep our children from going hungry. Finally, the minority is pleased that the committee approved a Sense of the Committee provision that the reduction in spending resulting from implementation of this bill must go toward deficit reduction. This policy must now be adopted for H.R. 4. There should be only two reasons to seek reductions in the Food Stamp Program--(1) to reduce the deficit, and (2) to reallocate resources in such a manner that allows the participants to achieve self-sufficiency (such as employment and training). Any attempt to use the savings to finance tax cuts must be roundly denounced. We cannot stand by and allow an erosion of food benefits for the poor to provide tax breaks for those who are far better off. I urge my colleagues to commit themselves to true welfare reform, not to this bill that does little more than deny and reduce benefits to hungry families in the name of welfare reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], who has authored many strengthening amendments to the antifraud provisions of the food stamp reform package.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and would point out to the Members and to all who are paying attention to this debate that the gentleman from Missouri has spent more time in regards to personally visiting feeding programs and soup kitchens. It is his amendment that consolidates many of the feeding programs and adds $100 million to that effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, there is one man in the Congress who probably knows more about food stamps and has contributed more of his time and effort to food stamp reform and the problem of hunger and malnutrition in America than any other, and that gentleman is the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] has served with distinction on the Select Committee on Hunger and has served with distinction on the House Committee on Agriculture. He is the distinguished gentleman who has been the leader in food stamp reform and is the chairman of the appropriate subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered today by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. Most of it has been said before by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], and my other colleagues, but it bears repeating because it is such good news. It is progress. It is something that has been done that we can all be proud of, and I want to thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle for their participation and their cooperation, but especially the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], our chairman, and also the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] on the minority side, but more especially, Bill. The chairman of the committee has persevered time after time after time. We have been present during the process of the Subcommittee on Accounts and tried to institute reform and real cuts and bring sunshine into the process. The chairman has approached it in a professional manner, and lo and behold, this year we have been able to achieve true bipartisan reform. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has also illustrated the same school of thought and leadership all throughout our hearings. We have a resolution before us that, as I said, represents real progress. Since the opening day of the 104th Congress, the House has been really working to fulfill our pledge that we made to the American people. We have cut the committee staff by one-third. For the first time we are consolidating the committee spending or the funding into a single 2-year funding resolution. That is reform. This new process includes both statutory and investigatory funds, as well as below-the- line costs, the hidden costs, the costs that were always hidden before. I am talking about office supplies and long-distance telephone charges that have never before been included in the committee budgets. This resolution represents a total of a 30-percent cut in committee funding. That is a real cut. That is compared to the 103d Congress, from $223 million down to $156.3 million. That is a real cut. In previous years the committees were funded on a yearly basis, 1 year, not 2, and they received funds from two sources--as I said before, statutory and investigative. I know that is an inside-the- Beltway term, and it is an inside-the-House Administration Committee term, but the statutory budgets, which total over 50 percent of the committee costs, what we are spending on committees, were allocated through a nonpublic process. It was behind closed doors. It was administered by the Finance Office. The investigative sources, which total only 45 percent of the total, were the only funds authorized through a public process, and that is where Chairman Thomas, when he was the ranking minority member, and Yours Truly labored so long trying to institute the reforms. It included hearings, as I have indicated, before the previous House Administration Committee. In addition, the committees received funding from other sources for such things as legislative office supplies, long-distance phone calls, and franked mail. These cost a total of 4.1 percent, but they were not available. The new majority in the Congress has finally shed the light of public disclosure on this process. House rules adopted at the beginning of the 104th Congress state that the Congress must, for the first time ever, publicly state all committee spending every 2 years and fund all staff salaries out of a single unified account. Our committees must also include all the below-the-line costs, the hidden costs, in their budgets. The House Oversight Committee has taken further steps by establishing the franked mail allocations for each committee. Last year the House overspent the franked mail appropriations by over $2 million. Let me repeat that. They overspent the franked mail allowance by more than $2 million. The separate franked allocations included in this resolution will control the overspending and keep a lid on the excess mailings. One of the biggest accomplishments has come in the area of minority resources. According to the House rules, the majority has the responsibility of determining the funding level of the minority. In the past many committees were denied a fair share of the resources. In the 103d Congress the minority was allowed only about 21\1/2\ percent of the investigative resources. committees will be treated fairly. All committee chairmen will treat the minority the same or better than the minority was treated in the past allocation of resources. In fact, 13 committee chairmen are increasing the allocations of staff or resources to the minority. In the last Congress only 4 of 21 committees were actually provided a figure at or above the 33-percent goal. Nine Republican chairmen will allot one-third of the committee staff and of the resources to the minority. So I am calling this the Bill Thomas 15-year Great Leap Forward. It is a reform. Progress is being made.