[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHILD NUTRITION ASSISTANCE: ARE
FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
SERVING THE BEST INTERESTS OF
SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 16, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-925 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Ranking Member
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Northern Mariana Islands
Luke Messer, Indiana Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
David Brat, Virginia Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Buddy Carter, Georgia Mark Takano, California
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Carlos Curbelo, Florida Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York
Rick Allen, Georgia
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 16, 2015.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Vilsack, Hon. Tom, Governor, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Additional Submissions:
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut:
Report: Retreat Is Not An Option......................... 28
Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Prepared statement of from Taylor, Mr. Rodney, Director
of Nutrition Services Riverside Unified School District 50
Questions submitted for the record by:
Chairman Kline........................................... 71
Barletta, Hon. Lou, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania.................................. 71
Bishop, Hon. Mike D., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan.................................. 72
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia.................... 72
Thompson, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania.............................. 72
Secretary Vilsack, response to questions submitted for the
record..................................................... 74
CHILD NUTRITION ASSISTANCE: ARE
FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
SERVING THE BEST INTERESTS OF
SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES?
----------
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Thompson,
Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie, Rokita, Messer, Brat, Carter, Bishop,
Grothman, Curbelo, Stefanik, Allen, Scott, Davis, Grijalva,
Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici, Takano,
Jeffries, Clark, Adams, and DeSaulnier.
Staff present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle
Belland, Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Martha
Davis, Staff Assistant; Kathlyn Ehl, Professional Staff Member;
Matthew Frame, Legislative Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Director
of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief
Clerk; Daniel Murner, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell,
Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy
Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel;
Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/
Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Staff
Assistant; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy Advisor;
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Tina Hone, Minority
Education Policy Director and Associate General Counsel; and
Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and Workforce will come to order.
Good morning, Secretary Vilsack. Welcome to the Education
and Workforce Committee. Thank you for joining us to discuss an
issue I know we all care deeply about, that is providing low-
income children and families access to healthy meals and
snacks.
We know the important role nutrition plays in a child's
development and education. As I have said before, it is just
common sense that if children are hungry or malnourished then
they are less likely to succeed in the classroom. That is why
the Federal Government has long invested in programs that aim
to provide America's most vulnerable students the nutrition
assistance they need.
Ensuring children have access to healthy food is a goal we
all share and lies at the heart of our effort to reform federal
child nutrition programs, many of which are set to expire later
this year.
We have conducted several hearings and briefings to learn
more about these programs, as well as the rules and regulations
that dictate their implementation at the state and local
levels.
What we have learned from students, parents, school
nutrition professionals, government watchdogs and other key
stakeholders and, yes, even in the Department of Agriculture is
that the latest reauthorization of federal child nutrition laws
is the most far-reaching and costliest in a generation.
Current law requires the department to prescribe how much
money schools charge for meals, what food can and can't be
served in schools and how much of it can be served. In other
words, Washington is responsible for deciding what and how much
our children eat.
These regulations have created an environment where
students aren't getting the nourishment they need, and food and
taxpayer dollars wind up literally in the trashcan.
Julia Bauscher, president of the School Nutrition
Association, conveyed to the committee the concern she is
hearing from school nutrition professionals across the country.
Julia described how regulations are resulting in harmful
consequences that threaten the ability of schools to best serve
students.
She went on to decry the sharp increase in costs and wastes
and the historic decline of student lunch participation under
the new requirements.
We are often told that more than 90 percent of
participating schools are complying with the law. First, as we
learned from the Government Accountability Office, it is highly
likely this number is overly optimistic.
But let us not forget that schools that choose to
participate must comply with the law. The question is not how
many schools are in compliance. The question is, at what cost?
The department estimates that participating school districts
will be forced to absorb $3.2 billion in additional compliance
costs over a 5-year period.
To make matters worse, fewer students are being served.
Since the regulations were put in place, participation in the
school meals programs has declined more rapidly than any other
period over the last three decades with 1.4 million fewer
children being served each day.
I saw these challenges firsthand during my visit to the
Prior Lake School District in Savage, Minnesota. Students
described smaller portion sizes and limited options that left
students hungry and more likely to buy junk food. After
students petitioned the school board, Prior Lake has decided to
drop out of the school meals program next school year. It is
the only way the school can meet the needs of its students.
And the problems with the law don't stop there. The Office
of Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture, and the
GAO identified examples of programs misusing taxpayer dollars,
raising serious concerns about whether or not we are actually
assisting those in need.
As we work to reauthorize federal child nutrition programs,
we must find solutions that will ensure taxpayer dollars are
well spent and children are well served.
We know developing a one-size-fits-all approach is not the
answer. More mandates and more money aren't the answer either.
Instead, we should look to improve these programs by giving
states and school districts the flexibility they need to
fulfill the promise of child nutrition assistance.
Duke Storen from the not-for-profit organization, ``Share
Our Strength,'' advised at a recent hearing, quote: ``It is
critical to remove bureaucratic barriers and create
efficiencies that will allow us to reach those kids who
currently go without,'' close quote.
I look forward to discussing how we can achieve just that
without imposing more burdens on our schools.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us to share
your perspective on these important issues, and I look forward
to our discussion.
And with that, I will now recognize the committee's ranking
member, Mr. Scott, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning, Secretary Vilsack, and welcome to the Education and
the Workforce Committee. Thank you for joining us to discuss an issue I
know we all care deeply about: providing low-income children and
families access to healthy meals and snacks.
We all know the important role nutrition plays in a child's
development and education. As I've said before, it's just commonsense
that if children are hungry or malnourished, then they are less likely
to succeed in the classroom. That's why the federal government has long
invested in programs that aim to provide America's most vulnerable
students the nutrition assistance they need.
Ensuring children have access to healthy food is a goal we all
share and lies at the heart of our effort to reform federal child
nutrition programs, many of which are set to expire later this year. We
have conducted several hearings and briefings to learn more about these
programs, as well as the rules and regulations that dictate their
implementation at the state and local levels.
What we have learned from students, parents, school nutrition
professionals, government watchdogs, other key stakeholders, and yes,
even the Department of Agriculture, is that the latest reauthorization
of federal child nutrition laws is the most far-reaching and costliest
in a generation. Current law requires the department to prescribe how
much money schools charge for meals, what food can and cannot be served
in schools, and how much of it can be served.
In other words, Washington is responsible for deciding what and how
much our children eat. These regulations have created an environment
where students are not getting the nourishment they need, and food and
taxpayer dollars wind up in the trashcan.
Julia Bauscher, president of the School Nutrition Association,
conveyed to the committee the concerns she is hearing from school
nutrition professionals across the country. Julia described how
regulations are resulting in harmful consequences that threaten the
ability of schools to best serve students. She went on to decry the
``sharp increase in costs and waste and the historic decline in student
lunch participation under the new requirements.''
We are often told that more than 90 percent of participating
schools are complying with the law. First, as we learned from the
Government Accountability Office, it is highly likely this number is
overly optimistic. But let's not forget that schools that choose to
participate must comply with the law. The question isn't how many
schools are in compliance, the question is: At what cost?
The department estimates that participating school districts will
be forced to absorb $3.2 billion in additional compliance costs over a
five-year period. To make matters worse, fewer students are being
served. Since the regulations were put in place, participation in the
school meals programs has declined more rapidly than any other period
over the last three decades, with 1.4 million fewer children being
served each day.
I saw these challenges firsthand during my visit to the Prior Lake
School District in Savage, Minnesota. Students described smaller
portion sizes and limited options that left students hungry and more
likely to buy junk food. After students petitioned the school board,
Prior Lake has decided to drop out of the school meals program next
school year. It is the only way the school can meet the needs of its
students.
And the problems with the law do not stop there. The Office of
Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture and the GAO
identified examples of programs misusing taxpayer dollars, raising
serious concerns about whether or not we are actually assisting those
in need.
As we work to reauthorize federal child nutrition programs, we must
find solutions that will ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent and
children are well served. We know developing a one-size-fits-all
approach is not the answer. More mandates and more money aren't the
answer either. Instead, we should look to improve these programs by
giving states and school districts the flexibility they need to fulfill
the promise of child nutrition assistance.
Duke Storen from the not-for-profit organization Share Our Strength
advised at a recent hearing, ``It's critical . . . to remove
bureaucratic barriers and create efficiencies that will allow us to
reach those kids who currently go without.'' I look forward to
discussing how we can achieve just that without imposing more burdens
on our schools.
Again, Secretary Vilsack, thank you for joining us to share your
perspective on these important issues. I look forward to our
discussion. With that, I will now recognize the committee's ranking
member, Congressman Scott, for his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
Today we will discuss the implementation of the 2010
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act as well as policy ideas for the
upcoming reauthorization for the Child Nutrition Act.
I would like to thank our secretary of agriculture, Mr.
Vilsack, for being with us to discuss this important issue.
More than 60 years ago through the enactment of the first
federal child nutrition program, the National School Lunch Act
of 1946, Congress recognized that feeding hungry children was
not just a moral imperative, but also an imperative for the
health and security of our nation because so many of our youth
were malnourished and not prepared for military service.
In 1946, the 79th Congress passed the National School Lunch
Act, quote: ``As a measure of national security to safeguard
the health and well-being of the nation's children and to
encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural
commodities and other food by assisting the states through
grants and aid and other means in providing an adequate supply
of food and other facilities for the establishment,
maintenance, operation, and expansion of non-profit school
lunch programs.''
Today we are faced with another crisis that impacts our
nation's national security. Our children are now too obese to
enlist in our nation's military. One-third of children in this
country are obese or overweight and childhood obesity has
tripled over the last 30 years.
According to one report, our nation has the second-highest
obesity rate in the world. Obesity-related illnesses are
costing a shocking $190 billion a year. This not only weakens
our economy, it also increases our budget deficits.
While all segments of our population are affected, school
insecure and low-income families are especially vulnerable to
obesity and other chronic diseases due to the additional risk
factors associated with poverty.
Unfortunately, the poorest among us have the least access
to healthy foods, many times without full-service grocery
stores and farmers' markets in their communities.
In my home state of Virginia, first lady Dorothy McAuliffe
has been focusing not only on ending childhood hunger, but also
on improving access to Virginia's fresh and locally grown
agricultural commodities. This dual goal helps children,
supports our farmers, and strengthens local economies.
The reality is that the negative effects associated with
poor nutrition are preventable. We still have a long way to go,
but there are positive signs of progress through the
implementation of the child nutrition programs.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children, the WIC program, has consistently proven to be a
cost-effective investment that improves the nutrition and
health of low-income families. The program has led to healthier
infants, more nutritious diets, better health care for
children, and, subsequently, higher academic achievement for
students.
For some students, their only access to nutritious meals is
at school through the school meal programs. And we know that
children and teens can consume up to half of their total
calories at school.
During the average school day in 2011, more than 31 million
school children ate school lunch and over 12 million ate school
breakfast. It is up to us to ensure that our children are fed
nutritious meals that can support them as they learn and grow.
For the first time in over 30 years, the Healthy, Hunger-
Free Kids Act has given the opportunity to make the reforms
that improve the nutrition and hunger safety net for millions
of children. Studies have shown that children are now eating
more fruits and vegetables, and in many schools there has been
widespread acceptance of the new nutrition programs.
As we address the implementation of the law, it is
important to remember that the guidelines are evidence-based,
not based on politics or corporate bottom lines. They reflect
the healthy eating habits most of us in the room try to follow
each day.
While there are a small number of schools still working to
meet compliance with the new standards, the vast majority of
schools, 95 percent, report that they are successfully
implementing the new healthy meal standards.
These programs are powerful tools in providing greater
economic opportunities for at-risk youth and helping them break
free of the tragic cycle of poverty. It is critical that we
work with schools to ensure that they have the support they
need to be successful.
So I look forward to hearing about the USDA's new technical
assistance initiative, Team Up for Success, and how the unique
challenges of schools are being met.
Today we have the opportunity to discuss the scope and
impact of the new school meals and WIC programs. And I hope
that we will also discuss ways to improve and strengthen them.
This year's reauthorization of the child nutrition programs
should build on the progress we have made over the last 5
years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Kline, for holding
this hearing. Today we will discuss the implementation of the
2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act as well as policy ideas for
the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act. I
would like to thank the Agriculture Secretary, the Honorable
Tom Vilsack, for being with us today to discuss this important
issue.
