[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 133 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8940-H8946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2744, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by
direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
The motion was agreed to.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut moves that the managers on the
part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
2744, be instructed to:
1. Recede to the Senate on Section 785 of the Senate
amendment, and
2. Agree to a provision that restricts, within the scope of
conference, the availability of funds to reimburse
administrative costs under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to a
State agency based on the percentage of the costs (other than
costs for issuance of benefits or nutrition education)
obtained under contract.
{time} 1315
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Pursuant to clause 7 of rule
XXII, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this motion to instruct. This motion
will instruct House conferees for the fiscal year 2006 agricultural
appropriations bill to insist that none of the funds made available by
this or any other act be used to close or relocate a county or local
Farm Service Agency office until the Secretary of Agriculture has
determined the cost effectiveness of such closures.
It would also set a limit on the funds available for States to
contract out work being carried out under the Food Stamp Act of 1977.
I want to first say that it has been a pleasure working with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his talented staff to put
together the fiscal year 2006 agricultural appropriations bill, doing
the best we could with very limited resources.
Under the circumstances, it is a bill that I was proud of, my first
as ranking minority member of this subcommittee. I also want to thank
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues to offer a motion that would
in essence codify the decision announced yesterday by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to shelve its so-called FSA Tomorrow Plan, a
plan that would have closed 713 of the Farm Service Agency's 2,351
offices across America, including two in my State of Connecticut. Had
the plan gone into effect, more than a quarter of FSA's total field
offices would have closed at a
[[Page H8941]]
time when rural America is battling drought, the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, and skyrocketing energy costs, all leading to what has been a
steady deterioration of its economic base.
For those unfamiliar with FSA, the Farm Service Agency administers 45
different programs designed to meet the demands of our increasingly
diverse agricultural landscape. It provides critical services to
America's farmer, services such as assistance to specialty crop
producers, disbursal of payments for programs such as the tobacco and
peanut buyout, and the handling of disaster assistance payments.
But perhaps more importantly, FSA offices provide that critical link
between the farmer and the Federal Government. In that respect, FSA
still retains its roots in FDR's New Deal which established that the
Federal Government had an appropriate role to play in ensuring a
healthy rural economy, a critical component to managing the national
economy.
Over the years, the agency that became the FSA managed programs such
as the standard Rural Rehabilitation Loan Program, which provided
credit, farm, home management planning and technical supervision to
farms. It helped farmers and their debtors arbitrate agreements and
head off foreclosure. Indeed, FSA's focus has changed as the need has.
After Pearl Harbor the War Food Administration was organized to meet
the increased needs of a country at war. And in 1994 USDA reorganized
what is now the Farm Service Agency, which included the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, the Risk Management Agency, and
the Farm Credit portion of the Farmers Home Administration.
In recent years, FSA has become part of USDA's one-stop concept, a
clearinghouse for the delivery for farm programs, where farmers can go
for programs that help them stabilize farm income, conserve land and
water resources, provide credit to new or disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers, and help farm operations recover from the effects of
disaster.
In recent months, however, USDA was planning what was called FSA
Tomorrow, which ostensibly was designed to provide better staff, better
equipped and trained offices to improve flexibility and efficiency and
to modernize technology. These were all laudable goals, despite real
challenges posed by that digital divide and lack of Internet access in
rural America.
But central to FSA Tomorrow was its proposal to close over 700 FSA
offices. The effect would have been clear and immediate, making it more
difficult for producers to participate in USDA programs. Closing these
offices would have fragmented the one-stop concept, forcing many
farmers to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest FSA office where some
of the closings are occurring in areas with an already high
concentration of underserved minority and small-operation farms.
This was all happening at a time when FSA services were as critical
as ever in modern memory. Even before Katrina there was extensive work
going on for hurricane and flood relief for the Southeast and mid-
South, as well as work around drought problem in the Midwest; and we
know the havoc Katrina wrecked on the gulf coast.
What was most worrisome about the FSA Tomorrow Plan was its
formulation by USDA without any cost analysis to show why it was
necessary, nor was there any input from Congress. Thankfully, in the
wake of Senate action, USDA announced yesterday that it would set aside
FSA Tomorrow and its timetable for implementation.
As such, we offer this motion today to codify that decision,
protecting Congress' jurisdiction in the formulation of policy so vital
to American farmers' interest. We all support improving FSA efficiency,
streamlining the program so that our farmers can get the best services
possible. But I think yesterday's decision confirmed that ensuring FSA
field offices remain open and within reach of our farmers is a critical
piece of making that happen.
Mr. Speaker, the second component of this motion would instruct
conferees to limit the availability of food stamp funds that can be
contracted out by States. Specifically, such language would prohibit a
State agency from using Federal funds if they privatize a certain
percentage of their food stamp program operations.
