The CHAIRMAN. And if he decides that he is getting what he needs free from the government, then the inclination persists that he need not make all that much effort.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. Yes, the people that I know.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that not right?

Dr. WEISSKOFF. Yes. The people I know, sir, say, "I am not going to take food stamps, but I am not going to work for that wage. I am going to go find something else."

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you travel around in exclusive circles, you do not harvest crops, you are an academician.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. În Puerto Rico I harvested a crop, yes, coffee and oranges. I sold them in Puerto Rico.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if confession is good for the soul, I have dug post holes.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. Maybe we should have dug post holes on the same farm.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator LEAHY. Could I follow up with a couple of quick questions?

I find your testimony, Doctor, to be fascinating, and should I ever have the time to do what I really wanted to do, to go down to a place like that and spend some time and find out why it is not agriculturally self-sufficient, or the Virgin Islands——

Senator PRYOR. I want to go with you.

Senator LEAHY. I would like to have you along with me. I really would.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. When shall we go?

Senator LEAHY. I think it would be fascinating.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. I would be very happy to accommodate you to this place.

Senator LEAHY. I come from a State where we have 10 months of winter and two months of poor sledding. So something the year around, it is an interesting thing. My wife tells me in our own farm in Vermont, there is a foot of snow. I throw that out for anyone paying attention to the ski reports.

Could Puerto Rico be food self-sufficient, could they raise all the food that they need on that island?

Now, I realize that this might limit some particular choices, but like the mainland, the United States is able to raise enough food to feed 228 million Americans and still export. Could Puerto Rico, as an island, raise all its own food without having to import anything? Dr. WEISSKOFF. You see, that is a technical question, and I did not know the answer to that until I started reading through these volumes, and I found that these experts in the Department of Agriculture had combed the world's technologists saying that we have these slopes and the big eight-row cornpicker is going to fall off it, what do you do? They found the appropriate technology for the appropriate land, and they brought it to bear in Puerto Rico. But what has been lacking is the government's initiative and selfhelp to do it. Instead, they have these tax holiday industries and the hotels.

So, yes, I think the answer to that is that we know the techniques to make an island that size self-sufficient and export crops earning money with which they then could buy American prod

ucts-not from food stamps, but from the sale of the products of their own labor. And that is the way it ought to be.

You see, the Governor, could I just――

Senator LEAHY. Sure.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. The Governor had said that Puerto Rico is the fourth largest market for U.S. products, but who is paying for that market? That is food stamp money, that is welfare money, that is all these programs. It is taken from one pocket and putting it in another pocket. It is kind of a circuit with the U.S. taxpayer paying for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Providing the pockets.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. Providing both pockets.

Senator LEAHY. Let me follow it a bit further, because think of them almost as a country for a moment. They obviously want to be interested in their own balance of trade or balance-of-payment thing.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. Right.

Senator LEAHY. Now, the balance of payments can be unofficially balanced by infusion of Federal funds, whether it is on food stamps or anything else, or it can be handled internally.

Now, we tried to export things in this country to the extent that they have tourism. That, in effect, is an export.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. Right.

Senator LEAHY. The people come in and spend the money, the good weather and the beaches and so forth. So an argument to be made to keep a certain amount of that to the extent that they may manufacture goods there, using their labor, the goods are then shipped to the United States and sold. And so to that extent they are exporting.

To the extent, however, that they have to bring any percentage of their food into Puerto Rico, then they are importing, and that is offsetting.

Now, they are sending money out. So I ask two questions.

One, how much do they import in food and, second, if we are to make them self-sufficient in food, do you see any lobbying efforts, by the farm producing States and whatnot in the United States who are going to lose that market?

Dr. WEISSKOFF. I would like to answer that question.

The first one is a statistical question; and I have my statistical report of the Governor.

The Governor produces all of these statistics. You ought to be asking him these questions.

Senator LEAHY. Well, might I ask that question for the staff, Mr. Chairman? I would like them to give me the exact amount of how much and how the breakdown goes in crops, how the breakdown goes in types of food; I mean, how much do they import in wheat, how much imported beef, how much dairy, and so on, into Puerto Rico.

The CHAIRMAN. We will unravel the question.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. He had a second half to the question.

Senator LEAHY. The second half of the question is a political question.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. As to the first half of the question, I just want to say for the record there is very little food in the food imports.

When people buy food-I was looking at the wholesale cost of food-by the time that gets to the small farm in the mountains, the price of that food has doubled.

Now, that is not food. That is distribution costs and monopoly costs, and exclusive dealership costs. And that is why Puerto Rico's cost of living is higher. It is not because it is so hard to transport something by ship, which is the cheapest form we know for transporting things. It is because once it gets to Puerto Rico, it is monopolized and marked up time and time again. And I don't think the food stamp program or any program should pay for that margin of markup.

Senator LEAHY. Actually, my second point will almost be answered by the first point, depending on what the numbers are. The point you just made on the markup goes to my next point I was going to ask you to make. And I think it an extremely good one. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions——.

Dr. WEISSKOFF. May I just say something?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have been in here almost 2 hours on three witnesses.

Mr. WEISSKOFF. It is the biggest food stamp program we have. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have other witnesses eager to get here. Dr. WEISSKOFF. This just illustrates it going from one pocket to another pocket. The food and materials and appliances come into San Juan and are distributed through the island. Raw materials come to the factories and are made into finished products and sent out. Migrant dollars come in. The military has some bases. The money comes in. And then all the profits from these tax-exempt companies are going out. Tourist dollars are coming in.