More than 60 years ago, through enactment of the first
federal child nutrition program--the National School Lunch Act
of 1946--Congress recognized that feeding hungry children was
not just a moral imperative but also an imperative for the
health and security of our nation.
In 1946, the 79th Congress passed the National School Lunch
Act ``as a measure of national security, to safeguard the
health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage
the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities
and other food, by assisting the States, through grants-in aid
and other means, in providing an adequate supply of food and
other facilities for the establishment, maintenance, operation
and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.''
Today, we are faced with yet another crisis that impacts
our nation's national security--our children are now too obese
to enlist in our nation's military.
One-third of children in this country are obese or
overweight and childhood obesity has tripled in the past 30
years. According to a report from the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the U.N., our nation has the second highest
obesity rate in the world, and obesity-related illnesses are a
costing a shocking $190.2 billion per year. This weakens our
economy and increases budget deficits.
While all segments of the population are affected, food
insecure and low-income families are especially vulnerable to
obesity and other chronic diseases due to the additional risk
factors associated with poverty. Unfortunately, the poorest
amongst us have the least access to healthy foods, many times
without full-service grocery stores and farmers' markets in
their communities.
In my home state of Virginia, First Lady Dorothy McAuliffe
has been focusing not only on ending childhood hunger, but also
on improving access to Virginia's fresh and locally grown
agricultural commodities. This dual goal helps children,
supports our farmers and strengthens our local economies.
The reality is that the negative health effects associated
with poor nutrition are preventable. We still have a long way
to go, but there have been positive signs of progress through
implementation of child nutrition programs. The Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) has consistently proven to be a cost-effective investment
that improves the nutrition and health of low-income families.
The program has led to healthier infants, more nutritious diets
and better health care for children, and subsequently to higher
academic achievement for students.
For some children, their only access to nutritious meals is
at school, through the school meal programs, and we know that
children and teens can consume up to half of their total daily
calories at school. During the average school day in 2011, more
than 31 million children ate school lunch, and 12.5 million ate
school breakfast. It is up to us to ensure that our children
are fed nutritious meals that can support them as they learn
and grow.
For the first time in over 30 years, the Healthy, Hunger-
Free Kids Act has given us the opportunity to make reforms that
improve the nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of
children. Studies have shown that students are now eating more
fruits and vegetables, and in many schools there has been
widespread acceptance of the new nutrition standards.
As we address the implementation of this law, it is
important to remember that the guidelines are evidence-based;
they are not based on politics or corporate bottom-lines. They
reflect the healthy eating habits most of us in this room try
to follow each day.
While there are a small number of schools still working to
meet compliance with new standards, the vast majority of school
districts--95 percent--are successfully implementing the new
healthy meals standards. These programs are powerful tools in
providing greater economic opportunities for at-risk youth, and
helping them break free of the tragic cycle of poverty. It is
critical that we work with schools to ensure they have the
support they need to be successful. I look forward to hearing
more about the USDA's new technical assistance initiative, Team
Up for Success, and how the unique challenges of schools are
being met.
Today we will have an opportunity to discuss the scope and
impact of the new school meals and WIC programs. I'm hopeful
that we will also discuss ways to improve and strengthen them.
This year's reauthorization of the child nutrition programs
should build on the progress we've made over the last five
years.
Thank you and I yield back.
------
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be
permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official
hearing record.
I will now introduce our distinguished witness who probably
needs no introduction being a Cabinet secretary. But just as a
reminder, the honorable Tom Vilsack is the secretary of the
United States Department of Agriculture.
Secretary Vilsack has served as the secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture since 2009. In this role, he manages
a staff of over 100,000 as they implement the administration's
agriculture policies, including oversight and implementation of
the federal child nutrition programs.
Prior to his appointment, Secretary Vilsack served two
terms as a governor of Iowa as well as two terms as a state
senator.
It is always nice to have somebody from a neighboring state
here, Mr. Secretary.
[Witness sworn.]
Let the record reflect our witness answered in the
affirmative. And they always do.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
just remind you very briefly of the lighting system. Some
hearing rooms have gotten a lot more sophisticated than our old
one. Ours is pretty straightforward.
We have got the green, yellow, and red lights. You can
largely ignore those. I have never gaveled-down a Cabinet
secretary for opening remarks that were a little too long, but
please just be mindful that we have a lot of members who want
to ask questions.
And then when we get to the question-and-answer period, I
will do my best to keep my colleagues to the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Secretary, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And in the interest of time, perhaps the chair would allow
me to associate myself with the ranking member's remarks and
the chairman's remarks relating to the integrity of the
program.
If you take Representative Scott's remarks and your remarks
on the integrity of the program, you pretty much have my
opening statement.
And with that, I would be happy to answer questions.
[The testimony of Secretary Vilsack follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Laughter.]
Chairman Kline. Did we even bother to turn on the green
light?
Well, Mr. Secretary, that is absolutely outstanding. That
does set a record.
[Laughter.]
Let met start, if I may.
Yes, put me on the clock.
As I mentioned to you very briefly, and I will give you a
chance to talk about the numbers here, but I went to visit a
school in my district to learn about the school meal program
because some of the students had written a letter, signed a
petition suggesting that maybe they ought to get out of the
program.
So I went to visit them, and very, very nice school,
students coming through the lunch program with amazing
technology. They had a little card and they could put it up
there and immediately the cashier saw who they were and that
they were on the program.
And things were going pretty well. Then I sat down with the
four students and the principal and some other adults there as
well, but I found it very interesting in the discussion with
the students.
There were two young women, this is a high school, two
young men. One of the young men was getting ready to go on
scholarship out to Arizona to play football. And I am not sure
how much he weighed, I did not ask him, but well north of 200
pounds. And one of the young women clearly weighed probably
half of that.
And yet part of their complaint was, look, this system has
got us trapped here because we have to have the same portions
and that does not make any sense to us. If you are going to go
out to play football on a scholarship, it seems they thought,
and it seems to be reasonable to me, you ought to have more
food.
And so what was happening was that because the portions
were not large enough in all cases, they were taking their own
money and going and buying food. And it clearly was not the
sort of healthy lunch that was being served in the school
cafeteria.
And it was indeed a healthy lunch, and they did not have
complaints about how the food tasted. They said they liked the
broccoli, so I took them at their word, and they liked the
fruit and so forth. But they certainly were upset about the
portions.
And the fact that they then had to go and buy more food,
stop off at a fast-food place or something like that is clearly
not what we are trying to get to here.
And this was a relatively wealthy school. And these kids
probably had the money where they could stop and buy that food.
And some students with not those resources couldn't do it.
So it seems to me that while the students wanted healthy
meals, but the meals that they were being served did not meet
their needs and they were so upset about that they petitioned
to drop out of the program, now, of course, the school has
agreed to drop out of the program, how can you say, if you are
saying, that the program is working as advertised when you have
those kinds of problems?
We clearly have an issue where a football player it seems
ought to be having a considerably bigger portion than someone
half their weight.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I think I would start by
explaining that the standards that have been established were
based on expert advice and direction from the Institute of
Medicine in terms of what an average-sized individual would
need at that point in time during the day.
It is roughly 25 calories less than the meals were previous
to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. So it is not that
significant in terms of the difference.
You know, this is not, in fairness, all-you-can-eat at
Applebee's. This is a school lunch program. And the reality is,
based on surveys, the vast majority of students, high school
students, elementary students, and middle school students, have
accepted and are in favor of these new standards.
A recent survey by Robert Wood Johnson had 70 percent of
elementary and middle school kids saying they liked the new
standard; 63 percent of high school kids.
I don't doubt that you are going to find a few folks who
have concerns, and that is why we have suggested that they can
bring a snack. There is no reason why they can't bring a snack
to school.
There is also a sharing table, opportunities for those who
aren't going to eat everything that is on their plate, for
whatever reason, can share with those who want more food.
There are vending machines at the school that will provide
consistent, smart, and healthy snacks.
So there are ways to address this issue without necessarily
rolling back the standards and creating a significant rollback.
And I think the reason why I associated myself with
Representative Scott's comments is that we are dealing with
twin issues here. We are dealing with 17 million youngsters who
are food insecure. At the same time, we are dealing with nearly
a third of our youngsters who are obese or at risk of being
obese.
And indeed, our national security is indeed threatened,
which is why Mission: Readiness has been so strongly in favor
of these standards, retired admirals and generals saying we
have got to get our kids in better shape.
So on balance, if you follow the expert advice, if you
provide options and snacks and sharing tables and you see a
preponderance of students accepting these standards, I think we
are on the right track.
So you know, I am convinced that we have--you know, we have
also looked at the issue of plate waste, suggesting somehow
that folks are throwing food away. The reality is Harvard has
looked at this, the Rudd Center has looked at this and they
have found that in fact kids are consuming more fruits and
vegetables and there is no more plate waste today than there
was before the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
Chairman Kline. My time has indeed expired.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I understand that 95 percent of the school districts are
reporting that they are in compliance with the upgraded
standards in the last reauthorization. Is that right?
Secretary Vilsack. That is correct, Representative, and
that is why they are entitled to the 6 cents reimbursement
increase.
Mr. Scott. And is there any reason to reduce the standards?
Secretary Vilsack. I can't see the reason to reduce the
standards. We have provided flexibility, as you well know, in
sodium, whole grains, and in other aspects of the rule. I think
we will continue to look for opportunities to be flexible. But
I don't think you want to roll the standards back.
Mr. Scott. And are the standards based on medical and
professional, scientific advice?
Secretary Vilsack. They are, consistent with the Institute
of Medicine Standards.
Mr. Scott. There is a program, community eligibility, where
if an overwhelming portion of the students are eligible that
you can go school-wide and forget about eligibility and just
serve everybody. Can you talk about that program a little bit
and how it avoids a lot of the administrative costs associated
with the program?
Secretary Vilsack. Fourteen thousand schools, over 2,000
school districts and 6.4 million children are currently
benefiting from the Community Eligibility Program. It
essentially says to a school district that if you have more
than 40 percent of your youngsters who are directly certified
as being TANF eligible or Medicaid eligible then you are
entitled to adopt community eligibility, which essentially
allows you not to have to require a student to take an
application form home, have it be filled out by mom or dad, and
brought back to school and then calculated and aggregated by
the school district.
It allows the school district to essentially receive
reimbursement based on a mathematical computation, multiplying
the number of free and reduced kids by 1.6, and that is the
amount of resources that the school district gets.
About half the school districts that are eligible for this
have adopted it. And I think there are two reasons why we need
to continue to press this program. One is it indeed saves money
for the administration, roughly $29 a student is saved.
Secondly, it provides more accurate reads in terms of the
number of kids who are actually going to participate in the
program, so it reduces error rates and provides greater access.
So saving costs, reducing error rates and greater access.
We continue to promote this. One of the issues, frankly, is
school districts use the free and reduced lunch calculation to
determine their eligibility for Title I funding. So I have
spoken to Secretary Duncan about whether or not we could create
a similar mathematical formulation that would get over the
issue with Title I. And I suspect if we did that we would
probably see even greater participation.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Have you done any rules and
regulation changes for the school breakfast and lunch programs
that ensure that more children are participating?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are more children
participating in school breakfast. Well over 1 million more
students are participating, 300 million more meals are being
served this year than previous years.
I think one of the greatest things that we have been able
to do is to reduce the stigma of school breakfast in terms of
providing opportunities for meals in the classroom so that kids
aren't necessarily segregated at the beginning of the school
day in the cafeteria, so that people can make a judgment about
their financial well-being.
And so based on those kinds of standards and based on those
kinds of activities, we are seeing an increase.
Obviously, we don't have attached to it additional
reimbursement rates as we did with the school lunch program,
but we are seeing increased participation. And teachers will
tell you that they are happy to see this because a hungry child
is not a child who is ready to learn.
Mr. Scott. Have you seen any evidence that nutrition
programs save money by reducing health care costs or other
expenses?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, to the extent that we are dealing
with the obesity issue, it is about $14 billion a year in
annual health costs for kids currently. And those will increase
when they take the chronic diseases that they are currently
suffering from into adulthood.
So to the extent that we can get a handle on the obesity
issue and to the extent that we provide proper nutrition to
kids who are living in food-insecure homes, we are going to see
better health outcomes.
And frankly, we see that already with the WIC program,
healthier births, more immunizations, better cognizant
development as a result of the WIC program.
Mr. Scott. And that reflects reduced costs?
