arrests, and we would never bother to call television stations, and I would get calls, mad, because they were not called.

I do not think the local media has had any backing off of this. As a matter of fact they have been very supportive. The two Jacksonville papers have written four editorials about this program and its effects, and the Jacksonville Journal has written several editorials in addition.

The CHAIRMAN. Supporting you?

Mr. ATWATER. Supporting, absolutely supporting.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish we had one in North Carolina, just one. Senator HAYAKAWA. We need some in California.

The CHAIRMAN. One thing is that you will never hear that from NBC calling you to interview you. They did an indepth story, you know what an indepth story is? That is from the point of the reporter. They would say, we want to get both sides of the food stamp issue, would you sit down with us for about 20 or 30 minutes, so I did.

They shot for 20 or 30 minutes of videotape. They used one 20second segment, and then they spent the rest of the 5 minutes of that indepth thing showing a little lady in a rocking chair in an empty room and said Helms will cut her food stamps, and then they showed a nice college couple, they just happened to be a son and daughter, both of them in position, Helms will cut off their food stamps.

They are jolly well right. I think the parents ought to support those, but if NBC calls you for an interview, will you let me know? Mr. ATWATER. Yes, sir, I will.

Can I have your home phone in case it happens at night?

The CHAIRMAN. Just open the window and holler. I will hear you. Let me ask you seriously about repeat offenders. What experience have you had with that?

Mr. ATWATER. We have been at it now for, like I say, for about 30 months.

We did one turn around, took the first batch and went back to that same group, and about 30 percent were back again.

They were not in exactly the same mode, for instance they had been people who had previously reported no income, when they had income, were now reporting four members of the household when there were three.

They changed modes. That is why when you make a change, you are going to need to tell them you are going to check it, but we are periodically going to review it too, because they will be back.

They cannot believe you caught them. That is the only thing, they have been out there for it so long, they cannot believe you caught them, and they do not believe you will catch them again, so once you open that door, you have to go all the way. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, again, sir.

Mr. ATWATER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMan. You folks go ahead and let me start with this very patient kind gentleman.

Senator DOLE. He has his plane ticket in his hand.

Senator HAYAKAWA. Mr. Honberger of San Diego, Calif., Mr. Chairman, will read the testimony of Jim Bates, who is unfortunately not able to be with us today.

I would like to point out as a member of the County Board of Supervisors in San Diego, Jim Bates is directly involved in the implementation and administration of the workfare pilot project in my State.

This testimony is of particular importance, because the San Diego pilot project has clearly shown the merits of the workfare benefit concept, aside from decreasing the number of food stamp participants, the workfare program has several nonmonetary benefits, most important is this program attacks the very root of our welfare problem by alleviating the need for assistance through the provision of employment opportunities and assistance and increasing people's self-reliance and pride because they are off the food stamp program.

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome you, sir.

STATEMENT OF ROGER HONBERGER, ON BEHALF OF JIM BATES, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Mr. HONBERGER. Thank you very much. Mr. Bates, supervisor from the County of San Diego, regrets that he could not come back, and in the interest of saving time I will not read his testimony, but will submit it for the record. If you will allow me, I would like to highlight points which Mr. Bates feels are important.1

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. HONBERGER. Thank you very much.

San Diego is the largest of the 14 project sites for the food stamp workfare program. Since 1977, San Diego County has included workfare in its general assistance program, so it is not a new concept for our area.

On November 4, 1980, there was a referendum dealing with workfare, known as ballot proposition C, and I would like to read what that language was.

It said: "Should the County of San Diego, where legally possible, deny welfare benefits to able-bodied recipients who refuse to perform work in return for welfare benefits?" The voters voted 89 percent in favor of that proposition, in fact it was 89.9 percent, so our board feels they have a mandate from the people to continue on with our present workfare program.

We are in the second year of that program, by the way. As you heard earlier, there is some criticism as to the high local costs for the program, and they are high. We have used county general funds to support the program. Next fiscal year we are facing something like a $50 million downfall in our budget, so we are not a wealthy county. Administrative costs of $355,000 are important to us, but I would like to point out that the high costs came about principally because this is a demonstration program. It was not even operated countywide during the first year.

We must have additional staff to compile and monitor data, and do research. There is also a question of scale as well, because, as I said, it was not operated countywide.

We feel that these costs can be brought down significantly, and in fact, maybe even make the program cost effective, providing there are certain legislative changes. Mr. Bates asked me to call

See p. 441 for the prepared statement of Mr. Bates.

your attention to four legislative changes which are amendments he proposes.

The first one deals with Federal funding, and that goes right to the heart of the administrative costs. We would ask for legislation to provide 100 percent Federal share for administrative costs.

The financial benefit of people dropping off the food stamps rolls, who do not want to work, is entirely a Federal benefit.

The second proposal deals with the job search period, and I would like to read the proposal.

Workfare participants are now provided with a 30-day period to find employment before any workfare obligation is imposed. San Diego County's first year's experience indicates that the 30-day job search period is too long and precludes many food stamp recipients from demonstrating their willingness to work for their food stamps. It also increases the time required to move participants through the steps that lead participants to work.

I therefore recommend that your Committee incorporate into subsequent legislation my proposal to eliminate the 30-day job search period and require food stamp recipients to participate in a work test prior to receiving food stamp benefits.

The third proposal deals with sanctions, and this one reads: To provide for a stronger penalty for failure to comply with the workfare requirements. I urge you to extend the length of the penalty period and to apply the penalty to the entire food stamp household, rather than just to the individual.

The fourth and last proposal deals with exemptions, and I must point out that exemptions during our first year of operation, that over 95 percent of our food stamp population in the pilot project area was exempt. We feel there are too many exemptions and propose that a legislative amendment be enacted which would accomplish the following:

To revise current work registration requirements so that all able-bodied food stamp recipients are required to seek work and participate in workfare. I propose that the only recipients that should be excluded from this requirement are children, the elderly, the disabled and pregnant women.

