Where will these people turn if their food stamp allotments are cut or if they are cut off the program? Many will go to the churches and other emergency assistance centers for help. I asked some of the emergency assistance centers how they would respond to the need if the food stamp program is cut. Here is what they said: 1. Crosslines Cooperative Council-funded by church and private contributions-in Kansas City We would be tripling our caseload, going back to the levels we served before the 1977 Food Stamp law. We were closed the equivalent of 2 months per year then for lack of funds. Churches are already giving as much as they can give. Every dollar we give for food is a tradeoff with a dollar we might give for utility assistance. We have a shortfall of $500,000 for utility aid right now and that is assuming a mild winter and no utility increases for next year in Wyandotte County. 2. The Salvation Army in Douglas County, Kans. We couldn't-there's no way we could pick up the difference. We are running over budget right now. We're overrun with people losing jobs and needing assistance. We're turning people away and serving only people in transition periods. Many people who can't make it through the month on food stamps right now are coming to us. We don't have the money to help them now. What's going to happen if they don't get cost of living or food stamp increases? 3. The Salvation Army in Dodge City, Kans. We are already spending four to five times over our budget and trying to organize a food bank with all local churches. We're not positive this will meet current need. We just can't do it if food stamps are cut. 4. The Salvation Army in Junction City, Kans.— We are operating at a $16,000 deficit this year. That will double. Right now we have many cases where people run out of food stamps and come to us for help. We have to turn them down. 5. The Salvation Army in Wichita, Kans. We are already getting people coming in on food stamps whose funds run out before the end of the month. I just don't think food stamps should be cut. The churches are at their limit; its going to be a stress. 6. Finally, Emergency Aid in Salina, Kans.-funded by churches, United Way, private contributions I shudder to think where I'll be a year from now if these cuts go through. I don't think anyone has given thought to what the impact is going to be. Contributions to our food bank are fantastic now, but I don't know if the rate of giving will be able to meet the need. When money is short for people, where is the flexible area where people have to cut back? Food is where they have to cut. They cannot cut out utilities and they cannot cut out rent. It is obvious that the churches and assistance centers can't provide for all the people who would be hurt by food stamp cuts. Another area you should consider carefully is the administrative cost of any of the proposed food stamp changes. State agencies and caseworkers have been overburdened by the many program changes in the last 4 years. In Kansas, we have had a severe problem with delays in getting timely benefits to clients-caused, in part, by the extra work program changes created. The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services has prepared estimates of the cost of some of the proposed changes such as recoupment, reinstating of the purchase requirement, and figuring in-kind benefits such as school meals. These are all costly and most are impossible administratively. They will increase the potential for errors. The States do not have the resources to pick up larger administrative burdens. If we are interested in controlling budgets, it makes no sense to increase administrative expenses and at the same time reduce the meager benefits to needy people. I have been trying to present facts and examples to show how potential food stamp cuts will hurt real people. The myths which surround this program are many-and these myths add support for the view that this program is wasteful and overrun with undeserving, nonneedy people. I have a statement from Ruthie Owens, a food stamp recipient, and she would like me to read her statement. Senator DOLE. First let me introduce you to Senator Hawkins. This young lady is from Kansas. I would like to point out that we are way behind on our time, and there are still many witnesses to come forward. Ms. MOLLNER. All right. She is a 32-year-old mother of four children, ages 14, 13, 11, and 8. All four children are in school and in the school lunch program. She is divorced and head of her household. Her children look to her for their support. She worked as an LPN at a salary of $168 per month. Recently she enrolled in a junior college RN program with the idea to complete that program to improve herself for better employment, to get her income above the poverty line so she would not use food stamps and ADC assist ance. When all of her income is figured and her expenses, she has very few dollars left for any kind of anything including food. There are no funds for splurging, no funds for doing anything like buying clothes. Food stamps enable people to eat. They enable her to eat. Through wise and practical shopping and eating simple meals, she says, I can feed my family. The school lunch program helps too, because I know my children get a good meal at the school during the school year. If the proposed cut in food stamps goes through, I would have to try to get by with less than I have now. This is almost asking the impossible. With the growing increases in food, utilities, and rent, where would I stand? She has heard that her food stamps would be cut by $12 for each of her four children in school, or $48 per month. If that happened, she would not be able to finish school and become self-supporting. She would lose all chance of bettering herself and getting out of poverty, which would mean she would be on public assistance for the rest of the time her children are growing up, and she wants to stay in school and get off public assistance, and that is the statement she wanted me to read. Senator DOLE. Thank you. Ms. MOLLNER. I have just two other comments to make based on things I heard this morning. Mail issuance is extremely critical for rural people. It is extremely critical for people in Kansas and Missouri in the rural areas, and elimination of the purchase requirement brought a lot more elderly people in particular on the program in Kansas, and these people would go off again if a purchase requirement were reinstated, so these are very important. Senator DOLE. I do not know of any effort to reinstate the purchase requirement, but I think that is good information. I think you have correctly identified the groups that are eligible to participate, the elderly and those who live out in the country. I do not have any questions. I think you understand, I know the Salvation Army in some of these areas has a deficit, and so does the Federal Government of about $60 billion, so we are faced with the same problems as they are, maybe on a larger scale. I am chairman of the Nutrition Committee, and I am sympathetic to the plight of the very real people you talk about. We hope that we can accommodate most of those. I am not certain that we can, because there will be cuts. I cannot tell you now what the final package may contain, because this is only onehalf of the Congress, and the House may have a different view on food stamps than the Senate. We have restored money for the WIC program, we have added money in the reconciliation resolution for the school lunch program. I have even nosed around