Secretary Vilsack. It obviously does. And the same thing I
think could probably, the same argument could probably be true
for the summer feeding program as well.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I want to associate myself with the comments of the
chairman in terms of his comments related to the imposition of
rules from Washington, which impose one-size-fits-all attitude.
And I think in my question I will reflect that.
But you said something in your comments or in answer to a
question that I think illustrates that so well. You said there
is no reason why they cannot bring a snack; that is up until
now, until such time as perhaps the Agriculture Department
determines that children can't bring snacks.
The attitude is you are allowing them to bring snacks, so
that the rulemaking comes from here, it is the permission is
being given by Washington. That ought to be freedom of choice.
And the attitude that there is no reason means you haven't
declared a rule.
But let me ask my question about the competitive foods
rule, because it goes along with that.
You issued a rule in 2013 called the competitive foods
rule. You couldn't estimate the costs or the effect on school
revenue without any certainty, but you did note that the
247,000 comments which focused on finances, most of them were
concerned that the rule would reduce school revenue.
Additionally, it is estimated that school revenue
authorities received, on average, 16 percent of their revenue
from competitive food sales.
So how did you determine the rule was responsible action
and requirement from this administration?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, first of all, let me clarify my
remark involving snacks, if I might. I wasn't suggesting that
folks were being allowed to bring snacks. They have always been
allowed to bring snacks. There has been no prohibition and
there never will be a prohibition about mom or dad providing a
youngster the opportunity to take something to school to snack
on. So that ought to be clear. If I didn't make that clear, I
should have.
Studies of vending machines providing healthier snacks have
indicated that there has not been a significant decline in
revenue to school districts that have studied this and looked
at this.
And I would also say what is of interest to me is that we
provided $94 million at the beginning of this process for
school districts to be able to utilize the money to assist them
in better implementation.
Today, now 5 years after the passage of that act, there is
still $24 million of that resource that has not been spent by
schools, and we have encouraged school districts and states
where the money has not been spent to encourage the utilization
of those resources if schools are suffering or having
difficulty.
So it is odd to me that we still have $24 million on the
table. Hopefully this hearing will allow us to continue to put
that information out so that people take advantage of those
resources.
Ms. Foxx. You can give me this answer later. But I wonder,
have you tried in the Department of Agriculture to put the
employees in the Department of Agriculture on the school food
lunch program for a week or 2 to see how they respond to it? I
think it would be an interesting experiment.
But I have a second question. The USDA's OIG highlighted
high rates of improper payments in the national school lunch
and breakfast program. They said the lunch program is one of 13
federal high-error programs.
I know you and the ranking member talked about the
integrity of the program, but what are you doing to address the
high error rates, reduce fraudulent benefits and make sure the
programs are serving those most in need?
Secretary Vilsack. There are three reasons why we have the
error rate that we have. And I think we probably would be in
agreement with this committee that it is an unacceptably high
rate.
There is a certification issue involving parents basically
providing information about income, that is not necessarily
accurate or incomplete.
There is an aggregation that takes place at the school
district, where they basically aggregate all of the information
provided to the state, that sometimes errors are in that
process.
And there is an error at the cashiers' location when a
person goes through the line.
A couple of things about this error rate. The dollar amount
is a little bit suspect because if you are going through the
line and you don't take one item that you are supposed to take,
that entire cost of that meal is considered to be an error. So
probably more information needs to be gleaned in terms of what
the cost of these errors are.
But we have done several things. One, we have provided a
series of professional standards that will, I think, increase
the professional standards of the folks at the cashiers' table
so that they will make fewer errors.
Two, we have begun the process of data mining to determine
where we might provide additional help and assistance in
schools that are repeatedly having problems.
Three, we are pressing community eligibility as well as
direct certification because we know, for example, in the
direct certification program there is a significant decline in
errors when the direct certification process is used.
We are also looking at simplifying the application and
providing an online application so that we reduce errors in
that respect. We are also developing an Office of Integrity
within the school lunch program.
But we would have better results, I think, if we could
receive permission from Congress to do more reviews of schools
than we currently have. There is a limitation, and I think it
is the only program of this kind where there is a limitation,
where we can only look at 3 percent of schools.
If we had an opportunity to look at more than 3 percent, I
think we would have greater accountability on all three areas.
We are seeing a reduction in error rates on the aggregation
side because we have been working with states. We still have
work to do on the certification and on the cashiers' side.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Let me ask a couple of questions about access and greater
access, maybe speak to some of the current barriers for year-
round service that students need and how potentially this
year's reauthorization could do a lot to reduce or even
hopefully eliminate some of those barriers.
You know, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was very
important. It extended service, it involved community-based
organizations and year-round, extended weekends, holidays. How
can we go forward to expand greater access to children and to
families?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think one of the focuses that we
have had is during the summer months. Obviously, I think as has
been stated earlier, children receive somewhere between a third
and two-thirds of their calories at school. And we are in the
process of trying to figure out how to deal with those gaps.
I am proud of the fact that we are now serving 23 million
more summer meals than we did several years ago, but there is
still work to be done because only 16 percent of kids who are
eligible for summer meals are participating.
So we are looking at several things. One, we are looking
obviously at greater partnerships. I was in Baltimore yesterday
at a library, encouraging libraries to potentially look at as
sites where kids are spending a lot of time during the summer
months.
We are making sure that we reach out to schools and take a
look at whether or not they might be willing to participate in
the seamless school project which allows schools to essentially
provide meals throughout the summer months.
We are continuing to look for ways in which we can
encourage service organizations to participate. So there is a
significant effort relating to summer feeding, which I think
will go a long way to addressing some of the concerns that you
have outlined.
The community eligibility and direct certification efforts
also will make sure that kids who are currently not getting
served in school districts because their parents don't get the
application in, or for whatever reason, that those kids will
also be served.
So we would strongly encourage a continuation of those
programs and expansion of those programs.
Mr. Grijalva. We have received examples, several examples
at this hearing and other hearings about the abuse of WIC, the
lack of choices, why some schools drop out. So you know, I
appreciate very much the fact that you referenced some of those
examples with studies.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, just to be clear about this. Since
2013 when we fully implemented these standards, 58 schools out
of over 99,000 schools have dropped out of the program--58 out
of 99,000-plus.
And some of the schools have dropped out, we now read there
was a Houston Chronicle article yesterday, some of the more
high-profiled schools that were profiled in Time magazine at
the beginning of this process that dropped out are now coming
back in because they realized that they weren't going to save
money, they realized that the program was actually something
that would benefit kids.
So you know, we believe there is significant compliance
here and we believe that with the flexibilities that have been
provided and the resources and the assistance, the equipment
grants, the smarter lunchroom grants where we are encouraging
school districts to look creatively about how to display food
and how to serve food, the Team Up for Success program that the
chair and ranking member mentioned, which allows us to have
struggling schools teamed up and mentored by succeeding
schools, all of this is designed to provide assistance and
help. And we think it is making a difference.
Mr. Grijalva. You know, there is a system of budgeting or a
metric now for budgeting dynamic scoring. And as such, it never
includes savings. And I wish that now with this new system that
we would include savings.
My question to you, nutrition, preparedness for learning,
health, all are investments in these babies, in these kids that
receive the programs, that qualify for it. In anticipation,
what are we looking at in terms of what we are saving not only
society, but in terms of money as well?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Representative, I apologize, I
should have this number off the top of my head, but there
actually has been a study done of the WIC program in terms of
its potential impact and effect on children, women, and
infants.
And it indeed focuses and recognizes that with improved
immunization, with improved and healthier births we are indeed
saving money. To the extent that we get a handle on the obesity
issue, as we discussed earlier, that also will help provide
savings.
But at the end of the day, this is ultimately about making
sure that youngsters are in the best position to be as
productive as they want to be and can be. And the reality is if
you are hungry or you are concerned about your self-image in
school, you are going to have a harder time. And so that is one
of the reasons why we are focused on making sure that these
standards are implemented properly and making sure that the
kids get access as they need.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Now Mr. Thompson, you are recognized.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary, good to see you.
Secretary Vilsack. Good to see you, sir.
Mr. Thompson. I wanted to zero in on a certain initial
question on a certain area of the standards within the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. And it has to do with milk.
And I know you had mentioned about academic professionals
who were somehow responsible and behind the standards.
Although, as I recall from the process and also from, quite
frankly, my visits, I spend a lot of time in schools, eat a lot
of school lunches, you know, it seems like our school nutrition
professionals were largely ignored. And they have a lot of
concerns.
But my initial question I have for you, it has to do with
the milk area. And the standard reads that only fat-free,
unflavored or flavored, or unflavored low-fat fluid milk, 1
percent milk or less, is allowed. Now, if truly those academic
researchers who set that standard were spot on, we wouldn't be
seeing since 2012 to 2014, you know, schools serving 187
million fewer half pints of milk despite the fact that the
population in the public schools is going up.
And so I am not looking for criticism, I am looking for
solutions, actually, to that.
You know, given what we know about the nutritional value of
milk, which is, I think, significant, it is cause for concern.
And so to give schools more options and flexibility in
providing milk, I recently introduced H.R. 2407, the School
Milk Nutrition Act, in conjunction with my colleague Joe
Courtney.
Now, one of the bill's provisions would provide schools
with the option of offering low-fat, 1 percent, flavored milk
rather than only fat-free if milk contains no more than 150
calories per eight ounce service. Obviously, still concerned
with the over-all, arching purpose of what the 2010 act was
reportedly written under.
I just want to check. I mean, do you agree that declining
rates of milk consumption are cause for concern? If so, do you
believe the USDA should work with Congress to preserve milk's
integral role in school meals?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I see that I am going to
get double teamed on this issue based on the lineup here.
So you know, I have got to tell you, this is my personal
view, I agree with you. I think if adding that option would
encourage kids to drink more milk we should do that.
Mr. Thompson. I think a little bit of flavor goes a long
ways.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is my personal preference.
But you know, I honestly--the challenge here, I think, is we
have created so many options for kids today in terms of what
they consume.
And you know, in terms of the nutritional bang for the
buck, there is probably nothing better than a glass of milk.
And so, you know, I think that there ought to be some way of
working with your proposal or a similar proposal to provide a
bit more flexibility, and hopefully we would see more
consumption of milk.
Mr. Thompson. Why don't I stay--I am going to milk this
topic for all I can.
[Laughter.]
Switch over to a very important program that I personally--
my wife and I when we were first starting out with our first
child we were eligible for the WIC program, Penny and Parker
were. So I have a question regarding milk as a critical
component of the WIC food package.
Contrary to the Institute of Medicine's recommendations,
the final WIC rule issued by USDA in March 2014 placed new
restrictions on the availability of 2 percent milk for children
ages two or older.
Can you explain the basis for this new rule? And why was it
finalized without allowing for a public comment period?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there was extensive
opportunity for comment on the WIC rules over the course of
several years. And so I think we had believed that we received
all of the input that we needed to make a determination.
You know, in terms of the WIC program, I think the goal
here is to try to provide, supplement and complement what
people are traditionally and normally purchasing. It isn't
necessarily to be the be-all and end-all, it is actually a
complement and supplement.
And so I think the development of the WIC package was
designed to say, you know, people are already buying a lot of
this and this and this; what aren't they buying that they might
be able to benefit from? And that is how the WIC package was
put together.
I suspect that is part of the reason. But if there is a
more technical reason for that, Congressman, I will get that to
you.
Mr. Thompson. You had mentioned about, in the time I have
remaining, about 3 percent is what you are allowed to survey or
measure. Do you have a number that you would be looking for
that you would feel more confident in terms of looking for
errors? If it is 3 percent now, what would you like to see it
be?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, you know, it ought to be probably
more consistent with every other program where we have greater
flexibility to check. I don't know that we necessarily have a
magic number, but what we do know is the more we do of this,
the greater the accountability is.
And probably, in all probability, we identify where the
problem areas are and we can solve it and so we can bring that
error rate number down, which you all believe is unacceptably
high, and you are absolutely right about that.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
And with my dairy farmers smiling ever more brightly, I
will recognize Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony and your
leadership over the last 6-1/2 years, 8-1/2 years.
The ranking member mentioned in his opening remarks the
interesting genesis of school lunch programs that followed in
the wake of World War II. And fast-forwarding to the last
reauthorization in 2010, as a member of this committee I
remember, again, vividly some of the most powerful testimony
that we had was from retired military leaders who, again, were
describing a totally different challenge that our country faces
now in terms of military readiness.