We feel that these four legislative amendments would make the program cost effective. The County of San Diego Board of Supervisors voted 5 to 0 to support the concept of having workfare applied nationally. Those are the highlights I wanted to bring to your attention, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to present Mr. Bates' testimony.

Senator HAYAKAWA. Thank you very much.

Have you any projection on what this would cost nationwide? Mr. HONBERGER. No, I do not. I am sure the USDA would have. The CHAIRMAN. $300 million.

Senator HAYAKAWA. It is money we get back?

Mr. HONBERGER. That is correct.

Senator HAYAKAWA. We have to go vote in about 5 minutes. I do have a couple of questions about your third suggestion, to provide a stronger penalty for failure to comply to workfare requirements, I urge you to extend the length of the penalty period and to apply the penalty to the entire food stamp household, rather than just to the individual.

Will you please explain that a bit?

The penalty is not getting food stamps at all?

Mr. HONBERGER. That is correct, and it has been suggested that this would penalize children.

I would say quite the opposite, that in fact when a parent refuses to work for food stamp benefits, they are penalizing their own children, and to extend that requirement are applied to the full family, that you are taking up the children's cause.

Senator HAYAKAWA. And you limit the job search period to 30 days.

How does that proposal work?

Mr. HONBERGER. You have to take the 30-day period, in San Diego it is 10 days because of the way the legislation was written, to seek a job prior to being put into the workfare program.

In other words, to receive food stamps, we would say let us go right to the workfare program itself, rather than having a 30-day delay.

Senator HAYAKAWA. I think I have no other questions, but in your experience so far, the expenditures are charged not to the county itself.

Mr. HONBERGER. Presently administrative costs are shared 50 percent Federal and 50 percent county.

Senator HAYAKAWA. And are you coming out ahead on this? Mr. HONBERGER. No; presently we are losing.

Senator HAYAKAWA. So that is why it would be important to have the Federal Government fund the whole thing, because you are going to get that money back and more?

Mr. HONBERGER. That is correct.

Senator HAYAKAWA. That is your projection?

Mr. HONBERGER. That is what we think would happen.

Senator HAYAKAWA. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess until we get back from voting.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HONBERGER. Thank you.

[Whereupon, the committee recessed.]

AFTER RECESS

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

I am very apologetic to all of you who have been waiting so patiently and grateful to you.

We will resume the hearing.

We will now hear from Holly Browne of Riverside, Conn.

STATEMENT OF HOLLY BROWNE, RIVERSIDE, CONN.

Ms. BROWNE. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Nutrition. My name is Holly (June S.) Browne and I am a Riverside, Conn., housewife with 3 children, 4 stepchildren and 10 grandchildren.1

In 1959, divorced with three children, I became one of the first of a growing band of women returning to college. With a grand total of $3,000 in savings, less than $200 a month in child support and $50 a month from my parents, I certainly fell into the category of, if not the poor, then the poor plus one.

When my savings ran out I applied for and received commodities. The commodity program provided me with-as I remember-corn

See p. 443 for additional material furnished by Ms. Browne.

meal, various dried beans, powdered milk, powdered eggs, rice, lard, flour, tinned meats, American cheese, oatmeal and, I think, raisins. Being a cook who spent her married years in a still rationed Europe, I was able to feed my family on these commodities. I must admit that people were horrified by the fact that my kids ate ice cream made from powdered milk and eggs, and cookies made from oatmeal, powdered milk and eggs, lard and raisins for breakfast. However, I felt this food was more nutritious than the dry cereal, mostly sugar, they were serving their kids. And my children loved breakfast.

I consider the few years I spent on the commodities program an advantage. I learned a great deal about nutrition and cheap cooking. This knowledge has been passed on to my children and stepchildren.

I totally support President Reagan's program of budget cuts. This country has had enough of big government, bureauacracy and the rape of the middle class.

However, the Federal Government has spent years convincing the poor that "Big Daddy in Washington" would take care of them. "Big Daddy" cannot cut these people off without offering them an alternative. There are people who are selling their food stamps to buy booze, drugs and other nonfood items. There are also needy people who must be helped. Unless we help the really needy, we may very well have food riots.

I have been opposed to the food stamp program since its nationwide inception in 1974. I recognize that it is much easier for the Government to send stamps to those who apply than to dispense commodities. However, food stamps are the same as money. We are not giving the poor food stamps, we are giving them money that is being used for many things other than food.

Under the food stamp program we are raising an entire generation of poor people who don't know how to cook. I have often seen women in supermarket checkout lines with baskets filled with what I call garbage foods-easy to prepare, nonnutritional junk foods-being paid for with food stamps-my tax money.

I have no objection to feeding the poor. I have been poor. But I do believe we should help the poor by supplying them food and teaching them how to cook. The food stamp program is obviously riddled with the opportunity for fraud. In 1974, the Federal Government's cost for the food stamp program was slightly over $2.8 billion. Now I know things have not been easy the last couple of years, but the 1979 costs were over $6.9 billion. As a taxpayer, I seriously question these expenditures. It appears more oversight is needed into many Government programs.

The commodity program, on the other hand, presents little opportunity for fraud, as it distributes actual foodstuffs. There is not much you can do with food except cook and eat it. I doubt very much that those who do not want or need food would bother to go get it. The commodity program helps the farmers whose surplus products Government buys. This food is used for the purpose it was raised for instead of rotting in warehouses.

It was interesting to learn that the commodity program is still in existence and currently offers a far greater variety of foods than when I took advantage of it. However, it was horrifying to learn

79-755 O - 81 13