[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FOOD STAMP IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1994
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1926, a bill relating to
food stamps for Indians, introduced earlier today by Senators Pressler
and Leahy; that the bill be deemed read three times, passed, and the
motion to reconsider laid upon the table; that statements by Senators
Pressler and Leahy and a Leahy-Inouye colloquy appear in the Record at
the appropriate place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the Food
Stamp Improvements Act of 1994 introduced by Senator Pressler. This
legislation culminates months of work by Senator Pressler, the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and the Committee on
Indian Affairs.
This legislation has two principal components. Title I of the bill
addresses some aspects of the administration of the Food Stamp Program
on Indian reservations. Title II addresses a problem regarding the
definition of eligible retail food stores in the Food Stamp Program.
As Members of this body are well aware, many households living on
reservations are among the poorest in the Nation. Unemployment on some
reservations exceeds 50 percent. Many reservations also include large
remote areas with little access to paved roads, telephones, or mail
service. These factors can make it difficult for some households to
participate in the Food Stamp Program.
Low-income households on reservations have the choice of
participating in the Food Stamp Program or receiving Government
commodities under the Food Distribution Program in Indian reservations.
Reports and testimony we have received show that many native American
households believe that they can obtain more nutritious and appealing
foods with food stamps. They continue to receive commodities instead of
food stamps because of administrative barriers in the Food Stamp
Program.
With these concerns in mind, we inserted two provisions in the 1990
farm bill to help households on reservations. Before these provisions
could be implemented, we became aware that some State food stamp
administrators had concerns about these provisions. Congress delayed
the implementation of the 1990 amendments and sought to learn more
about the problems facing households and food stamp administrators on
reservations.
A joint hearing of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in May last
year sought some answers to these problems. After examining the great
volume of information we received and consulting closely with members
of the Agriculture Committee and several Senators from States with
large reservations, we believe we have arrived at a good compromise.
This legislation modifies each of the 1990 provisions to ease burdens
on State administrators without sacrificing the protections for
households on reservations that Congress sought to achieve in 1990.
With regard to monthly reporting, this legislation would prohibit any
State which does not currently require monthly reporting on
reservations from doing so at any time in the future. In other words,
States that have already ended monthly reporting would continue to be
bound by the 1990 legislation. States that still routinely require
households on reservations to complete monthly reports could continue
to do so subject to all current safeguards and a few new ones.
All monthly reporting households on reservations would be entitled to
2-year certification periods unless USDA approved a specific State
request to provide shorter certification periods for some class of
households. In deciding whether to grant requested waivers, USDA should
consider both the reasons the State desires to implement a shorter
certification period and the burden that households on the particular
reservation would face in going through the recertification process
more often.
Households that have difficulty getting complete monthly reports into
the State agency under current deadlines would receive relief. The
State could not take any action against a household for failing to
submit a complete monthly report form until after the end of the month
following the month the report was first due.
Households would receive notices, as they do under current law, when
the State received no report, or an incomplete report, by the State's
normal reporting deadline. But instead of suspending the household's
food stamps, this notice would merely advise the household what it
needed to do to comply and that further delays could result in a
suspension of benefits.
Household food stamps could only be suspended for failure to report
if the household failed to submit a complete report by the end of the
month following the month the report was due. The purpose of this grace
period is to provide ample opportunity to resolve misunderstandings and
ensure that households do not suffer when their reports are lost in the
mail, when they unintentionally submit incomplete reports, or when
households have difficulty getting to a location where they can mail
their reports.
Nothing in this legislation, of course, would prevent States from
taking action based on eligibility factors contained in monthly report
forms when they arrive. The grace period is only to prevent
interruptions in benefits for administrative, as opposed to
substantive, reasons. It also should be noted that the household can
have its benefits suspended if it refuses to supplement an incomplete
report form by the end of the grace period. Households that do not
submit reports by the end of the grace period would have their benefits
suspended. Households submitting complete monthly reports by the end of
the month following the grace period would have their benefits
reinstated as long as they remain eligible for the program.
Additionally, this legislation anticipates regulations from the
Department of Agriculture which will ensure that a State will not be
adversely affected in regard to its quality control efforts related to
those households whose monthly reports are not submitted until a month
after the report is due. It would be unfair to States for them to be
penalized regarding this special continuation of benefit provision. I
intend to work closely with the Department on these regulations to make
sure the rules are designed in a manner that is fair to States and to
make sure States are able to document any issues that may arise due to
this policy.
Of course, States would continue to be bound by existing statutory
and regulatory protections, including those for the elderly and
disabled and those with physical or mental handicaps or limited
literacy in English.