And Mission: Readiness, which you alluded to, again, is a
group of 450 retired military leaders who just recently issued
a report, ``Retreat Is Not an Option,'' which again reiterated
the fact that one out of four 17-to 24-year olds are not fit to
fight, and one out of eight who are actually serving are
actually obese, diagnosed obese. That is $1.5 billion just to
DOD's budget alone in terms of dealing with that program.
So when they say retreat isn't an option, they are talking
about retreat in terms of nutritional standards. And I think
that is important to make that point clear.
And I guess, you know, one question about the compliance
issue, whether it is 90 percent or 95 percent or less than 90
percent, as GAO, I mean what I think it is important sometimes
to not lose sight of is that your department has been trying to
do, starting from zero in 2010 when the president signed this
into law, was to get the trend moving in the right direction.
And I guess the initiatives that you described, I mean, we
are moving in that direction. Isn't that right? I mean, it is
not like we plateaued or we are sliding.
I mean, the fact is that people, you know, just sort of get
more comfortable with the system and also that you accommodate
reasonable requests that were actually moving in the right
direction.
And I guess that is the point I want to just give you a
chance to describe.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, change obviously is difficult. And
you are absolutely right. The Mission: Readiness has been very,
very focused on this for the reasons that you articulated.
And there are, as has been discussed, health care cost
reasons, academic achievement reasons, economic productivity
reasons for doing this.
You know, I think I have some confidence in that level of
compliance because we basically rely and trust on our state
partners who are administering this program to give us the
information from the individual school districts that they
receive. And so you have to assume that individual school
systems are telling you the truth when they say we are
complying with this and we qualify now for the additional
reimbursement rate.
And from a Robert Wood Johnson survey of parents, we find
80 percent of parents think this is a good approach. The
students, by the same survey, basically indicate acceptance of
this.
So I think we are headed in the right direction, but you
know, it is going to take time. Just as it took time in terms
of addressing the issues in 1946, it is going to take time for
the benefits of all of this to be perceived in data and
information.
But I have no doubt that we are going to see a healthier
generation of kids in this country and our country is going to
be better off for it.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And so it is my intention to, again, enter into the record
``Retreat Is Not an Option'' which sort of lays out the case,
again, from these distinguished military leaders.
And I also would be remiss if I didn't follow up with Mr.
Thompson's point which is actually within that report they note
the fact that the consumption of milk since the 1970s for the
average school child was about 250 calories back then. It has
slid dramatically, and sugary drinks have grown dramatically at
the same time. So they have actually crossed so that kids are
drinking more empty-calorie drinks versus milk.
And I think that is frankly one of the reasons we are in
the predicament that we are in right now. And that is why I
think Mr. Thompson's efforts, which I think, again, has
bipartisan support, and we obviously welcome, you know, good
suggestions to accomplish its goal, will help achieve the
result that, again, these retired military leaders and
yourself, now that you are on the record, think really will
help us get to improve children's health and readiness to deal
with all physical challenges as they enter adulthood.
With that, I yield back. Mr. Chairman, and I ask that this
report be entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Without objection.
I would have been shocked if you had not brought up milk,
so glad not to be disappointed.
And just for everyone's information, we are keenly aware
that there is a microphone problem up here and scrambling to
see if we can solve it.
Mr. Salmon?
Mr. Salmon. Thanks.
Last month, the USDA released its second Access,
Participation, Eligibility and Certification Study on measuring
and reducing errors in the school meal programs. The department
found a number of areas of fraud, waste, and abuse within these
programs.
And I have two questions regarding that. And then my last
question is going to be regarding the administration's recent
decision on trans fats and how that is going to translate into
the school lunch programs.
The report cites improper payments being made in the school
lunch and breakfast programs. How prevalent and costly are
these improper payments? And what is USDA doing to prevent
these occurrences? That is my first question related to the
study.
And during school year 2005-2006, USDA found significant
levels of program errors in school food service providers'
abilities to adequately verify whether or not a child was
eligible for certain reimbursement categories.
The most recent study states ``that though some
improvements have been made, levels of program errors remain
high.'' To what degree do these errors affect the overall
integrity of the program and access to meals for those who
truly need them when people who don't need them or should not
qualify are getting them? And how much are these errors costing
the taxpayer? What is food and nutrition services doing to
address these errors?
And then finally, could you just address what kind of
impact the trans fat decision by the administration is going to
have on school meal programs?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we share the concern that you have
about program integrity, which is why we have begun the process
of professionalizing the standards for the folks who are the
cashiers, the people who are basically making determinations
at-site, on-site. We know that is one of three mistake areas or
problem areas.
Raising the standards and the understanding and the
training for those individuals I think will help.
We are also asking states to upgrade their training efforts
as well so that personnel in the schools do a better job.
Secondly, you know, the use of community eligibility and
direct certification, we know from the data and the review of
statistics substantially reduces the errors that you are
concerned about.
So to the extent that we can continue to look for ways to
encourage districts, roughly 6.4 million kids, 14,000 schools,
there are probably another 14,000 schools that could utilize
community eligibility, they are unwilling or reluctant to do
it, either because they have made the mathematical calculation
that they won't benefit financially, or, in all likelihood,
they are concerned about their impact on Title I.
Today Title I eligibility is dependent on your free and
reduced lunch percentage of your kids. If we could find a way
to basically allow for some kind of mathematical formula to
translate so you didn't actually need a specific count of free
and reduced lunch kids for Title I, we would probably see a lot
more school districts. That would substantially reduce the
error rate.
We also have to make the application simpler. Honestly, it
is very complicated. And if you have got parents who maybe
English is a second language type of thing, we probably need to
make sure that we figure out ways to simplify that application
to get the basic information.
Online application might also help, so we are working on
that. We have established an Office of Integrity to try to look
at this.
Earlier I mentioned the need for us to have increased
capacity from Congress to review more schools. We currently are
limited by Congressional mandate to only review 3 percent of
schools in terms of compliance.
Congressman Thompson asked me if there is a number. Now, my
staff tells me that 10 percent would be more accurate and more
helpful if we could get up to 10 percent review. That would
certainly send a message and would begin to focus on the
importance of making sure we are accurate on all of this.
Data mining is also an opportunity for us to take a look
and try to identify maybe school districts that are having
difficulties and maybe focus time and attention on those
individual schools.
So there is a lot of activity going on in this space. And I
think we will see significant reductions in those numbers over
time.
To the issue of trans fats, it isn't something I have had a
chance to talk to our team about because, obviously, the ruling
came out from FDA today. But I did notice that 85 percent of
food processors are already well on their way. There is a 3-
year implementation time line, so I wouldn't anticipate that
this is going to create serious and significant problems in
terms of standards relative to school lunch.
Mr. Salmon. Do you think there might be an onslaught of
litigation from attorneys toward some of these food companies
that have been using trans fats in the last several years? I
mean, is that a possibility?
Secretary Vilsack. I want to make sure I understand your
question. You mean in terms of people suing because of trans
fats?
Mr. Salmon. Right.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, as a lawyer, people can be pretty
creative and look for opportunities potentially. I don't think
you can discount that possibility.
I would certainly hope that, you know, honestly that we
would be looking for ways in which we could find consensus and
not conflict on issues involving nutrition.
I am told that our school meals and snacks are already
limited to zero grams of trans fats, so we are already where we
need to be.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Polis?
Mr. Polis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony today as
well as the time you recently took to travel to my district and
hear from many of my constituents. And I certainly appreciate
your diligent work in the realm of child nutrition, a passion
and a cause that I share with you. And there has been a lot of
discussion about that today.
But I did want to bring some other items to your attention
as well.
Specifically, I wanted to talk about the idea of
establishing conservation compliance enforcement parameters
around agricultural support programs that are funded by the
Federal Government.
As you know, this concept dates to the Reagan
administration attempting to curb environmental concerns
through limiting taxpayer support and subsidies. It can help
make sure that we can address environmental impact and reduce
exposure to taxpayers.
Specifically, the conservation compliance enforcement
program focuses on reducing soil erosion, protecting the long-
term capability to produce food, to make sure we don't do
anything to increase short-term production at the expense of
the long term, reducing sedimentation, improving water quality,
and preserving and protecting wetlands.
What we saw, however, in a 1995 inspector general's report
is that 20 percent of growers who see large federal subsidies
are simultaneously failing to comply with the conservation
standards surrounding impacts to the erosion of wetlands.
So that is a lot of money that goes to those who are
causing irreparable damage to some of our most unique and
fragile ecosystems.
In last year's farm bill, I was thrilled to see the
conservation compliance language added back into the law for
crop insurance subsidies.
But with a track record of 20 percent noncompliance, I
wanted to ask how USDA can better implement and enforce this
provision going forward, if you have any more recent statistics
than the inspector general's report from 20 years ago or if
there are plans under way to come up with new statistics with
regard to noncompliance, and how you plan to use the tool of
withholding subsidies to ensure compliance.
Secretary Vilsack. June 1 was an important date in terms of
conservation compliance because on that date operators who
didn't have on file their AD-1026 form were required to do so.
This is a new opportunity in a new area, particularly for
specialty crop producers. And so we have made a concerted
effort in terms of outreach to remind folks of that requirement
and to also remind them of the consequence if they didn't file
the 1026 form.
They now have an opportunity and responsibility for
developing and devising a plan and for our local NRCS offices
to ensure that those plans are followed.
I can tell you that I am very proud of the fact that we
have a record number of producers now enrolled in voluntary
conservation of one sort or another. Well over 500,000
producers are participating in conservation, well over 400
million acres, which is a record. That number continues to rise
and will no doubt continue to rise with the farm bill programs
that we have, including the regional conservation partnership
program.
You know, we are looking for ways in which NRCS can provide
more technical assistance, more on-the-ground assistance, and
less paper shuffling, so we just recently launched the NRCS
gateway which allows for operators to be able to access
information online at their convenience without the necessity
of coming to an office. That should free up folks to do more
technical assistance, more review, more compliance activities.
I don't know that there is any more recent study on the
issue that you have raised. And I will certainly ask when I get
back to the office if there is, and if there is we will get it
to you.
Mr. Polis. And I think you alluded to this, but it sounds
like you are doing what you can through automation to free up
staff time and resources to ensure that the program succeeds.
Secretary Vilsack. I would encourage you and your staff to
take a look at the new gateway that we launched. I think it is
a great opportunity for saving time and effort. It complements
the work that we are doing on the farm loan side with some of
the automation that has taken place recently in terms of
reporting.
Mr. Polis. And what about utilizing the tool of withholding
subsidies for noncompliance?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is the ultimate
responsibility or ultimate penalty if folks are not in
compliance. And that is the law, and we will obviously follow
the law.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
As chairman of what we colloquially call the K through 12
subcommittee on education here on this committee, I have gone
to schools all over Indiana and all over the country and stuck
my head in a lot of garbage cans to see what was in there, took
a lot of school lunches. And I know you do the same thing
across the country. And I am sure you would agree as well that
the best part of that experience is talking with the kids. I
seem to learn a lot. They continue to teach me at least.
One of my concerns throughout all this and the several
hearings we have had, though, is the potential for waste,
fraud, and abuse and perhaps the real waste, fraud, and abuse,
whether it is the fraud documented in the WIC program or the
ineligible students that are receiving free and reduced
breakfasts and lunches.
And I appreciate the discussion we have had about you
needing to see more than 3 percent in terms of a sample. And
you have offered 10 percent as a goal that should be changed in
law.
If you do that on a school-wide basis, though, 10 percent,
shouldn't the schools also at least get a 10 percent sampling
of the applications? Because I understand right now they only
do about 3 percent under the law as well.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the goal here is to figure
out a way in which we can hold folks accountable and to figure
out ways in which if there is--
Mr. Rokita. Is 3 percent at the school level?
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, what?
Mr. Rokita. Is the 3 percent application sampling at the
school level?
Secretary Vilsack. Let me check on that. I don't know.
Yes, that is accurate.
Mr. Rokita. Should we raise it to 10 percent?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, to the extent that we think
looking at more applications will provide us more information
that will allow us to reduce error rates, I would be in favor
of anything that would enable this.
You know, obviously, we don't want to necessarily create
busy work for schools. But I think we need to explain to them
that this is an issue that we are all concerned about and they
have a responsibility to work with us to reduce the error rate.
Mr. Rokita. I might be willing to help you with that in
light of other technologies or other ways we can get to the
bottom of waste, fraud, and abuse. I think you make a
reasonable request.
As I have gone to one school in particular, I believe it
was in Lafayette, they made me a batch of mashed potatoes under
their current goals and guidelines, and they were god awful.