What this is about is ensuring the integrity of the Food Stamp
Program, which, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most effective, well-run
Federal programs that we have. If you have any doubt about that, I
point you to the program's remarkable response to Hurricane Katrina.
Today, in Louisiana nearly 300,000 households are already receiving
food stamps. In Texas there are another 125,000 households receiving
emergency food stamp assistance. Altogether, nearly a million citizens
affected or displaced by Hurricane Katrina, children, seniors, are
receiving emergency food stamp benefits, 25 million Americans in all,
reminding us once again that good and decent societies take care of
their most vulnerable.
But as we speak, at least one State is planning on delegating an
unprecedented billion dollar privatization contract. Texas is hoping to
delegate certification and enrollment of recipients for food stamps to
a private firm, Accenture, LLP. Its plan is disturbing, to say the
least, as its Health and Human Services Department would lay off at
least 1,200 stamp workers, closing more than a third of State-run
eligibility offices around the State, 99 in all. Texas is planning to
replace staff at low hourly rates.
The responsibility for screening applicants, filling out web-based
forms and driving clients to the remaining offices for certification,
that would fall to community organizations. Much like with farmers in
the proposed FSA office closing, clients, including their children,
seniors and many who do not speak English, would be forced to travel
long distances for these services.
There are a host of problems with the Texas plan. For one, it appears
illegal, conflicting with Federal statutes governing the Food Stamp
Program, which requires States to seek a waiver from the USDA.
In a letter to the ranking member on the Senate side, the USDA said
the following: We do not have enough information to ascertain whether
or not Texas' proposal is in compliance with the act in regard to the
certification of recipients. States are required to seek a waiver from
the USDA, and Texas sought no such waiver. Indeed, USDA has raised
questions directly to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission
for over a year, asking it for information demonstrating this contract
is in compliance with Federal law, and has received no real response.
Secondly, there are several worrisome conflicts of interest. The
Houston Chronicle reports that the HHS Chief Information Officer
involved in contract negotiation was once an employee of a firm that
partnered with Accenture. Additionally, the former HHS Deputy
Commissioner who helped develop the bidding procedures subsequently
went to work for Accenture.
What makes this so unfortunate is that it is so unnecessary. The Food
Stamp Program right now is operating with the lowest error rate it has
ever had, the result of years of work by USDA and by State and local
employees all over the country. Texas itself has a very well-operated
program. Why take the risk that a well-run program will, even with the
best intentions, be put at risk?
Let me just say, of all the companies with which the government can
do business with, I have serious concerns about the company that has
been awarded this particular food stamp contract. Accenture is a
corporate expatriate, a company that has set up paper offices overseas
to avoid paying American taxes, yet comes back to feed at the Federal
trough by way of government contracts when it is convenient.
One need only to look at the Department of Homeland Security's $10
billion US-VISIT Program which Accenture oversees to understand such
concerns. That contract is over budget, behind schedule, and falling
well short of its goals.
Mr. Speaker, this is not simply about an isolated issue in Texas. The
taxpayers all over the country pay half of the costs of running the
Food Stamp Program. We have an obligation to ensure that that program
is run effectively and efficiently and in compliance with the law.
Moreover, before other States go down the same path as Texas, we need
to be sure we understand what the implications are first.
[[Page H8942]]
That is what this motion would accomplish. Protecting vital services
and benefits offered through the Food Stamp Program is something all of
us share, which is why we need to ensure that those charged with
administering and carrying out these programs are by and large public
employees. They are the ones with the expertise. They are the ones with
the experience on the front lines. And, Mr. Speaker, they were the ones
who made it possible for the victims of Hurricane Katrina to put food
on the table, who showed us that even in the face of all those failings
of leadership government can make a difference in people's lives.
Making sure that continues is what this motion accomplishes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion but first I would
like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a pleasure to work with my ranking
member from Connecticut, a person who comes to work every day wanting
to see some serious work done and a colleague who has always been very
direct about what she wants to accomplish even when we do have
disagreements.
On this particular motion I do agree with a portion, in the principle
of what the FSA portion says in this motion. The gentlewoman is correct
the Department of Agriculture went about there the wrong way in terms
of trying to select offices around the country without any input,
without any input from the House or the Senate or, if they did choose
to listen to input, completely ignored what we had to say.
When I had conversations with those in charge at USDA, I pointed out
initially that if there are going to be cuts, we understand that cuts
need to be made. Everybody understands that, but we wanted to make sure
that if cuts were made and designated positions were listed that they
had to have an equal number of positions here at USDA, at the big
conglomerate that we have here in Washington.
