[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.

                          ____________________