And then they made me a batch of mashed potatoes under the
regulations that they have to get to within the next 10 years,
and they were just terrible.
Have you had any of those experiences? Or have all your
experiences been good?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, look, I think you could probably
go to schools, if you went to all 99,000 schools that are
currently trying to comply, you would find a circumstance, a
day, a meal, an entree that probably you wouldn't like.
That is why we have focused on ways and strategies to help
school districts do a better job. Part of it is bringing chefs
into the schools to explain how you might be able to utilize
better cooking techniques.
That is why we have focused on school equipment grants to
give schools the ability to produce meals on-site. It is why we
have developed our Team Up for Success program, linking
struggling schools with succeeding schools so they have got a
mentor who is in a similar circumstance to say, hey, you can do
this.
Mr. Rokita. I have found, Mr. Secretary, I found creative
people there. I mean, these were deep-fry cooks, okay? And the
first batch of mashed potatoes actually had butter buds in
them, so they were already using substitutes and things like
that. And then the new regulations, the new batch of mashed
potatoes, demonstrated regulations that had under 30 milligrams
of sodium.
I mean, at some point you have got to--but all right, I
understand what you are saying. Maybe the chefs can come to our
schools in Indiana.
Going to the department of integrity that you speak of,
interested in learning more about that. Do you have all the
teeth you need in law for this?
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, what?
Mr. Rokita. The department of integrity you speak of, do
you have all the teeth that you need in current law in order to
make that department of integrity work? Or what do you envision
it doing that is actually going to make a difference?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is starting, I think, with
taking a look at the application process and determining
whether or not there are ways in which we can prevent errors
and mistakes on applications that increase the error rate.
It is also working with software producers to develop an
online application process that could potentially reduce errors
as well.
You know, obviously, if we are given more capacity and more
opportunities to look at more schools, there would be a
responsibility there as well.
There is data mining that can be done to take a look at
where if we have repeat issues involving a particular state.
And it may be able to identify where standardization,
additional training in a particular state might be helpful.
Mr. Rokita. I am out of time. I am sorry. Thank you very
much for your questions.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Sablan?
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is always nice to have a
conversation with you, sir, and you know, especially when you
are reporting to us that about 90 percent, that over 90 percent
of our schools in the country are now meeting the national
guidelines for the school meal program.
And I don't know what it was like around the family dinner,
but my experience is that it is always that kid, meaning me,
who made a stink about eating vegetables growing up. And I
would get all the attention while everyone else quietly enjoyed
what was put on the table.
So it is good to hear that 90 percent of kids we are
feeding with the program are getting along with it, if not
complaining. I have heard some complaints from kids eating
brown rice.
But in my district where we all expect to eat white rice at
every meal, the school system has gradually introduced more
nutritious brown rice by adding a little bit over time. And I
understand that this approach is working. And I cannot
overemphasize what a significant cultural shift that
represents.
And I have to compliment the school system. The Northern
Mariana Public School System received a block grant to support
its child nutrition program. It serves over 14,000 meals each
day to over 11,000 school children.
Now, food costs have gone up since 1991, the year when the
block grant started in the Northern Marianas. And I am
concerned that there has been no review since then, whether the
payment rates in the Northern Marianas are proportional to the
costs of providing nutritious meals there as for Guam, for
Alaska and Hawaii in 1979 in exercise of your authority to do
so under Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Amendment of 1978.
So my question is, would you be willing to exercise this
authority again to review payment rates in the Northern
Marianas so that you can set the appropriate reimbursement
rates to reflect the costs of food in that area, in my
district?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would be happy to work with you,
Congressman, on that issue. And obviously, more of a general
comment on your comments, you know, we are pleased with the
fact that we are seeing more fruits and vegetable consumption
by kids as a result of these standards.
And honestly, you know, when we deal about food waste, I
hope that maybe, if it isn't this committee, some committee
will work with us to deal with the fact that today in America
30 percent of all the food that is produced in this country is
wasted, 30 percent. It is 133 billion pounds of food. And that
is a global issue as well.
And if you think about 30 percent, you think about all the
costs associated with producing that, it is a focus of ours
now. We have over 2,000 partners that are looking at ways in
which we can reduce food waste across the country.
Mr. Sablan. Yes. And Mr. Secretary, when I signed up for
the Army Reserves, I actually almost got turned down because I
was fat, obese. But a number of recent studies indicate that
one-third of all children between the ages of 6 and 9 are
overweight or obese.
In talking about the childhood obesity epidemic in this
country, I think it is sometimes hard to make the link between
obesity and hunger. Can you help clarify that link to us,
please?
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, I didn't catch the last one.
Mr. Sablan. Can you clarify the link between obesity and
hunger?
Secretary Vilsack. It is somewhat difficult for some to
understand that they can sometimes be twin challenges that a
particular youngster could face.
If you live in a family that is struggling financially,
then they are looking for food products that will basically
provide substance, but also try to deal with the pangs of
hunger, so oftentimes they look at processed foods.
Those families may have limited access to full-scale
grocery stores. That is one of the reasons why we have improved
the SNAP program to allow the redemption of EBT benefits, SNAP
benefits at farmers' markets. That is why we have the food
insecurity initiative that we launched to encourage more fruit
and vegetable consumption for SNAP families.
It is why we have developed recipes for SNAP families to
figure out ways in which they can provide more nutritious, less
empty-calorie meals.
And it is a challenge. And frankly, it is something that
you have mentioned that you are challenged. I had the same and
continue to have the same challenge.
I still remember the fact that my mother put a cartoon on
the refrigerator at our house of a very, very overweight kid
with a beanie cap, which was a way of telling me to stay out of
the refrigerator.
Mr. Sablan. Mr. Secretary, before I run out of time, again,
we have a standing invitation for you or Ms. Rowe to come to
the Northern Marianas.
And I would be remiss if I don't mention the energized and
new relationship we have, whether it is with your people in San
Francisco, your Honolulu folks are very attentive to us, and
even your Guam people. I just want to mention that renewal of
cooperation and I appreciate it.
And thank you for your leadership.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Brat?
Mr. Brat. All right. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being
with us here today.
I have got a couple of questions. The ranking member made a
comment. It is our job to provide nutritious meals. I think
most of us agree with that statement in the short run, but I
want to get your thoughts on what you would make of that in the
long run, both on the economic front and on the ethics front.
I think we have got a few issues coming up. The governor's
wife from Virginia came up and sat in your seat a few weeks
ago. We have got $127 trillion in unfunded liability issues
coming our way. And the impact of that, that is the entitlement
programs plus interest, by 2032--I am on the Budget Committee
and the CBO director has a nice graph--it is not a nice graph--
by 2032, those four programs plus interest take up all federal
revenues. So that is where we are heading.
So if you look at a military crisis or education crisis,
right now the Budget Committee has a third of the budget to
deal with the discretionary funds. By 2032, we have zero in
discretionary funds. So there is the economic backdrop.
And then on the ethical backdrop, our job to provide
nutritious meals. And that leads into a host of complexity. Do
we provide breakfasts, lunches, dinners, backpacks going home
for the weekend?
If you refuse to do any of this, are you less than 100
percent compassionate?
Along with this, health care, daycare, obesity programs. We
have heard folks note this is a national defense, a national
security issue.
And then anything run at the federal level, we have
bureaucratic costs added to all this.
And so going forward, we have a crisis coming our way in
economics if you incentivize the state, which is what I think
we are doing through these programs, to care for kids. I get
nervous about the caring and loving part, the more and more the
federal role increases and the less and less the role of the
parent decreases.
I get the tension, we all want to take care of the kids. I
don't think there is any disagreement on that. We want to do
the right thing. But education, and I taught in college for the
last 18 years, education is precisely about educating kids and
hopefully parents, and how this has not happened is part of the
crisis, so they can live autonomous lives in the future and
families can live intact.
And so, I mean, one way to state, is there any upper bound,
philosophically in your thought, on the role of the state in
caring for our kids? And is this a short-run glide path toward
the next 16 years as we run into more and more economic
headwinds?
I think we want to solve this problem in a better way. I am
willing to go along in the short run for the sake of the kids.
But in the long run, I don't want to be sitting here at the
federal level micromanaging all these micro issues that I think
belong at the state and local and, optimally, at the parent
level.
So I just want to get your high-end thoughts on that.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, you have raised
obviously some really important questions. And frankly, as you
were asking your question, I was actually thinking back to my
childhood where I started out life in an orphanage and I was
adopted into a family where my mother suffered from alcoholism
and prescription drug addiction. And she was, you know, she was
a mean lady when she drank and she was a wonderful woman when
she stopped.
But during the time that she was drinking, she was not
there, she was just flat-out not there.
You know, I think there are unfortunately and tragically a
lot of families that deal with those kinds of issues. And you
know, somebody has got to be there, okay? Somebody has got to
be there.
You would hope that it would be a family member. You would
hope. You would want it to be a family member. And you would
want that family member not to feel overwhelmed.
But maybe if you are dealing with two part-time jobs and
you are trying to juggle a couple of kids and you are taking in
your sister's kids because she is having problems, I think it
is overwhelming. So there has to be some way in which we
provide some assistance.
You know, we send our children to school. And obviously,
you know, when they are in school this whole loco parent is
notion, you would hope that the school district is taking care
of them, protecting them, feeding them well, and teaching them
well, so that at some point in time the light bulb turns on and
the kid basically says, you know, I want a better life, I want
a better way, I am going to work hard, I am going to do what I
need to do.
I mentioned I was in Baltimore yesterday. You know, I went
to this library, saw wonderful, beautiful young kids who were
there reading. I don't know what their family circumstances
were. But as our car pulled out of that library, there were
three pop, pop, pops, and I thought it was, you know, a tire or
something, you know. My security guy goes, sir, did you hear
those gunshots?
You know, somebody has got to be there. Somebody has got to
be there. I would like it to be mom and dad, but sometimes that
is just not possible. So somebody has got to be there.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for all the great work you
have done on improving nutrition. I really commend this
administration for being leaders in this area.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter in the
record a statement from Rodney Taylor, the director of
nutrition services at the Riverside Unified School District. It
is a brief statement, I will just read it. ``In considering the
reauthorization of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, the
question we must ask ourselves is, how much are the lives of
our children worth? The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act seeks to
reinforce the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine
in aligning the school food program with scientific research.''
``While millions struggle with obesity and hunger,
standards provide one structured approach. As a country, as
parents, as people with moral consciences, we owe it to our
children. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act gives all children
the chance at living a healthy life. The cost to do nothing is
far greater than the inconveniences in implementing what is
already in place in most school districts.''
Along those lines, I ask unanimous consent it being entered
into the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. I think you just did put it in the record,
but of course, without objection.
Mr. Takano. Thank you.
In California, our schools are required to meet higher
standards for meals, about 5 years before the Healthy, Hunger-
Free Kids Act was last reauthorized.
For schools in my district, state law helped them to be
ready for the federal standards and demonstrated that these
kinds of changes can be implemented on a large scale.
Can you point to other examples where schools or states led
the way for improving nutrition for children?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there are probably
examples of school districts in every single state where there
was a concerned group of parents or a concerned superintendent
or principal or a concerned group of teachers or a combination
of school nutrition personnel that knew that they could do a
better job and a better way.
But there are many, many school districts that, for
whatever reason, have transitioned to a sort of a central
kitchen in order to save money. And now they would like to do a
better job, which is why the school equipment program is so
important.
Some of the school districts that you have had the chance
to see probably equip themselves, probably spent the resources,
had access to the resources. Not every school district has
that. That is why the school equipment grant is so important.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. I can just mention that my
school district, the largest school district of which Mr.
Taylor is the director for nutrition services, has been, we
don't have exceptional resources. He has been able to improvise
and do what he needs to do. But he has been so inspirational to
me. I have visited his facilities.
He has used the buying power of the school district to
support the local farmers in our area. The food is fresher and,
therefore, more appealing to the young people.
He has strategized in terms of where he puts the salad bar.
And by the way, he has implemented salad bars in nearly all of
the schools. And he puts the salad bar first so that the young
people have a chance to make healthier choices first. And just
that simple innovation of one, well, two innovations, the salad
bar and where you put the salad bar. If all the students are
filing past the salad bar first, they are going to make choices
for healthier food first.