{time} 1330
Do not just cut the field staff that serves farmers and ranchers
around the country; but, again, let us make it fair and let us talk
about it. First and foremost, we wanted to talk about it openly and
have input because we are the legislative body that has oversight on
what the executive branch does.
So I do agree with what the gentlewoman has to say. However, the
administration has already acknowledged and listened to these remarks
that many of us have made in the House and Senate and has chosen to
backtrack and withdraw the list of proposed cuts, offices to be closed
that was put out just a few days ago.
On the other part of the motion, I would differ greatly with the
gentlewoman from Connecticut on the food stamp outsourcing, because as
the gentlewoman understands, I support the food stamp program
wholeheartedly and it has been historically supported wholeheartedly in
a bipartisan way. We have never run short on the program, and everyone
who needs to take part in this program has always had a meal and had
the food products they needed in their homes regardless of where they
live or their ethnic background or what part of the country they come
from. But this language, in my view, would tie the hands of some States
that are implementing the program and distributing the benefits
effectively, including my home State of Texas. But this motion to
instruct would also encompass Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and
California.
Now, in terms of outsourcing, it is my very strong belief that if a
State is administering the program effectively and they have no
outsourcing, that is wonderful. That is fine. But if another State
decides, as we do in the State of Texas do it, and I believe the
statistic now is about 14 percent of the program is now outsourced, and
it works well, then we ought to be allowed to do that. So all I am
saying is that the language in this motion to recommit would
inappropriately indicate that Congress does not feel like the States
ought to be able to administer this program the way they see fit in
their community to effectively get the product to the people truly in
need. So that is my reason for opposing this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the motion to
instruct the conferees regarding the USDA spending bill offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut has been a diligent advocate for the Nation's farmers
during her first year as ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug of the Committee on
Appropriations, and I am proud to have watched her work successfully on
behalf of the agricultural interests of my home State of Missouri.
Mr. Speaker, this motion asks the conferees to recede to the Senate
language that stops the United States Department of Agriculture from
going forward with its plans to close the Farm Service Agency offices,
an initiative they call FSA Tomorrow, during fiscal year 2006.
Now, while I join most of my colleagues from rural America in
applauding the USDA for backing away from this proposal yesterday,
Congress must make it crystal clear that the administration's plan is
bad, bad for farmers, and that we will not fund FSA office-closings
whatsoever. This is especially true since there has been nothing
written in the law to prevent USDA from having a sudden change of heart
and within the next 12 months closing the offices.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is really meant to do two things: it is
meant to rein in bureaucratic arrogance on the part of USDA, and it is
meant to rein in bureaucratic arrogance on the part of the State
government of Texas. With respect to USDA, this motion would prevent
the arbitrary and secret closing of almost one-third of Farm Service
Agencies around the country.
In the agriculture appropriation subcommittee hearing this year, the
subcommittee chairman asked the USDA witnesses if their budget was
based in any way on an assumption that there would be a closure of
Agriculture Department offices. The agency responded in the negative.
And yet The Washington Post has now revealed in a September article
that FSA had plans afoot to close 713 Farm Service Agencies around the
country. When that was discovered, the Agriculture Department
indicated, ``Oh, this was just a draft. It was just a draft.'' But in
fact USDA had pulled all 50 State FSA directors into Washington to give
them instructions about how to go about selecting which offices would
be closed.
So it seems to me that USDA was disingenuous in their response to the
Congress of the United States and that any self-respecting Congress
would pull that agency's chain until we get straight answers to
straight questions.
The second issue that this motion deals with is the question of
whether or not Texas ought to be able to go off on its own, in
violation of Federal law, by privatizing the administration of the food
stamp program.
In June of 2004, Texas asked USDA to approve their request to
privatize the administration of that program. The USDA sent them
numerous letters requesting information that would enable USDA to
determine whether or not the plan that Texas was providing was rational
or not and whether it was consistent with law or not; and Texas has,
frankly, stiffed the agency.
If you take a look at the letters sent by the agencies, you will see
for instance that in a letter from USDA to Senator Harkin, USDA said:
``We do not yet have enough information to ascertain whether or not
Texas's proposal is in compliance with the act in regard to the
certification of recipients.'' It also then went on to say: ``We are
concerned with the State's aggressive schedule for rolling out this
project, especially with regard to contingency planning.''
In another letter from USDA to the Texas Health and Human Services
Commission, USDA stated: ``FMS needs to have clear and coherent
narrative explanations of the food stamp certification process that are
grounded
[[Page H8943]]
in the contract and its supporting documents.'' USDA then went on to
tell Texas: ``We must ensure that your new system is in full compliance
with food stamp rules, regulations, and policy and that service to our
program clients is not compromised.''