a little bit among my colleagues to see if we could add money for food stamps, but there really is not much enthusiasm for that. We have to be very honest with ourselves, there are going to be some sharp cuts in the food stamp program, and what we need to find is how we can do that and still not do violence to the people you referred to in your statement. Now, you do indicate some of the areas of sacrifice. Can you give us any examples of areas where people are receiving stamps and should not be receiving food stamps? Surely there are some out there. Ms. MOLLNER. I am sure there are some people on food stamps fraudulently, although the fraud rates in Kansas and Missouri are very low Senator DOLE. I am not talking about fraud. I am just talking about those who can make it without food stamps. Ms. MOLLNER. I would have to say in all honesty, I have not seen any family that is on food stamps that could get by and have a nutritionally adequate diet, if they did not have that kind of assistance. They may be there. I have just not seen them. I have done a lot of counseling, and I have tried a lot of ways to help people cut back on their budget, but with food costs going up, I just do not think it is possible. Senator DOLE. I think that is a point that is sometimes lost. In my view the food stamp program is a good economic barometer of when people are out of work, there are more people on the program, and when we have inflation, the cost of the program goes up, and that has been, I think, not the problem of the poor people, but one of the reasons we have had so much difficulty with the program in the Congress, because the costs, as that graph indicates, the costs have gone up from $35 million to $11 billion, but I think if you go back and add up all of the inflation of the program, and the highs in unemployment of just a couple of years ago, and when unemployment was down, participation was down. Ms. MOLLNER. The food stamp directors in the county offices in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties, and in Jackson County, Mo., have given me figures in the past, which directly show within a month how participation reflects unemployment figures, and it goes up and down that fast based on unemployment, but the major rise, of course, is the cost of food. It is not numbers of participants. Senator DOLE. And some of us who come from farm States are accused of helping the program because it helps farmers. I cannot find any farmers who support the program. Ms. MOLLNER. I do know some farmers who support it. I can give you some names later if you would like them. Senator DOLE. I would like to get their affidavit. We are all supposed to have a selfish interest in the program, not that we care about people, but because somebody in our State may be profiting when they buy the food stamps, but we are going to consider your views very carefully, and we hope that in the package we report out of this committee and the Congress will satisfy some people. Senator Hawkins? Senator HAWKINS. Would you agree that the quality of health may not be affected by food stamps if the recipients frivolously use them on commodities that may not be good for their health? Ms. MOLLNER. I would agree, like a lot of other people, if they were to go to spend all of their food stamps on potato chips and something like that, although we do have some studies which show that food stamp recipients are much better food purchasers than non-food-stamp recipients. Food stamp recipients spend their food stamp coupons on much more nutritious foods and much more economical food purchases. I could give you that study if you would like. Senator DOLE. Senator Hayakawa? Senator HAYAKAWA. No questions. I heard part of the young lady's testimony. I am very impressed with what she had to say. I hope we can meet your needs, but as the chairman has said, we are going to cut somewhere. Senator DOLE. Carol has been very helpful to me over the years, and I appreciate that. I know you speak with a great deal of experience, which is helpful to the committee, so we will probably be asking for your help down the line. Thank you. I think I will ask Senator Hayakawa to call the next witness. Senator HAYAKAWA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Roger Honberger, representing San Diego County, Calif. Senator DOLE. Is Mr. Atwater still here? Mr. ATWATER. Yes. Senator DOLE. OK. You are next. Would you mind, a fellow from North Carolina needs to catch a plane, to slip in right now? Mr. HONBERGER. California would be happy to yield to North Carolina. The CHAIRMAN. We have the distinguished chairman of County Commissioners of Guilford County, Greensboro, N.C. Even Bob Dole was so nice about this thing. Senator DOLE. I told him earlier I had a claim to North Carolina if you did not show. We are glad to have you. STATEMENT OF FORREST CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER, GUILFORD COUNTY, GREENSBORO, N.C., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come here today speaking to you from the National Association of Counties Association.1 I am Forrest Campbell, and I am chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Guilford County, N.C. The National Association of Counties Association represents some 3,000 counties across the country, and since we are at the very heart of the program that you have before you, for your consideration we do have a great deal of concern. One of those concerns is, as we are involved with taxpayers at the local level who have only property taxes as a basis for our income, and gives us a great deal of concern as to what might happen in the overall administration of the program. There are 18 States in which the counties administer the programs of AFDC, food stamp, and medicaid programs that is under the supervision of the State, and we pay a portion of that administrative cost, so we are in the final analysis right at the bottom of those lists of people who are involved in it. For instance, in North Carolina 44 percent of the county's budgets go to make up non-Federal costs of AFDC medicaid and food stamps. In my own county, 42 percent of our budget is for welfare and health programs, which we think is a rather high figure, but is how it works out. We are supporting some of the spending reduction measures proposed by the administration. I think, however, that we are concerned primarily with the needs of the people and as county officials working at the area of last resort, we are concerned about cutting any program in which that would also have the effect of cutting a program which is so vitally needed and would have to be picked up by the counties if it is not met otherwise. Since we have the limited taxing authority, the transferring of the burden for these life-sustaining services to the counties would be something that we would have to resist and surely, the taxpayers would resist. We do support the balanced Federal budget and pledge our support for the proposed spending reductions as long as those do not shift the costs to the local governments. There are about three or four areas that I would like to touch on briefly with you that we are concerned about. We do support the setting of an eligibility at 130-percent of the poverty level. We think that it would be helpful if we could use tables based on monthly amounts for the eligibility rather than having to compute the income and shift it for the whole year which would, we think, be more work and more possibilities of errors for us. 1See 433 for the prepared statement of Mr. Campbell. |