households with incomes, less taxes and the standard deduction, above the poverty line, which was $421 for a family of four on a monthly basis in 1975, would be eligible. The President's proposal would tighten up the work requirement by disqualifying individuals for voluntarily leaving a job, unless the household of which that person is a member was eligible for food stamps during the period of his employment. The President proposes that income eligibility should be based on an applicant's actual average income during the previous 90 days. This retroactive income test would reduce the number of persons who use the program as a form of short term relief. Households would also be required to report back to issuing offices more frequently for recertification, thus reducing the amount of program error stemming from failure to report reemployment. Last, administrative procedures to police and enforce the regulations and accountability need to be strengthened by a system that penalizes states for maladministration, poor quality control, loss of funds or failure to implement a satisfactory compliance and enforcement program. The Administration's proposed amendments would give the Department of Agriculture greater authority to ensure that more efficient and effective administration procedures are implemented at the state level. These include: (1) Authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to request an injunction against a State that fails to implement corrective action as recommended by the Department of Agriculture; (2) authority for the Department of Agriculture to order a halt to stamp issuance in those areas where corrective procedures are not implemented; (3) authority to increase the Federal share of administrative costs from 50 to 75 percent for those State agency costs that are associated with fraud investigation and prosecution, and (4) authority to require State agencies to issue photo-identification cards to all households certified for the food stamp program. It is the Administration's estimate that this package of reforms will reduce the cost of the program by $1.2 billion. Unless we now adopt the necessary reforms to make the Food Stamp Program fairer, more efficient, and of benefit to those who are truly in need, we risk losing public support for the entire program. Our taxpaying citizens are signalling that they will not stand for continued abuse. LONGER TERM REFORM For the longer term, I have personally favored a broad income maintenance system as an appropriate way to meet our obligations to the poor and disadvantaged. A simple cash transfer program of some kind may ultimately be the most feasible way of doing this. We have a welfare system that has grown huge and unwieldy, that helps people who don't need it, that is full of overlaps and duplication. It is not doing what we hoped and wanted it to do. It needs rationalization and reform. The President has recognized this and the Domestic Council is studying options for reform. The Food Stamp Program should be seen in the same light. Is it operating to fulfill the purposes we intended for it? Or is it helping people whom we cannot afford to help? Has it grown so cumbersome and so abuse-prone that it is fast losing its base of public support? If so and if fewer funds are therefore available to help the really needy, the ones who get hurt are the poor themselves. Equally important is that when public opinion of this program is becoming so negative, its essential political support may be seriously undermined. Again, the poor are hurt most. So I suggest that we all turn our efforts to improving this program. Its benefits should be refocused. It should be trimmed in order to make it more efficient and in crder to restore a strong measure of public confidence in it. The Administration bill announced yesterday is an excellent beginning. I look forward to doing what I can in cooperation with the members of this Committee and other Members of the Senate and House to enact it. |