Nonetheless, despite that, the Texas State government has yet to
respond and provide the kind of information that is needed by USDA if
USDA is to consider approval of their plan.
The problem with the Texas plan is that while recipients are
guaranteed under the law that they will have an opportunity to have
their eligibility determined by a State employee, in fact, what Texas
is trying to do is to circumvent Federal law and allow eligibility to
be determined by a private party. The problem with that is that if you
have a public servant who denies you a right, you are entitled under
the law and you have a somewhat more direct redress than you do if you
have a private citizen working for a private company who has no long-
term commitment to the government and who can simply stiff the
recipients and does not have to answer questions from the government.
The government is supposed to be active in protecting the rights of
each and every individual citizen of this country. Texas is interposing
itself to prevent that right from actually being delivered; and in the
process, in my view, Texas is clearly in violation of the law because
they have proceeded with a plan that has not yet been approved by USDA.
Again, any self-respecting Congress, in defense of what is existing
law, would pass this motion so that Texas cannot unilaterally obviate
State law.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentlewoman for her very
important motion to instruct. It is a motion to instruct that is
designed to prevent an ideological experiment being conducted on some
of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is about what has gone
wrong in Texas, but it is much more than that because we are about to
have a very bad precedent established that will spread across this
country affecting the old, the poor, the hungry, the victims of
Katrina, and the victims who are left behind.
As all the Nation saw in the disaster that was the Federal response
to Katrina, a hurricane is not the only time that working poor people
in this country get left behind. The Texas experiment on poor people
suggests that the answer to food security that food stamps provide is
to close one out of every four offices that people go to to assess
their food stamp needs, to fire a significant number of public
employees who have expertise in this area, and to suggest to old and
poor and hungry people that what they need to do instead of turning to
a public servant is to log on the Internet.
Yes, that is actually what the State of Texas is suggesting. And they
offer to these poor people, not all of whom are literate in English or
Spanish much less literate in the language of e-commerce, they offer
them an alternative, which is the one that so many American families
have faced, to dial in and be put on hold, much as the victims of
Katrina were put on hold. You punch in a number and then you get
referred to another number and you get to wait and wait and wait; and
maybe eventually this company, Accenture, which chose to establish its
base not in America but in Bermuda so it could dodge as much of its tax
responsibility as it possibly could, that this company will substitute
for a face-to-face evaluation.
I represent the poorest county in the United States, Starr County,
Texas, the poorest statistical metropolitan area, McAllen-Mission; and
a lot of people along the way through the Mesquite trees up to Austin,
Texans, who depend on food stamps for enough nourishment to get their
kids to school, or to be able to survive as a senior. These folks are
going to be directly affected.
Currently, they are able to go in, and certainly along the border
area if they feel more comfortable in Spanish, to talk face-to-face
with someone who has expertise in this area, to talk with them and have
that experienced public servant assess what their needs are and ensure
that taxpayers are protected, and that there is not fraud, and ensure
that their needs are fully satisfied.
Now those folks in Hebbronville, San Diego, George West, and Lockhart
are being told go to the Internet or go to some long-distance number
because you will no longer be able to assess your needs on the local
level. And in McAllen, Mission, and Austin, staff will be cut by 50
percent.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by 10 of my Texas
colleagues in questioning this scheme and raising questions to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. And I will provide for the Record a report
from the Center on Public Policy Priorities in Austin, an excellent
report, under its director, Judge F. Scott McCown, and with the able
participation of Celia C. Hagert, analyzing this, as well as an
editorial that is on point in today's Houston Chronicle.
[From the Houston Chronicle, Oct. 19, 2005]
An Untested Plan
Texas Health and Human Services officials continue to
discuss with their federal counterparts at the Department of
Agriculture an unprecedented billion dollar welfare
privatization contract. It delegates certification and
enrollment of recipients for programs including food stamps,
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program known as
CHIP to a private firm, Accenture LLP.
There are a number of troubling features in this deal that
justify delaying its implementation while it is tested on a
small scale around the state.
The pact allows Accenture to set up a handful of calling
centers in Texas where operators would help applicants
navigate the federal and state aid bureaucracy. Meanwhile,
Texas Health and Human Services will lay off thousands of
food stamp workers and close more than a quarter of state-run
eligibility offices around the state. In their place,
Accenture plans to hire staff at low hourly rates while
depending on community organizations for volunteers to screen
applicants, fill out Web-based forms and drive clients to the
remaining offices for certification.
Six Texas Democratic members of Congress have written Eric
Bost, U.S. undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer
services, to express concerns. They point out that closing
state offices would require longer travel distances for
clients, primarily the elderly, children and the working
poor, many of whom do not speak English. They charge that the
expectation of a million hours of volunteer service to make
the plan work is unrealistic and ``would place an
unacceptable and perhaps impossible burden on these
organizations, many of whom are volunteer-run themselves.''