On the question of staggered issuance, we replaced the blanket
requirement that all issuances be staggered on reservations for 1 month
with a more flexible system. States would only be required to stagger
on reservations if requested to do so by a tribe, and could not be
required to stagger issuances over more than 15 days. A State could
decide to stagger issuances on its own for the entire month. Existing
requirements concerning mail issuances would be continued.
Finally, title I provides for an extensive study of the feasibility
of having tribes administer the Food Stamp Program on their own
reservations. A limited option for tribal administration was included
in the Food Stamp Act of 1977, but some tribes have complained that it
is not workable. The program has changed in many ways over the last 17
years. We are open to considering changes in the rules on tribal
administration of the program but feel the need of information on a
range of significant issues before deciding on the most appropriate
course of action. The deadline for this report ensures that Congress
will have ample time to develop implementing legislation to be included
in the 1995 farm bill.
Title II of this bill would revise the Food Stamp Act's definition of
retail food store and establish a definition for staple foods as
requested by USDA.
The changes in title II are contained in a bill passed by the other
body and are supported by the administration. The Senate version adds
additional antifraud provisions.
The title II changes help maintain access to a wide variety of
nutritious foods to food stamp recipients by continuing the
participation of certain retail food stores. The administration has
recommended the changes necessary to allow the continued participation
of the retail concerns.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today legislation
that will resolve several long-standing problems involving the Food
Stamp Program. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, chairman of
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for cosponsoring
this legislation. I also want to thank Senators Leahy, Lugar, Inouye,
and McCain for their assistance in bringing this bill to the floor.
The first issue is the method and timetable for issuing food stamp
benefits on Indian reservations. Both administrators of the Food Stamp
Program and recipients living on reservations have questioned whether
existing food stamp rules provide the most accessible and efficient
means of providing food stamp benefits to reservation residents. In the
1990 farm bill, legislation was passed which attempted to resolve these
concerns. Because of the legislation's administrative complexity, at my
urging Congress has twice postponed its implementation pending
agreement on a better alternative.
After a joint committee hearing and many hours of dedicated review
and discussion, I am pleased the Senate Committees on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, and Indian Affairs, food stamp administrators,
and native American representatives have reached a compromise on new
legislation.
This legislation allows States using a monthly reporting method to
track household changes to continue to use this system for reservation
households, but only if more flexible compliance requirements are
instituted. States will be required to provide uninterrupted and full
monthly benefits to households as long as recipients submit complete
reports within a month of the due date. Further, monthly reporting
households on Indian reservations will generally be required to come in
to food stamp offices for in-person interviews only once every 2 years,
thus reducing the need to find expensive transportation to these
offices.
The bill provides another option for food stamp issuance, should a
tribe so choose. If a tribe requests a State to stagger issuance of
benefits--that is, send them out over multiple days each month, rather
than all on the same day--State administrators must do so upon request
and stagger the benefits over at least 15 days.
Finally, my legislation requires the General Accounting Office to
study the feasibility of having interested tribal governments
administer the Food Stamp Program for recipients living on reservation
lands. I am pleased we are reviewing this issue.
Title II of my legislation, similar to H.R. 3436 which passed the
other body, changes the definition of retail stores to ensure continued
participation by certain retail food stores. The new language will also
enable the Department of Agriculture to remove from participation party
stores and certain other types of stores that are not true food
concerns. Title II also contains provisions designed to strengthen the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's ability to combat fraud in the Food
Stamp Program.
Mr. President, I would like to thank the staff of both committees--in
particular, Eric Eberhand and Rob Taylor of Senator McCain's staff,
Patricia Zell and Patricia Trudell Gordon of Senator Inouye's staff on
the Committee on Indian Affairs; Ed Barron and Doug O'Brien of Senator
Leahy's staff and Stacy Hoffhaus of Senator Lugar's staff on the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. I would also extend
my special thanks to Julie Osnes, president of the State Food Stamp
Directors Association and a 15-year veteran as the Food Stamp Program
Director in my home State of South Dakota, and C. Larry Goolsby from
the American Public Welfare Association.
Mr. President, I understand this has been cleared on both sides of
the aisle, and therefore, urge its immediate adoption. It is my hope
the House of Representatives will act expeditiously on this legislation
and send it to the President for signature immediately.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to ask if the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Senator Leahy, would yield for some questions regarding the Food Stamp
Program Improvements Act of 1994?
Mr. LEAHY. I would be pleased to yield to my good friend, the
chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, for any questions he may
have on this legislation. Our two committees have worked together to
bring this legislation to the full Senate and I appreciate Chairman
Inouye's assistance in shaping a compromise which is acceptable to both
committees.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry. I also appreciate the excellent working
relationship which has been established between our two committees and
the willingness of the Senator from Vermont to work with the members of
the Committee on Indian Affairs on issues of concern to Indian tribal
governments.