Secretary Vilsack. Cornell School of Nutrition has put
together a series of steps similar to what you have outlined in
terms of placement. Even if you name the vegetable, we found
with elementary school kids if you name carrots the x-ray
vision carrots, that will encourage kids to basically try a
carrot or two. So there are strategies.
And in fact, we have put together 2,500 toolkits of the
best practices and strategies to distribute to school districts
that are trying to figure out how to do this. You don't have to
reinvent the wheel. There are a lot of school districts that
have already figured this out and are happy to help.
Mr. Takano. Yes. And Mr. Taylor, I know, has been traveling
around the country helping other school districts. And I thank
you and your department for, you know, showing us the best
practices. And he has definitely shown our community that this
can all work.
His own story is he grew up in a very, very poor
environment. He knew what hunger was. And he has committed his
life to making sure that none of our children today have to go
through that. And he has been a real inspiration to our
community.
We thank you for the standards that you are trying to
implement.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
I can't help but wonder if those kids are disappointed when
they don't get x-ray vision.
Mr. Allen?
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see you.
Appreciate you coming over and talking about the lunch program.
You know, in Georgia we fully embrace the dietary
guidelines set by the Federal Government. And you know, it is a
no-brainer that we want our kids to be healthy. And to do that,
they need to be eating nutritious foods.
Out of the 264 schools, Georgia has only five schools that
have not met the 6 cents certification guidelines for healthier
school meals. That speaks volumes about the dedication of
Georgia school nutrition professionals to serving health meals
while adhering to federal mandates.
However, Nancy Rice, director of the School Nutrition
Division of the Georgia Department of Education, says that
Georgia continues to face challenges with federal mandates. Of
particular concern are sodium requirements, explaining those
mashed potatoes, and implementation of the USDA smart snacks
and the paid lunch equity program.
And the fact is I have been in the schools and I always go
back to the kitchen and talk with the personnel who are
preparing the foods. And you know, a lot of those folks just
aren't happy about what they are having to do.
The sodium requirement is as low as the prescriptive low-
sodium clinical diet. And of course, back when I played
football they made us eat sodium tablets so, you know, it just,
I guess, depends on how much exercise you get.
But kids don't typically eat this way at home, so when at
school they think something is kind of wrong with the food. And
that might explain why they don't eat it in some cases.
But the implementation of the USDA Smart Snacks has caused
a significant loss in participation in revenue for Georgia
schools. The revenue losses ranged from $79,000 to as much as
$5 million for the 2015 school year.
The school food directors are seriously concerned about
their food service and operational finances. They say that
staff is what will have to be cut first if things don't change.
As you state in your testimony, flexibility is important to
comply with federal standards for child nutrition. And how can
we work together to provide flexibility for the sodium
requirements and the USDA smart snacks or the paid lunch
equity?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I think on the sodium
there are basically three targets that have to be met. And in
fact, we have provided a 10-year phase-in on the sodium
requirement and have provided that flexibility that we don't
move from target one to target two until the dietary guidelines
basically establish that it is appropriate.
So we have been working with the food processing companies
to make those adjustments. And clearly, there will be an
adjustment.
But over time, we spent some time at the McCormick facility
in Maryland where they showed me how you can use spices to
replace salt. And the meal that they served me was
extraordinary, within the calorie guidelines. So there are ways
to do this.
So there has been flexibility provided in the sodium, and
there has also been flexibility provided in terms of the pay
equity issue. You know, obviously, we want to make sure that we
aren't reimbursing or overcompensating school districts for
paid meals, that they aren't subsidizing their paid meals
improperly.
But if they have, you know, adequate reserves we give them
some flexibility. So there has been flexibility put in those
two areas.
On the smart snack piece of it, again, I would be happy to
get information from you in terms of the school districts and
we could try to work with them to see if there is a reason why
they are losing the resources that they are losing. Maybe we
could help with that.
Mr. Allen. Okay. We will do that and I appreciate your
offer to do that.
After the federal child nutrition standards were
implemented in 2012, we did see a drop in participation in
school lunch programs. And clearly, these standards are having
unintended effects.
Am I hearing that we are doing better now? Or do we have
plans to significantly decrease this decline in the school
lunch participation?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, you know, we may have some
disagreement about the extent of the decline.
As I mentioned earlier, of the over 99,000 schools in the
country today, only 58 have dropped out. And some of those who
have dropped out are coming back in. There is an article in the
Houston Chronicle that I mentioned earlier that outlined
several of those coming back in.
We know that there are multiple reasons why an individual
student may not participate. It may very well be some of the
concerns that have been expressed here. But it may also be we
have seen a rather dramatic increase in free and reduced lunch.
It may be a situation where folks at home feel that they will
do better for less. And we saw actually this trend occurring
before the guidelines occurred.
So the challenge here, I think, for us is to continue to
focus on best practices, continue to look for ways in which we
can make these meals as pleasing as possible and to work with
schools that are struggling. That is why we created the Team Up
for Success.
We started it in the deep south with a number of school
districts. We took them down to the University of Mississippi
where they worked for a day-and-a-half with them, looked at
procurement, looked at financing, looked at meal menus. We have
received good, positive feedback, so we have extended that
program, so by the end of this year we will have touched all
regions of the country with this effort to try to team up
succeeding schools with struggling schools.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Let me just say that I think that what we spend on feeding
kids in this country is a great value, especially since we
spend about $3 million per hour on war that we have never
authorized.
Mr. Secretary, non-profit organizations and schools have to
operate after-school meal programs and the summer meal program
separately. These programs serve the same kids, the same meals
at the same location, just at different times of the year.
Now, they have different sets of paperwork and often
operate under different state agencies. It is a huge burden of
paperwork. Is there any opportunity to streamline these
programs and make them easier to operate?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the answer, obviously, we should
look for ways in which we can streamline the programs. And
yesterday in Baltimore we sort of committed ourselves to a
demonstration project in the city of Baltimore to see if we
could work on creating a process.
Apparently, we have a rule that says you can't serve three
meals at the same location. And so we are going to have a
demonstration project to take a look at whether or not we can
do that and what the concerns might be.
So there are obviously ways in which we would look for
streamlining. And if you have suggestions, we would be more
than open to them.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Congressman Fortenberry and I introduced a bipartisan Farm
to School Act of 2015. And the cornerstone of that act is to
provide flexibility to local schools and communities to include
preschools in the USDA Farm-to-School program.
Can you speak to the benefits of Farm-to-School for
children and why you would support this additional flexibility
in the program for early childcare settings?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the Farm-to-School program has
been extraordinarily successful. We have done 221 grants and we
have recently surveyed school districts and we have found that
there is about, of the school districts that have been
surveyed, about $350 million of economic benefit associated
with Farm-to-School.
So one of the benefits is basically keeping resources that
are generated in a community in the community, instead of
sending your resources for meals a thousand miles away and
benefiting some other community, if you will.
So there is an economic benefit. There is obviously a
freshness benefit. People like the idea that they are helping
their local producers and they like the idea that kids can
learn about what is being grown and raised in their vicinity.
We know that there is a multiple-billion-dollar opportunity
here. It is particularly helpful to small- and medium-sized
producers.
And kids get access to fruits and vegetables that they
might not otherwise consume. So you know, to use a trite
phrase, it is a win-win situation.
And frankly, school districts are learning that they can do
this in a way that doesn't break the bank and that it is quite
popular.
You know, we have done quite a bit of good with a
relatively small amount of money. The program has $5 to $6
million in grants. And what we do with those resources is we
acquaint people with what is grown in their vicinity and their
district within a 150-, 200-mile radius. We help them with
procurement, so they know how to contract. And then we
basically steer them potentially to food hubs and other
facilities that can provide sufficient quantity to satisfy
them.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Let me ask just one last question and it is about summer
meals. We have had a number of hearings where both sides
testified that summer meals are significantly important to
young people.
But in the state of Ohio, only about 10 percent of low-
income children are getting summer meals, where the national
average is about 16 percent, both still low.
But what solutions should this committee consider to ensure
that programs like summer meals are flexible enough to serve
kids in need?
I look at just my largest city, which is the city of
Cleveland; 54 percent of all the kids there live in poverty. So
the need is there, how do we address it?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is a partnership that
requires local engagement and involvement from local political
leaders. Mayors, governors have to be engaged, and if they are
we have seen dramatic increases.
I would say one thing that we need to do is to figure out
ways in which we can go to where the kids are as opposed to
having the kids go to where the meals are.
We know and I suspect you know in your city you know where
kids will congregate during the summer. And we need to figure
out ways in which we can be flexible enough to be able to
ensure that meals go to them, if it is a playground, if it is a
swimming pool, if it is wherever they congregate.
In my town where our kids grew up, it was the little league
diamond is where kids basically congregated during the summer
months.
So ways in which we can go to the where the kids are. Right
now, our process is that kids have to go to a central location.
And sometimes they know where that central location is and we
are trying to make it easy for parents to understand where that
is, but it is oftentimes difficult to get there.
We are trying to make it nonthreatening. That is why
libraries are important, that is why schools, the seamless
program are important. Any way in which we can continue to
promote flexibility and access we would be certainly looking
forward to working with you on.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Curbelo?
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to
working with you, the subcommittee chairmen, and all of my
colleagues on this important issue.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your presence here today
and your testimony.
My first question is prompted by some frustrations in the
state of Florida with regards to transportation. As you know,
all current USDA food commodities ordered for the state of
Florida must be placed on a truck of all like material.
Would it make more sense to create mixed-product loads to
decrease costs to smaller school districts or to use smaller
trucks to offset some of the costs incurred by ordering these
large truckload quantities?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, it seems like a reasonable
proposal and suggestion. I would be more than happy to take
that back to the office and see if there is a possibility for
us working. You know, we are very focused at USDA on process
improvement and this sounds like it would be an improvement. So
I would be happy to look into it.
Mr. Curbelo. I would appreciate it. Because for large
districts like Miami-Dade County this is not a major challenge,
but for some of our rural districts it certainly has posed
challenges.
My second question is a little broader. And I served on the
Miami-Dade County School Board. And oftentimes, I would think,
you know, it is great that we are making this effort to try to
help kids have a healthier diet while they are in our schools.
But if they go back home and continue their poor eating habits,
maybe we are just spinning our wheels.
Do you have any ideas as we look ahead at this
reauthorization as to what we can do, if anything, to empower
parents to really take ownership over their children's diets,
and understand that while the schools can help this is really
primarily the responsibility of parents and families?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, one thing, I think we have seen a
remarkable increase in parental involvement and interest when
kids basically establish a school garden and are able to
produce food that they then consume or invite parents to the
school so that the parents can go through the salad line and
have the tomato or the carrot or the cucumber that a child
actually produced through their efforts.
Basically, creating those kinds of opportunities where kids
get excited about fruits and vegetables that they have produced
and then are able to proudly display them to mom or dad or
working with local grocery stores where, again, they are
willing to have a display of a locally produced school.
You know, I know that whatever kids are involved in and
whatever they are proud about parents take notice. And one way
to do that is potentially creating an opportunity within
schools for more community gardens and schools gardens that
kids could then bring mom and dad into as a suggestion.
But I will think about your question. That is the best I
can do right now. But if I come up with a better answer I will
be glad to convey it.
Mr. Curbelo. I appreciate it. I just think it is important
because we are making significant investments. And we all know
what a tough time a lot of the school districts are having
complying.
And this is all important. I don't mean to diminish it,
because it does make a difference. But the problem of child
nutrition and childhood obesity I don't think will ever be
solved until families in this country take ownership for their
children's health and diet and do the best they can to promote
healthy lifestyles at home.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is true. I mean, it isn't
just what they consume, it is also how active they are. And
that is something parents clearly have an opportunity to
promote, which is physical activity, getting kids outdoors,
having them participate in some kind of activity that gets them
moving, as the first lady's Let's Move initiative is focused
on.
And certainly, school districts are looking for creative
ways to get kids recess time. So there are ways I think in
which parents can be engaged in a positive way on this.
Mr. Curbelo. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to you and Ranking Member Scott for holding this hearing.
And thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being here today, for
your department's dedication and for your very passionate and
personal response about the need for these programs.
I spent many years working in a legal aid office and you
quickly discover that people don't struggle by choice. It is
unfortunate circumstances, typically lost a job, health care
bills they couldn't pay, et cetera. So appreciate your
meaningful answer there.
And you know, like other committee members, I have visited
a lot of schools and had lunch with many students. I try to
avoid sticking my head into the garbage can, but I have looked
in there.