According to the lawmakers, including Chet Edwards of Waco,
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, and Lloyd Doggett of Austin,
the current plan to launch the new system statewide in 11
months ``is a reckless timetable that does not allow time to
test or evaluate the new technology or its impact on food
stamp recipients.''
The U.S. Senate already has banned such mass privatizations
of food stamp programs. Similar legislation is pending in the
House. Texas stands to lose federal food assistance funding
if it goes forward with the Accenture contract and the
privatization prohibition becomes law.
The issue of conflict of interest by state officials in the
awarding of the contract has been raised in the past year in
Houston Chronicle reports. The HHS chief information officer
involved in pre-award negotiations was a former employee of a
firm partnering with Accenture, and the former HHS deputy
commissioner who helped develop the bidding procedures
subsequently went to work for Accenture. IBM, which also
sought the contract, has sued the state agency alleging bias
in the awarding of the pact.
The Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities is
urging Texas lawmakers to support a pilot program to test the
Accenture system before putting it into effect statewide. As
staffer Celia Hagert points out, the issue involves access to
life supporting benefits for the most vulnerable Texans and
is particularly important for Harris County where 13 percent
of Texas food stamp recipients reside.
There are plenty of unanswered questions about the awarding
of the Accenture contract and its feasibility to justify a
delay in implementing this radical revamping of the way Texas
administers social services. Nothing is put at risk by
testing the company's ability to adequately fulfill its
contract on a small scale. There's plenty to be lost in
liquidating a state-run system that has worked well in the
past and in potentially imperiling the health and welfare of
tens of thousands of people.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 2, 2005.
Re Texas's misguided plan to privatize the eligibility
determination process for the Food Stamp Program.
Eric M. Bost,
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services,
Department of Agriculture, Alexandria, VA.
Dear Secretary Bost: We are writing to express our deep
concerns about the State of
[[Page H8944]]
Texas's efforts to privatize the eligibility determination
process for the Food Stamp Program. As Members of Congress
from Texas, we are apprehensive about the impact the State's
proposal could have on low-income Texans who rely on this
assistance, as well as the precedent this effort sets for
such practices to be adopted throughout the Nation.
Texas proposes to replace half of the State's eligibility
workers with privately contracted employees at four call
centers. The State would close 99 of its 380 eligibility
offices, which would mean longer travel distances for many
clients, most of whom would still be required to go to an
office to complete their application and be finger-imaged.
The State has called on community- and faith-based
organizations to donate over one million volunteer hours to
assist clients in navigating the more automated system to
make up for reductions in the State workforce. This would
place an unacceptable and perhaps impossible burden on these
organizations, many of which are volunteer-run themselves.
We believe that privatizing the Food Stamp Program offers
little advantage and may put our most vulnerable citizens at
risk. We are deeply concerned about the impact the proposal
could have on hard-to-reach populations, in particular
children, people with disabilities, and seniors seeking food
assistance who may have trouble with the more automated
approach to enrollment.
No state has ever privatized the determination of
eligibility for Food Stamps, and the wisdom of abandoning the
collective knowledge and experience of so my current
eligibility workers is uncertain at best. It is impossible to
estimate the number of eligible persons likely to lose Food
Stamp benefits as they lose access to local offices and face-
to-face interviews. Therefore, we are very concerned about
the enormous consequences of this proposal. There are still
many unanswered questions about the impact of such an
approach on the Food Stamp program.
We know of no plan to evaluate this new approach even
though the State has already signed a five-year contract that
calls for an 11-month statewide rollout. We believe this is a
reckless timetable that does not allow enough time to test or
evaluate the new technology or its impact on Food Stamp
recipients. A more thoughtful approach would be to test the
system in one area for 12 months, followed by an independent
evaluation. Since the contract was signed before the Food and
Nutrition Service reviewed and granted approval for the plan,
we urge you to adopt this more thoughtful approach as a
condition of continuing receipt of federal funds.
We urge you to require the State to submit a request for a
waiver of the Food Stamp law related to merit system
employees conducting eligibility determinations. Should the
United States Department of Agriculture decide to approve
such a waiver, we urge you, at a minimum, to require Texas to
pilot test the new system in a limited geographic environment
for at least 12 months and to engage an independent entity to
produce a formal evaluation of the pilot program before the
program is permitted to expand. The geographic areas selected
should be representative of Texas's diverse ethnic and
linguistic population, and should encompass rural areas to
determine the challenges rural residents will face in a
system with such drastically reduced local services.