With regard to the legislation which is now before us, I would like
to direct Chairman Leahy's attention to the language in what will
become the new section 6(c)(1)(C)(iv) of the Food Stamp Act. This new
provision of the act will require a State to use a 2-year period for
certification of food stamp recipients residing on reservations if the
State requires monthly reporting for those households. This provision
also authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to allow for a shorter
certification period if a State demonstrates just cause to the
Secretary. It is my understanding that the intent of the Committee on
Agriculture is that the Secretary would only exercise his discretion to
allow a shorter period after he has consulted with the appropriate
tribal government and when extraordinary circumstances exist. Such
circumstances would include widespread fraud, a substantial change in
circumstances on a reservation which results in wide fluctuations in
income for large numbers of food stamp recipients or similar changes
which require more frequent certification to protect the financial
integrity of the Food Stamp Program and to maintain the lowest
practicable error rates. I ask the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee if my understanding is correct?
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is correct. This provision only applies in the
situation where a State is requiring monthly reports from food stamp
recipients. With monthly reporting, frequent certification should not
be necessary and adequate safeguards should be in place to ensure the
financial integrity of the Food Stamp Program. Certification can be a
time consuming and burdensome process and should not be required where
adequate safeguards are in place in the form of monthly reporting. We
would expect the Secretary to very carefully scrutinize any request to
shorten the certification period and to determine that a shorter period
is both necessary and that it will correct a specific problem which
cannot be solved through monthly reporting. I would add that the
committee expects the Department of Agriculture to provide adequate
assurance in regulations that the provisions relating to monthly
reporting will not adversely affect the quality control error rates of
the States as it relates to this provision. And of course, nothing in
this bill should be construed as limiting a State's ability to reclaim
overissued benefits or issue additional benefits for under issuances as
determined by a monthly report. I would like to add that in reference
to the term ``report'' in this legislation, the term means a complete
report. Is this also the understanding of the distinguished Chairman?
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman. Yes, that is my understanding of
this legislation. I have another question as it relates to the
provisions in this legislation which require the General Accounting
Office to conduct a study of the feasibility and desirability of
providing Indian tribal governments with the authority to administer
the Food Stamp Program on the reservations. As the Senator from Vermont
knows, the Food Stamp Program is one of the very few Federal programs
which Indian tribal governments do not directly administer. It has been
Federal policy for the last 20 years to encourage Indian tribal
governments to enter into contracts to assume the administration of
most Federal programs. Indeed, current food stamp law permits the
Secretary to contract with an Indian tribal government to administer
the program in certain circumstances. Some representatives of Indian
tribal governments have questioned the need for the study provided for
in this legislation and whether the Senate will actually consider this
issue further after the study is completed. Such skepticism is
certainly understandable in light of the history of prior studies of
Federal/tribal relations. It is my understanding that the Committee on
Agriculture fully expects that this study will provide the information
necessary for a thorough analysis of the barriers to administration of
the Food Stamp Program by tribal governments and suggest appropriate
ways to remove those barriers. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is correct. Under current law, an Indian
tribal government must show that a State has failed to properly
administer the program before the Secretary can enter into a contract
with a tribal government. Apparently this has never been done. Even if
it had been done, we question the soundness of a policy which requires
an Indian tribal government to prove that a State has failed at
something before the tribal government has an opportunity to administer
the program. However, we do believe some caution is required in this
situation. We lack reliable information on the administrative costs
involved. We need to carefully assess the issue of how penalties for
excessive error rates would apply. We need to consider the criteria, if
any, which the Secretary should use to determine capability to
administer the program. These are a few of the issues which the
Committee on Agriculture would like to examine. However, I want to
assure the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs that the
Committee on Agriculture fully intends to examine this issue as part of
the 1995 farm bill and to do so mindful of Federal policies of self-
determination and self-governance by Indian Affairs as we consider this
issue and any legislation which may arise to address it.
Mr. INOUYE. Again, I thank the chairman. My final question relates to
whether the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture would be willing
to join with me to request that the Office of Technology Assessment
also examine the barriers to administration of the Food Stamp Program
by Indian trial governments? Having an additional perspective should be
helpful to both of our committees.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend for that suggestion. I would be pleased
to join the chairman of Committee on Indian Affairs in making such a
request to the Office of Technology Assessment.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friend and I look forward to continuing our
work together to address these issues which are of such great concern
to Indian tribal governments and the citizens they serve.
____________________