We have great salad bars out in Oregon in our schools. The
school gardens which you mentioned, Mr. Secretary, are great
programs, that nutrition education that kids take home with
them and talk to their families about.
And I agree with Subcommittee Chairman Rokita. I learn a
lot from talking to students. I was actually in our state
legislature when we got the junk food out of the vending
machines in schools. And the most passionate, compelling
testimony came from students who talked about how they would be
in a nutrition class learning about health and then go out in
the hallway and see vending machines full of junk food and that
sent inconsistent messages. The students were very persuasive
there.
So I am really hopeful that this committee will work
together to successfully reauthorize the child nutrition
programs and build on the success of the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act.
I appreciate hearing the concerns from my colleagues.
So I wanted to talk a little bit about something that
doesn't get as much attention, and I am really pleased to be
partnering with our committee colleague from New York,
Representative Stefanik, on legislation that will strengthen
the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
I appreciate Representative Stefanik's interest in this
program and I look forward to working together to put CACFP on
stable footing for the millions of children it serves each day,
children in preschool, in daycare. The CACFP also provides
after-school programs and emergency shelters.
So I wanted to begin with asking you about the department's
process for preparing new meal standards. Why are the new meal
guidelines important?
And then I also want to ask, following up on Representative
Fudge's issue about streamlining. The USDA is working with some
of the large sponsors in the CACFP program to simplify their
interactions with state agencies and help those sponsors avoid
needing to submit similar paperwork for multiple states.
So can you talk both about preparing the meal standards and
guidelines, and then also simplifying the paperwork for multi-
state sponsors?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are over 178,000
participating locations in the program that you have asked for.
And obviously, it is important for us to make sure that in all
of those locations, to the extent they involve children, that
we are sending a consistent message right through the entire
process, consistent message with WIC, consistent message with
SNAP and SNAP-Ed, consistent message at the school, consistent
message with summer feeding.
So it is important that we ensure that the messages that we
are sending are consistent.
So obviously, we rely on the experts to give us a sense of
what ought to be served to these youngsters and how it will be
consistent with what they are likely to be served in the future
at school and summer feeding and down the line.
You know, it is important, I think, that we recognize that
the reimbursement rates are relatively the same. They don't get
the benefit of the 6 cents increase, but in terms of the
reimbursement rates relatively the same. So you know, I think
it is trying to remain consistent.
Now, the issue of process, we are engaged at USDA, as I
mentioned earlier, in a process improvement effort. And if
there are ways in which we can reduce duplication of paperwork
I am all for it. And that is why I think we are pushing
community eligibility, why we are pushing direct certification.
These are all ways of producing better product, greater
access, less cost, less administrative hassle and fewer errors.
Ms. Bonamici. And before my time runs out, I also want to
ask, we want to make sure that the CACFP works well for small
providers. Can you talk a little bit about the importance of
keeping the small providers connected, especially in rural
areas? How can the department work together to encourage CACFP
participation?
Secretary Vilsack. Working through our state partners, we
want to make sure that just because a youngster is raised in a
small town doesn't necessarily mean that they should get
inadequate service or no service or improper service.
My kids were in a very small daycare facility in a small
town. So I am very sensitive to the needs for kids in rural
areas to have access.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And my time is about to expire.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
I understand that the secretary has a hard-stop time near
12:00. We have so much member interest here that I am going to
have to take the draconian step of limiting members from here
out to 3 minutes. And I will be fairly militant in cutting off
the time.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I
am here for you.
Chairman Kline. You are very generous. We are still going
to limit to 3 minutes because I am respectful of your time.
[Laughter.]
I am afraid. I am doing the math here and we could go until
well-past 12 if we don't limit the time.
So with those new guidelines in place, Mr. Guthrie
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just did school visits, I know a lot of us have talked
about school visits at elementary, junior high, and high
school, and learned a lot. And I think it is beneficial.
And I sat down in roundtables with the people in the
dietary world who do this and sat with them. And I said this
when we started out, I said, look, this probably isn't going to
go away. Anything that we want to do has got to be signed by
the President. So what kind of things do you think would make
it better, that you could work with to make it more flexible
where the kids would eat more?
And they came up with some pretty good ideas. And some of
the things that we saw when we did the visit, there was one
particular. When you do these, you get particular instances
that it is hard to even explain.
There was a hamburger, which I actually thought tasted okay
with the whole-grain bun, but you can only get three pickles,
so there was a person there guarding the pickle jar to make
sure kids didn't get four pickles. And I remember the reporter
going, well, what is wrong with pickles, there is no calories
in them? Well, it is sodium.
So it has gotten to where, you know, you had the lady there
with the potatoes putting them in a little tray and she had to
put four in because if a kid got five, instead of having the
glove, reaching and putting them on the tray, the kid might get
five, so that was a sodium issue as well.
And so you do see these things with throwing fruit in
there. The stuff that you hear, I actually saw. One kid at
Davis County Middle School said it is the healthiest trash can
in town probably. That was a quote from that young person.
But they came, and so, how do we make it work given that we
want this to work? And everybody at the table was in the school
lunch program. And so they wanted kids to eat healthy, too. And
they were saying if they could have flexibility on whole-grain,
some flexibility. The whole-grain pasta just sticks together
and becomes gooey, they said. No further decrease in sodium.
And one parent suggested they can't have Thanksgiving
dinner because there is too much either sodium or calories. If
they do Thanksgiving dinner on Wednesday, they can't eat the
rest of the week because it goes beyond. And a parent says, why
don't we have one day a month or some number to have flex days
that doesn't count? So I would say everything in moderation.
And so when we sat down to say, how do we make the program
that is in place work better, those are some suggestions.
Do you have any comments on it? They sound reasonable to me
from people in the system.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, certainly, the whole-grain pasta
issue was one that we recognized a concern about and provided
flexibility. And that was extended to whole-grain generally.
The sodium issue, we also recognized.
We also made some adjustments on the protein and portion
size issues so long as things fit within the overall guidelines
for the week.
So I think there is flexibility that we have provided. And
I think there are creative ways to deal with that flexibility
to provide wholesome meals.
Mr. Guthrie. But within the authorization that is coming
up, that, you know, might need to be included instead of just
waivers and flexibility.
But the thing of just the flex day where there could be, if
it is PE day or field day, they could have pizza. I mean, it is
just because if they do that--I understand it is during the
week, but if they have a Thanksgiving meal they said it blows
the whole week.
Secretary Vilsack. Just, I mean, in terms of flexibility,
we gave that opportunity, 1,900 school districts out of 15,000
were granted the flexibility. So I mean, 2,300 requested it so
it was a relatively small percentage of overall school
districts and obviously a relatively small percentage of
schools.
Mr. Guthrie. They actually mentioned that--
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for sharing your
personal story which I think really is compelling and reminds
us there are many, many families that aren't able to take all
the advice in the world that we would love to give them. And I
appreciate that.
I wanted to focus quickly, though, on California's historic
drought right now because this has really exacerbated food
insecurity for many, many of our families who are in areas
where this really does matter. It means job losses. It is an
accumulation of a host of issues.
And I know you are familiar, obviously, with the electronic
benefit transfer program and the fact that many of the families
who would benefit from school meals during the year aren't able
to do that. They don't have a facility, they don't have a place
where they can go. And so expanding that program in these
drought-stricken areas would be helpful in California.
I know that, you know, I would love to see that. I would
love to see that nationally. I think that this makes sense. The
pilot programs have shown that it makes a difference.
I think that young people who are not really able to get
the nutrition they need in the summertime, they are going to
lose out by not being in school to begin with and this
exacerbates that problem.
But what about those drought-stricken communities in
California? I don't actually live in one as much as many of the
communities, but I am concerned because this would be a good
place to focus.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we agree and we are encouraging
folks to consider in the appropriations process an expansion of
the program because we know it works, we know it results in
more fruits and vegetable consumption and healthier choices
being developed for kids during the summer.
And it does deal with the issue of a lack of access if you
don't have a congregant site, someplace in your rural area or
it is too far away, you don't have transportation or it is too
dangerous to get to.
So we are very much inclined to want to see an expansion of
that program. And of course, it is really about dollars and
cents. If the appropriators give us the resources, we will be
glad to extend it. And if we extend it, we will obviously look
at ways in which we can help people that are in distress.
I have got a much more fuller-extent answer to the drought
issue which we will be able to provide your staff.
Mrs. Davis. Right. And I think that there certainly are
issues. We know other countries have done a far better job with
this. But for the time being, while we wait for that and a host
of other remedies that are out there, this is a problem.
So is there anything else that we can do to, I think, make
the case that these EBT pilot programs really have demonstrated
for us the fact that they work and they keep kids from losing
what they could otherwise?.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is basically responding
to the fact that this is a program that reduces hunger, that
responds to folks who are in severe distress, that expands
access to fruits and vegetables, and at the end of the day
expands reach. This program, at a minimum, gets to 30 percent
of the kids versus the national average of 16. So you make a
case you are getting more help to more kids.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. And
thank you for your service to our country.
And I am going to talk as fast as a Southerner can. So I
have got to get mine in.
I talked to one of our school directors in rural Appalachia
where I live, 14,000 students, 67 percent free and reduced
lunch. He says the kids are not eating, many of them are
throwing the food away, kids are leaving there hungry. And I
said, what do you do when they are hungry? He feeds them.
And what Mr. Guthrie was talking about basically the food
police deciding how many pickles you get on a hamburger, where
we are from, the view we have is ridiculous; so when you limit
the portions, the size, and I have eaten many school lunches. I
like to go and talk to kids, so I do that a lot.
I am not asking you to comment. I am just saying one school
director passed this along and lost $877,000 on the program.
That is what it cost in a poor county where I live. So they are
having trouble financing this.
I want to get something else. And what Mr. Curbelo said was
correct. CDC just released a report that said 35 percent of the
adults in the country over 20 are obese, 69 percent over 20 are
overweight, and the average woman today weighs what the average
male did in 1960. So we have gotten larger as a country, there
is no question.
And I wrote you a letter a year-and-a-half ago, a little
over a year ago, about the USDA would release a comprehensive
report based on how SNAP benefits are used. And to date, in
spite of numerous follow ups, we haven't heard anything.
And basically, what we heard was you wrote a letter in July
and again in November and it was supposed to be out in March
and it still isn't out. And the reason for that is because that
is a huge program. And I think unless you affect that program
about how foods are bought and prepared there in a more healthy
way, you are never going to fix the school lunch because the
kids are going home to their parents.
And when is that report coming out? Can you tell me?
Secretary Vilsack. I can check. I don't know the answer to
that question, congressman.
Mr. Roe. Well, I don't want to interrupt you, but I have a
very little bit of time.
I used the WIC program for years as an OB/GYN doctor. It
worked. WIC works; and when you put healthy food out there for
people to eat. And we spent between $2 and $4 billion estimated
last year on soft drinks. And I know that isn't good news to
the soft drink industry, but that isn't food. And we should be
looking at this massive program if we could get the data,
because I can tell you, when I go into Harris Teeter, which I
have an apartment there, they know exactly what I am buying.
So we should be able, the USDA should be able to tell us
what those recipients are buying and we need to narrow those
food choices so they are eating healthier. I want to help you
work with that because the CDC data I just presented are real
and it is a nationwide problem. And I am here to try to work
with you.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I can tell you that what SNAP
folks are buying is not much different than what the rest of
the country is buying.
Mr. Roe. But they are buying it with tax dollars--
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Clark?
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here today, Mr. Secretary. And I,
too, really appreciate your personal story and the empathy that
you bring to these issues.
And I also appreciate the concerns that some of my
colleagues have raised with the difficulty that a small
percentage of schools are having providing healthier school
meals. And I am really grateful for your open-ended approach
and flexibility, whether it is let's look at flavored milks,
let's look at trucking and how we can do better by rural
communities.
But what really strikes me is that in the richest country
in the world, nearly 16 million children struggle with food
insecurity. That is one in five American children. And we know
this brings lower academic success, increased health factors,
obesity, cardiovascular disease, and increased health care
costs.
So in 3 minutes, I would like to know our best strategy for
solving childhood hunger. And I really would like to have your
opinion on where do we need to focus. Is it expanding
eligibility for nutrition assistance programs like WIC? Is it
expanding accessibility to proposals similar to adjunctive and
community eligibility? Or is it simply time to increase SNAP
benefits so these kids can also eat when they get home?