Should you decide to grant such a waiver, we request that
you not do so before a detailed background briefing for our
offices and a public hearing before Congress. The public
needs to understand the implications of privatizing such a
critical and basic part of the Food Stamp Programs.
We appreciate your attention to this important matter and
request that you contact us regarding the actions you plan to
take in this matter. Should you have any questions or
concerns regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Hon. Lloyd Doggett, Hon. Henry Cuellar, Hon. Ruben
Hinojosa, Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Hon. Al Green, Hon
Silvestre Reyes, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hon.
Charles Gonzalez, Hon. Chet Edwards, Hon. Solomon
Ortiz, Hon. Gene Green.
____
[From the Policy Page, July 7, 2005]
HHSC Awards Call Center Contract
On June 30, the Health and Human Services Commission
announced a 5-year, $899 million contract with Accenture, LLP
to revamp and take over operation of the state's eligibility
and enrollment systems for Medicaid, CHIP, Food Stamps, and
TANF cash assistance. The contract includes maintenance of
TIERS (the computer system that will support eligibility
determination) and an enrollment broker program for Medicaid
managed care and CHIP clients. The contract is the latest
development in the state's plans to move to a more automated
system for enrolling people in these benefits and will lead
to the use of four call centers and an Internet application,
with fewer eligibility staff and local offices. Many
important details about the contract and the new system have
not been released yet, including the location of office
closures, whether necessary federal approvals have been
granted, and the timeline for employee lay-offs and call
center implementation. This Policy Page shares what we know
so far about these latest developments in the state's plans
to use private call centers to enroll people in public
benefits.
Nuts and Bolts: Four call centers will be established to
help people apply for and recertify for public benefits.
Staffed primarily by Accenture employees, the call centers
will be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday,
with the ability for callers to leave a recorded message
after hours. The 2-1-1 system, the state's information and
referral network for social services, will be the portal to
the call centers. One call center will be located in Austin,
where the CHIP call center is now (this call center's duties
will be folded into the new call center). The location of the
other three has not been announced, although San Antonio,
Tyler, and Odessa are rumored to be candidates.
In the new system people will be able to apply for benefits
over the Internet or via a call center, as well as to check
the status of their application through an automated phone
system. Some clients will still be required to appear in
person at a local office to complete their application. HHSC
staff have said previously that only those clients with a
finger imaging requirement (the majority of the 900,000
households on Food Stamps) will have to go to a local office.
In addition, clients who request an in-person interview with
a caseworker will be granted one. Emergency requests for Food
Stamps (state law requires benefits to be delivered within 24
hours) are expected to be processed at local offices, rather
than through the call center. The local workforce centers
that assist HHSC clients with employment services
(administered by the Texas Workforce Commission through a
system of locally run regional workforce development boards)
will still provide these services and monitor whether clients
are complying with program work requirements.
One hundred (100) offices will be closed, leaving 281 open.
HHSC had originally proposed closing 217 offices. An
announcement about office closures is expected this month.
Role of Community-Based Organizations: When the state's
plans to use call centers were first announced in March 2004,
HHSC proposed using 600 volunteers and relying on over one
million volunteer hours per year from nonprofit and faith-
based organizations, prompting an outcry from nonprofits
about their inability to take on this responsibility without
compensation.
Savings: With the contract announcement, HHSC also issued a
one-page summary of its cost comparison of the estimated
savings possible through a state-operated integrated
eligibility system versus a contracted system. HB 2292, the
2003 law that directed the state to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of using call centers, also required HHSC to
determine whether the state or a private company could offer
the greatest savings. HHSC's analysis claims that the
contracted system offers the state 8.6% more in savings, or
roughly $210 million over five years. The cost comparison
attributes 1.5% of these additional savings to the difference
in the cost of employee benefits under a contracted system.
The source of the remaining additional savings is not
identified in the summary.
The savings identified HHSC last week when the contract was
announced are higher than originally projected in the March
2004 business case, which claimed $389 million in savings. At
the same time, the total number of staff proposed for the new
system has risen from 3,377 (proposed in March 2004) to
5,398. There are other inconsistencies between last year's
business case analysis and the documents HHSC released last
week when the contract was announced, including differences
in the ``baseline'' budget (the cost if we stuck with the
current system) projections for 2006-2010. We anticipate HHSC
will release information shortly to clarify these
differences.