And what underwrites this whole island is the food stamp dollar that comes in, almost $1 billion a year. And that pays for all of these imports. It offsets all of the imports that are coming in for the mass of people, you see. It pays for food as well as a lot of other things. That is what is illustrated there on the chart.

The bottom chart illustrates the gradual decline in land and farms. All land and farms are falling from 1950. And when food stamps came in in 1975 in Puerto Rico, there is a steeper decline in land and farms. Cultivated cropland is also declining gradually. And when food stamps come in, it is a steeper decline. That is the cause and effect I wanted to draw for this case.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We now have Sammie Lynn Puett, commissioner, Department of Human Services, Nashville, Tenn., and John Fredericks, assistant commissioner, Food Stamp Division, New York Department of Social Services, Albany, N.Y.

We are delighted to have you folks here. If you will identify yourself for the record and proceed under the usual committee rules, we will be delighted to hear from you.

Ms. PUETT. I am Sammie Lynn Puett, commissioner, department of human services, Nashville, Tenn.1

Mr. FREDERICK. I am John Frederick, assistant commissioner, Food Stamp Division, New York Department of Social Services, Albany, N.Ÿ.

1 See p. 308 for additional material supplied by Ms. Puett.

Mr. HARWICK. I am John Harwick, food stamp director, State of New York.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF SAMMIE LYNN PUETT, COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, NASHVILLE, TENN.

Ms. PUETT. Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, I thank you very much for this opportunity to seek your support for what I consider to be the most pressing problem facing the Tennessee Department of Human Services and departments like ours across the Nation.

Our department is committed to meeting a wide range of human needs across our State: From protective services to public assistance. And although we provide a total of 15 services, one those demands such a disproportionate portion of our time and effort, that it threatens to envelop the rest of our department unless something is done about it. And that is what I wish to address my comments to today-the food stamp program and the excesses and the abuses that have become so much a part of it and have made it difficult for us to do a total job in serving the needs of needy Tennesseans.

You have made reference this morning, as have others, to the abuses and the problems in the food stamp program. I observe them also. But it was not until I became commissioner of human services 14 months ago that I began to see firsthand what is happening, and realized that a primary cause of the problem that we face can be traced directly to the program's regulations and administrative requirements.

I have visited in about 90 of the 150 DHS offices across the State of Tennessee. In every instance, I have been bombarded by our workers, who are on the front lines, determining eligibility, to seek reforms in a program that really has done much to alleviate hunger pains across the Nation. But at the same time, it has encouraged client abuse and rewarded dishonesty to the point that it has drawn immense public criticism, and justifiably so, in my opinion.

Complex and constantly changing regulations, and restrictive time standards impede a worker's efforts to respond to human needs in an efficient and effective manner.

In the few minutes that I have to speak to you today, I want to urge you, and appropriate members of the executive branch, to do three things as you reauthorize the food stamp program:

No. 1, I urge you to seek regulatory reform; No. 2, I ask you to provide administrative relief; No. 3, I ask you to coordinate this program with other aid programs that we administer.

At the same time, I would ask that you make the 50 States of this Nation full partners in administering this program in both a cost effective and a caring way.

First, let me comment on regulatory reform.

Attached to my formal statement are 17 recommendations that we feel would tremendously improve the food stamp program in this Nation.

Time does not permit me to comment on each of these, but let me mention six of these which would correct current regulations

that are so blatant in not meeting what I perceive to be the congressional intent in authorizing this program.

The first is that called separate households.

Although the approximately 100-percent increase in our program in the last 2 years cannot be attributed solely to this one regulation, it is a fact that in 1975, our average food stamp household size in Tennessee was 3.47. Today, it is 2.65. To those households that have been added since the new interpretation of separate households went into effect, the average has dropped to 2.1. And in the current year, the average is 1.9.

We don't believe it was the intent of Congress to make it possible for a child who reaches age 18 and has no income to come to the food stamp office and report that even though he is living with his parents, that he indeed purchases and prepares his food separately and qualifies for his own separate allotment of food stamps.

An example of how this application applies in increasing benefits is attached to my statement.

Not only must we comply with this request once he has given us these assurances, but, we must often do so within 3 days through the expedited service requirement, another regulation that has been exploited by large numbers of recipients.

While both regulations were intended to make the program responsive to special needs, as presently implemented, they are applied to large numbers of applicants who do not have such needs. Neither do we think that it was the congressional intent that boarders be provided a full allotment of food stamps even though they receive three full meals as part of their room and board. And only last Friday, after this testimony was prepared, I was given a copy of an interpretation of a 1980 food stamp amendment which gives special consideration to persons who are residing in domestic violence centers. These persons can qualify for food stamps without making the normal eligibility requirements. And the centers can accept the stamps for meals that were paid for through another Federal program. In short, the center can "double dip," and the recipients get coupons for which they might not otherwise qualify.

It is illegal, according to the communication I have received, Mr. Chairman, to reduce the funding of a domestic violence center even though it is being funded twice for the same purpose.

Let me hurry on to say that we further believe that the regulations requiring the replacement of lost or stolen food stamp coupons, frequently reward client dishonesty. The replacement regulation is a fraud-prone regulation of gigantic proportions.

Food stamp recipients are responsible citizens who should be accountable for their coupons once they have received them. We recommend that this regulation requiring replacement of stolen coupons, be rescinded.

Another change that we would seek is a waiver of the requirement of the 10-day notice of adverse action if the client during the last 2 weeks of the month reports a change that would result in a reduced food-stamp allotment. At that point in the month, it frequently becomes impossible to give 10 days notice before the next month's authorization is processed.