Secretary Vilsack. Boy, I think it is an all-of-the-above,
in a sense. I would say that this administration has started
that process of improving and expanding and doing it in a way
that is focused on integrity. We have reduced the integrity
concerns on the SNAP program, we are addressing them in WIC,
and now we have an aggressive effort that we are under way in
terms of the school programs.
So part of it is making sure that we spend the dollars that
we have wisely. Part of it is creating ways in which access to
programs is simpler. That is why we are looking at an online
application for the school lunch program. That is why we are
encouraging community eligibility. That is why we are
encouraging direct certification.
So continued looking at ways in which there are barriers
and trying to figure them out. If Title I is a barrier for
school districts to embrace community eligibility that would
provide for greater access and fewer errors, then we ought to
be working with the Department of Education to figure out a way
to get through that barrier.
So just knocking these barriers down.
Ms. Clark. Great, thank you. We did it.
And thank you, I really appreciate your testimony today and
the work that you are doing. And we look forward to working
with you.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
Ms. Clark. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Grothman:
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
I also have toured a lot in my local schools and get the
same thing we have heard around here. The federal requirements
are causing the costs to go up that they have to charge the
kids who are not low-income. Kids are throwing away their food.
If they have an open campus, the kids are fleeing the school
lunchroom to go to the McDonald's or whatever across the street
because they don't want the federally-mandated food.
The question I have for you, you know, and I think it is
just odd that here on a federal level we are telling people,
school districts what they can serve for lunch, because I
always thought most of us were taught what a nutritious lunch
is when we were probably in elementary school.
And therefore, I wonder about just giving them the money
and not worrying about the paperwork.
How many people do you have and how much cost goes into
paying for these programs?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the school lunch program is
roughly $12-1/2 billion.
Mr. Grothman. I mean, the administration, not how much is
the checks that we send out.
Secretary Vilsack. I don't know that the administration
is--I don't know specifically the answer to that, but I will
tell you this. The chairman mentioned the number of employees
working at USDA.
And Mr. Chairman, it is no longer 100,000, it is now closer
to 85,000 people work for USDA. So we have seen a significant
reduction in administrative expense associated with all our
programs. So we are operating on an operating budget that is
less than it was when I became secretary.
So I can assure you that we are looking for every
administrative efficiency. We have addressed and identified
over $1.4 billion of efficiencies as part of our blueprint for
stronger service.
So I don't think administration is the issue here. And
frankly, it is not that we tell specifically what needs to be
served, but we give people guidelines and standards and then
they have freedom to figure out ways, creative ways to meet
those standards.
Mr. Grothman. It should not be that difficult to make a
healthy lunch. Right now we couldn't be doing worse. People are
throwing away the food. And if you have open campus, the kids
are leaving the campus and looking for somewhere else to eat.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, with due respect, studies
show that there isn't more food waste than there was before the
program. And in fact, food waste is an issue that transcends
the school lunch program.
Mr. Grothman. The question I would like to know when I talk
to my local school districts who frequently always want more
money, they wonder how much we are spending here to administer
a program that is kind of based on the idea that the local
people don't know how to make a decent lunch.
How many employees do you have and how much does it cost to
administer this program?
Secretary Vilsack. I will be happy to provide you that
answer. But I would also say that those very same people may be
living in a state where they haven't spent all the money that
we have provided to them.
And my question to them would be, why aren't you spending
those resources if you are strapped? There is $24 million on
the table that hasn't been spent. Why is that the case?
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Adams.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you also, Mr. Secretary.
I have some serious issues with food insecurity in North
Carolina. We have got a high rate, 26 percent. In the 12th
District that I represent, food insecurity is over 30 percent.
So I launched a hunger initiative last month in the
district, and I heard some very disturbing things from some of
the people who actually came and had a discussion with me.
I heard a troubling story about a child who was 20 to 30
feet from the approved site of the bus stop where the food was
being served. And the mother mentioned that she was very
concerned because the child couldn't actually take the food on
the front porch which was right in front of the stop, because
of the current regulations. And she felt that her child was
being treated like an animal, forced to eat in the dirt.
So I know that is not the intent of the law, but just
wanted to ask you what changes you thought we needed to make to
ensure that we aren't discouraging participation in the program
and making children feel less than they ought to feel.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would say two. One is that we
discussed briefly the need to extend the EBT program that has
been successful in embracing and encouraging access and
flexibility.
And then secondly, continue to work on ways in which we can
provide greater flexibility in the site locations for where
kids are as opposed to forcing kids to go to a site.
You know, it is somewhat up to the local folks who
basically are the sponsors of this program how strict they are
about all of this. But I would say those would be two
suggestions.
Ms. Adams. Just one other thing. We have about 600,000
children who qualify for free and reduced lunch and only 14
percent are accessing. I think you have addressed some of those
problems.
But what type of discretion would the USDA have to do to
waive some of the current regulations that will prevent
students who are eligible for free lunch and not taking
advantage of it?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think that the first suggestion
would be to make sure if a school district is taking full
advantage of the programs that exist, the Community Eligibility
Program, it may very well be that they qualify for that
program, which would significantly reduce the administrative
concerns. That will allow them basically to treat all the kids
the same and still be reimbursed at a reasonable rate.
So we would be happy to work with you to identify the
school district that you are concerned about to see whether
they might be able to take advantage of CEP.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
I yield.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. Appreciate
your testimony.
Mr. Secretary, the WIC program, we have had a little
discussion about it today. There is a legislative mandate to
rebate infant formula and for the allowance to do that for
other foods.
I have had discussions with folks in my district and there
is concerns that have been raised that the rebates limit
parental choice for both the WIC participants and the non-
participants. And I am wondering if you might be able to offer
up some solutions to the committee today to promote what was
intended by those rebates with cost containment as well as
trying to find a way to do it without limiting parental choice.
And also, I would like some input from you as to who you
view should be able to choose the products they see as best for
the kids.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we obviously are mindful of the
need for the balance between a healthy package and a reasonable
cost to taxpayers. Food inflation has, I think, increased by 12
percent since the time I have been secretary. The WIC costs
have increased by 1 percent. So the package concept, I think,
is trying to maintain reasonable costs.
The issue of flexibility, I know that we have provided some
degree of flexibility on formula. Part of the challenge is that
some of the folks and the choices that people want to make are
much more expensive. That gets into a whole cost issue.
You know, I thought you were going to be asking about the
notion that some of the formula makers are concerned about too
many people taking advantage of the WIC program because of the
way in which states administer the Medicaid program.
And I think the key there is to make sure that the data
that they have, the industry has, and the data that we have
match, because today that is not the case. There is significant
delta between what they claim folks who are ineligible for WIC
and we claim. So there is a set of issues there that I think we
need to be addressing.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Jeffries?
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for your testimony here
today as well as for your leadership on these very important
issues.
In the limited time that I have I was hoping that we could
just drill down some on the childhood obesity problem that we
have got in America.
Now, more than one-third of children in the United States
are considered overweight or obese. Is that correct?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And is it fair to say that this level of
obesity is a national epidemic?
Secretary Vilsack. It is obviously a serious concern.
Mr. Jeffries. And so obesity places children at greater
risk of heart disease. Is that correct?
Secretary Vilsack. That and other chronic diseases.
Mr. Jeffries. A greater risk of respiratory illness, is
that correct?
Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure about that, but certainly
diabetes, hypertension.
Mr. Jeffries. Greater risk of liver disease?
Secretary Vilsack. May very well be.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Stroke?
Secretary Vilsack. Greater risk of illness. I am not a
doctor, so I don't want to go and I did raise my hand to tell
the truth and nothing but the truth. So I want to make sure--
Chairman Kline. In fairness, he did.
Mr. Jeffries. Is it fair to say that childhood obesity
increases the likelihood of bullying in school?
Secretary Vilsack. In my personal experience, I would say
that is probably true.
Mr. Jeffries. Does it increase the likelihood of social
isolation?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Is it fair to say that childhood obesity
increases the likelihood of severe emotional distress?
Secretary Vilsack. I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't
true.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, the health care costs of obesity
per year in the United States is as high as $147 billion, is
that correct?
Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure what the number is, but I
know that there is a significantly high rate associated with
obesity.
Mr. Jeffries. Alright. So in your view, if you could just
speak to some of the efforts that the Department of Agriculture
has undertaken to address this epidemic of childhood obesity
and the severe financial, health, emotional costs connected to
it.
Secretary Vilsack. Improving the WIC program to focus on
fruits and vegetables that kids might not otherwise consume.
Working with the SNAP families to allow them access to fruits
and vegetables at farmers' markets and the EBT, 5,200 farmers'
markets. Working on the expansion of the summer feeding
program, 23 million more meals than when I became secretary.
Focusing on improved school lunches and school breakfasts
in terms of the standards and the calories to make sure the
kids are getting nutrition, but not something that is unhealthy
for them.
Mr. Jeffries. And last question. In your view, has the
implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
effectively addressed the problem of childhood obesity?
Secretary Vilsack. I think it is a component, Congressman.
I think that the issue of exercise and physical activity is an
equally important component to all of this. They are balanced.
You have to have both of them. It isn't just calories in, it is
also calories out.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Messer?
Mr. Messer. Mr. Secretary, appreciate you being here.
Appreciate your stamina.
I have had the opportunity to meet with your wife,
Christie, in her role as the senior adviser for international
education at USAID. And I can tell you that I know we share one
thing in common in life, and that is that we both overachieved
in marriage, because she is a dynamic professional and somebody
that I very much appreciated her insights.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
Mr. Messer. I represent a mostly rural area of Indiana, 19
counties, ag- and manufacturing-based economy. A lot of folks,
frankly, that when you go to their schools, visit the schools,
they are on free and reduced lunch.
And I wanted to ask you just a little bit to expand upon
the challenges with the Summer Food Service Program. As you
know, this program has existed for 40 years.
This Monday, the Indiana Department of Education announced
its 2015 summer food service sites. And unfortunately in
Indiana, only about 14 percent of folks who are on free and
reduced lunch are going to have access to those kinds of
programs in the summer.
And we have our disagreements on these programs. I think we
all agree that no kid in America should go hungry.
You know, I know, obviously, the first answer is always
more money. But beyond that, what can we do to try to make sure
that more kids in America won't be going hungry this summer?
Secretary Vilsack. I think encouraging the seamless summer
program, schools that our kids are comfortable going to and
would be allowed to continue servicing food and better
utilization of our school properties.
I think working with mayors and governors to sort of put
the spotlight on this and encourage greater community
participation.
And certainly at the local level, as a former mayor myself,
I know that the park and recreation department could be a
critically important component to expanding access.
And then, frankly, more flexibility in our programs in
terms of where kids have to go or how the meals can get to
them.
Mr. Messer. And that is the biggest challenge right?
Transportation. I mean, the challenge that kids have to try to
get to where these sites would be.
Secretary Vilsack. It is a huge challenge in rural areas,
which is why we ought to be focusing on more mobility in terms
of how the meals can get to where the kids are as opposed to
kids coming to where the meals are.
Mr. Messer. Great. Thank you.
No further questions.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
We have had an opportunity for everybody to have a
discussion with the secretary. We are pretty doggone close to
12:00. We are going to wrap up here momentarily.
I am going to yield to Mr. Scott for any closing remarks he
has.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the secretary for your hard work and for
visiting Virginia and working with our first lady, Dorothy
McAuliffe, on child nutrition issues.
Thank you for your testimony and reinforcing the importance
of good nutrition from a national security point of view,
readiness of our potential military personnel and budgetary
concerns, the future health care costs that are associated with
obesity.
And then in response to the questions from the gentleman
from New York, the behavior associated with obesity can have
budgetary impacts.
We have made progress over the last few years, particularly
in terms of the standards with virtually all, 95 percent as I
understand it, school systems reporting compliance with the
upgraded standards, and the community eligibility which means
more people can participate. So we need to continue making that
progress.
And I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today.
Chairman Kline. I, too, want to thank you, Mr. Secretary.
You have been a great witness. You have got a heck of a big
job. And we are going to try to do the very best we can when we
look at reauthorizing this to address concerns. You have heard
a number of them here today.
Sometimes we are listening perhaps or looking at some
different statistics, but all of us, I believe it is fair to
say, all of us up here want these kids to have a healthy lunch.
I think that many of us have talked to, listened to, eaten with
and all of those things, gone to schools and see that there
still are some real concerns about cost and flexibility. So we
will be looking at that.
But I very much appreciate your testimony today. I want to
thank you for being here.
And there being no further business, we are adjourned.
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Secretary Vilsack's response to questions submitted for
the record]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]