Staff Reductions: According to an HHSC presentation to
eligibility staff last month, the total number of staff in
the new system--including public and private employees--will
drop from 5,824 current employees (as of June 1, 2005) to
5,398. The schedule for laying off state workers and
achieving the overall reduction in force has not been
announced. Out of the 5,398 remaining staff, 2,500 jobs will
be held private call center employees, which means the same
number of state staff will lose their jobs (HHSC is committed
to finding these employees different jobs within the HHS
system; Accenture also has indicated a hiring preference at
the call centers for former state workers). In addition to
the private sector employees, there will be 2,898 state
staff: 298 will be assigned to the call centers, 1,800 to the
remaining field offices, 600 outstationed at hospitals and
clinics, and 200 assigned to traveling ``SWAT'' teams that
will respond to fluctuations in staffing needs throughout the
state.
The total number of workers in the new system will be 37%
higher than originally projected in HHSC's March 2004 cost-
effectiveness study, which proposed staffing the new system
with only 3,377 employees.
Although the proposed staffing levels are far higher than
originally anticipated, the number may still be inadequate to
deal with the growing workload in the system, even if the
improvements anticipated from better technology and a more
automated enrollment process are actually realized. Staff
reductions over the last eight years have caused
disruptions in services to clients and breaches in
customer service, resulting in lawsuits. These cuts were
made despite growing caseloads and workload and have badly
damaged the foundation for the current eligibility system.
Inadequate resources have been compounded by complicated
eligibility
[[Page H8945]]
rules that vary across programs, a hard-to-serve
clientele, and a constantly changing policy environment.
All told, the proposed renovation faces a great deal of
major repairs. While the new system may resolve some of
these shortcomings, no system, no matter how efficient or
modern, can make up for shortages in the workforce.
Timeline: The first call center is expected to begin
operations in Austin in November 2005, with remaining call
center operations and system changes phased in beginning in
January 2006. The statewide roll-out is estimated to be
complete by the end of 2006. This l4-month timeline may not
allow adequate time to test the new technology needed to
support the system or to assess clients' ability to grapple
with a more automated approach to enrollment. Although
pressure from the legislature--the final state budget for
2006-2007 assumed a reduction of more than 4,000 HHSC
eligibility staff--may be driving such an aggressive
timeline, a slower, more rational approach to such drastic
changes would produce a better system in the long run while
mitigating the risks of going too fast.
The Pros and Cons of Privatization: CPPP acknowledges that
private companies may offer innovations and savings the state
could not achieve on its own. However, although the
additiona1 15-year savings of $210 million achievable through
privatization (versus a state-run, revamped system) sounds
impressive, much of these projected additional savings are
likely the result of reductions in salary, health benefits,
and pension plans. To make room for these savings, thousands
of well-paying state jobs with family-supporting health,
vacation, and retirement benefits will be replaced with
lower-paying private sector jobs with fewer benefits. Most
notably, according to HHSC's presentation to eligibility
staff, Accenture will not contribute to dependent health
benefits such as the state does for its employees, opting
instead for a flexible spending account option that allows
employees to set aside their own pre-tax income to pay for
dependent health premiums and other out-of-pocket medical
costs. The loss of employer-sponsored dependent health
coverage may lead to an increase in need for publicly funded
health insurance--increasing these costs for the state--or
more uncompensated care that will be borne by local
governments and taxpayers. With privatization also comes
increased risk, which may outweigh the savings associated
with outsourcing.
Other Issues and Concerns: It is also unclear whether HHSC
has received the necessary approvals from the federal
agencies that administer these programs and share the cost of
the benefits they provide. These agencies will have to
approve the cost-reimbursement methodology in the contract,
the allocation of costs to the federal agencies that
administer these programs, and the decision to privatize the
eligibility system, which could require a waiver of federal
law that HHSC has not requested. Both the Federal Food Stamp
and Medicaid statutes require public employees to determine
eligibility for these benefits.
{time} 1345
Mr. Speaker, the idea of ensuring as much efficiency in this program,
as will all, is one that I applaud. But the way that the State of Texas
has gone about it is very troubling. Indeed, today's vote on this
motion to instruct is a vote for food security, a vote for health
security, and a vote against cronyism.
As noted in a series of reports that the Houston Chronicle undertook
on this proposal, and in today's editorial, the former Texas Health and
Human Services Deputy Commissioner who helped develop the bidding
procedures to close down these offices and substitute the Internet and
Accenture's telephone lines to who knows where then went to work for
Accenture, surprisingly enough. It sounds a lot like the cronyism in
Washington we have been hearing so much about lately. The situation was
so bad that IBM, International Business Machines, which also bid on
this contract, after this person set the procedures and then went off
to work for the people who were awarded the contract, has sued the
State of Texas alleging bias in the award.
My concern is that we not shift to an impersonal system that does not
meet the needs of poor people in our State and at the same time, as the
Houston Chronicle points out today, it is ``an unprecedented billion-
dollar privatization contract,'' that the taxpayers do not end up
losing even as the most vulnerable people in our society lose.
This privatization scheme relies not on experienced public servants,
but it will shift more of the burden to community volunteers, to
churches, and to local nonprofits. And while it is great to have those
people and organizations as part of our social safety network, they
cannot substitute for the experienced backup, as we found in the
Hurricane Katrina disaster, of a public safety net. That is what this
motion to instruct preserves.
Mr. Speaker, if you do not have access to the Internet, do not want
to be put on hold indefinitely to some unknown line across the world to
wherever Accenture locates its phone center, the only other alternative
is to get in the car and drive. We all know if we are going to have to
drive with all of the nearby offices closed to one far away, that also
because of the policies of this administration the price of gasoline
has gone out the roof.
I think as a practical matter, putting this scheme on hold, it is
clear that the administration, the response that I got only within the
last few days from an Under Secretary of Agriculture, indicating that
there were concerns with the speedy nature of the way the State had
gone about this proposal, concerned the Department of Agriculture. They
raised a number of questions. I think this is consistent with their
concerns to not rush into this.
In the event we are to move to such an insensitive system, it ought
to at least be market tested. No business--and we are always hearing
about the importance of running government as a business--would go off
with this kind of scheme if it were introducing a new product without
at least testing it. That is what we have been calling for. Before you
do an experiment on all of the poor and hungry people of Texas that
could spread across the country, at least do some limited testing on
that proposal and see if it works or it creates more cost to the
taxpayer and more pain to the hungry.
I believe that the editorial in today's Houston Chronicle sums up the
problems in talking about the difficulties of relying on a handful of
calling centers, closing more than a fourth of the State-run
eligibility offices, not allowing time to test or evaluate the new
technology or its actual impact on food stamp recipients, the conflict
of interest by State officials in awarding the contract, and the call
of the Center for Public Policy Priorities to support a pilot program.
I also find it indeed ironic, and I agree with the chairman on the
importance of not prematurely closing these Farm Service Agencies
because this is what this motion to instruct also is about. I represent
a number of those rural producer areas. If we are not going to close
those offices, why is it again that the poor people who are applying
for food stamps, that their offices get closed. That is what will
happen if this motion to instruct which has been ably worded by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is not adopted.
I hope my colleagues in a bipartisan way will join with the
expressions of concern from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and put
a stop to this until it is market tested and before this faulty
experiment is foisted off on both the taxpayer and the hungry people of
America.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla),
his opening comments and his conversations with USDA with regard to the
Farm Service Agency field offices, it sounds like we had very, very
similar conversations. I think we both agree, even in light of
yesterday's letter, it is good to trust but it is also good to verify.
With regard to the second portion of the motion to instruct with
which the chairman has concerns, I would say that the Food Stamp
Program is a Federal program. Fifty percent of the administrative costs
are Federal, 100 percent of the benefits are Federal. In our bill there
is $40 billion that we are about to appropriate for this program; and,
in fact, I think we cannot willy-nilly make changes in the program
without coming back to the Federal Government for waivers as such.
In closing, let me say this motion is the right thing to do. I would
repeat it is twofold, codifying USDA's decision yesterday to keep open
more than 700 FSA offices, returning jurisdiction of the issue to the
hands of Congress where it belongs, and ensuring that our food stamp
programs are not privatized.
With respect to FSA, I would repeat this motion is needed because
even though the FSA Tomorrow Plan has been shelved for the time being,
we are already hearing reports that USDA is contemplating reviving this
plan, perhaps under a new name, and Congress
[[Page H8946]]
needs to ensure that the people impacted most directly by this plan,
our farmers, have a say in how that modernization plan is carried out.
On the latter point with respect to food stamps, I would repeat, this
is not just a Texas issue. The Federal Government and taxpayers all
over the country pay half the cost of running the Food Stamp Program.
That means that we, the Congress, have an obligation to ensure that the
program is run effectively, efficiently and in compliance with the law.
The Food Stamp Program is operating with the lowest error rate it has
ever had, the results of years of work by USDA, State and local
employees, and bipartisan support from this institution. We do not want
to see a repeat of what happened in Colorado where the State spent
millions of Federal funds on a computer system that not only did not
work, but prevented thousands of needy people from getting government
benefits like food assistance and health insurance. Particularly with
many believing the State of Texas is counting on the White House to
override any efforts by USDA officials to rein in this plan, we know
Congress must address this issue and do it immediately.
In all these instances, we are reminded of the same thing, that
government has an obligation to people, whether it is ensuring our most
needy citizens receive food stamps or our farmers receive the services
they need to keep planting, harvesting, and selling crops. This is
about the Congress, this institution, its role in ensuring that the
American people tackle their toughest challenges together. That is our
responsibility to the American people, and fulfilling that obligation
is what this motion would accomplish.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________