that it is mandated by law not to interact with the food stamp program, except in cases of special diets. This, to me, seems ridiculous.

I think it is time Congress and the bureaucracy learn what they try to teach children on "Sesame Street"-and that is cooperation. Here we have two departments within the USDA, each with the alleged purpose of feeding the poor, and by law they cannot interact. Is this the kind of law we are paying for? Is there any wonder there are taxpayer revolts generating in this country?

With two separate departments of USDA involved in this area, the redundancy in staff alone must be staggering. The food stamp department has gone out of its way to be helpful, however, the commodities department has been singularly unhelpful in supplying any information other than the attached list of available foods. Therefore, I do not know the cost of reactivating the commodity program for individuals, but I doubt it would come anywhere near the $6.9 billion the food stamp program cost in 1979.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I am not representing any formal organization or group. I like to think that, as a private concerned citizen, I am representing the poor middleclass, that has to pay for benefitting some of the poorwhich I agree with-but cost the wealthy little or nothing.

I believe the current administration is trying to do what is right for everyone and I support that objective. However, if Congress is not ready to "bite the bullet" and make America once again the greatest Nation in the world we have lost everything for everyone. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The mayor of my home town of Raleigh, he told me that about 6 months ago Mary Hopkins, a very close friend of Roosevelt, and a conservative, at least in his perception, but he said that President Roosevelt at the time that he inaugurated the first of the welfare programs said that welfare must never be put on a cash basis, otherwise, and he was quoting, otherwise it would bankrupt the country, and he was talking about the fraud potential and that sort of thing.

While you were speaking, I was thinking of that citation, and I was thinking of asking the Library of Congress to research it for

me.

What we have today, and I will put it with a question mark, that what we have here is a second currency.

How long have you been here today?

MS. BROWNE. I have been here since about 1:45.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not hear the testimony this morning? MS. BROWNE. No, I wish I had.

The CHAIRMAN. And you came down here at your own expense? MS. BROWNE. Yes, sir, my moped money.

The CHAIRMAN. As one Senator, I appreciate that. I want to send your statement around to Senators.

I thank you very much.

I have no questions because I agree with you.

MS. BROWNE. Thank you very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We now have Mr. Eugene Stockwell of the National Council of Churches.

We welcome you, sir.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE L. STOCKWELL, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr. STOCKWELL. I am Eugene L. Stockwell, Associate General Secretary for Overseas Ministries of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

Under the assumption that my statement will be put in the record, I will summarize it, because I want to save you time.1 I come here representing the National Council of Churches, but I would also like to speak, sir, as a former Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on World Hunger, to which I was appointed in 1978 by President Carter, and which presented its report to the President just about 1 year ago in March 1980.

Senator Dole and Senator Leahy were members of that Commission.

On many issues, which we touched there was disagreement, as the Commission was made up of bipartisan membership, but on one issue there seemed to be unanimous agreement, namely, and I quote:

Federal feeding programs such as the school lunch, women, infants and children; and food stamp programs have been very successful in addressing the problems of hunger and malnutrition in the United States.

The administration and the Congress act to remove the expenditure limit on Federal funding for food stamps, to increase resources for all domestic feeding programs which have a demonstrated record of success, and to improve outreach efforts and certification procedures to increase participation among eligible citizens, with special attention to utilizing the resources of local private voluntary organizations.

Proposals now before Congress radically to reduce the food stamp program of our Nation fly in the face of these sober recommendations.

I am certain that none of my fellow Commissioners would gainsay the right of a new administration to institute a wide range of new and different policies from those pursued by a predecessor administration, but I am sure that it is also clear that none of us who served on the Commission could rest easy with any change in policy direction which would cause physical hunger to many of our poorest fellow citizens, and there seems to be little question that a major cutback in food stamp assistance will produce exactly that result.

I was impressed by some of the testimony earlier here today, and I would support much of that about the fraud and abuse, and we would not support the provision of stamps to receivers who are ineligible by law, of course, but if there is a very substantial reduction, it appears that many, even millions will be directly affected by loss of such assistance.

Indeed, one wonders whether hunger might not return to our land.

I am sure none of us want that. I was impressed as I sat here, waiting to testify by that chart about the rising costs of food stamp programs, and I can understand the concerns of the committee and the administration in dealing realistically with costs.

See p. 447 for the prepared statement of Mr. Stockwell.

To me that chart however says two things, on the one hand it is a sign of shame that in our Nation so many persons need this kind of assistance.

I deeply regret that.

On the other hand, it may be a sign of success, that we have been able to meet the needs of many, even though we have not developed the national economic policy yet that makes such assistance unnecessary.

I kind of wish there were a similar chart here indicating the large number of healthy people who have been fed with the help of food stamps.

This chart talks of dollars. I would like to see a chart that talks also more clearly of people.

What is at stake here, Mr. Chairman, is not just a proposal that attacks the poor and threatens hunger in our land.

What is at stake is our commitment as a nation to the ideals we proclaim about liberty and justice for all.

A philosophy which penalizes the poor while favoring the wealthy circumscribes the liberty of the least fortunate of our citizens and makes a mockery of the justice they have every right to expect.

We speak these days of spending additional billions for national security and defense, yet at this very moment we face the imminent possibility of widespread insecurity for our own people here at home.

I do not believe talk of a safety net will provide comfort or food for those who in reality see their meager dependence on food stamps eroded or eliminated.

As a member of the Presidential Commission on World Hunger I urge you to stand firmly against the efforts to cut the food stamp program. We need to build on our successes, not demolish them, and there is no doubt that the food stamp program, with whatever imperfections it may have, is demonstrably a successful and compassionate national effort to feed the neediest of our people and to combat malnutrition.

As a representative of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. I urge you to face this issue not only in terms of economics but principally in terms of morality and justice.

I fear that if we lose this opportunity to help our neediest citizens by the continuation, indeed expansion, of the food stamp program we will be claiming for ourselves the description of being an immoral minority who turn a deaf ear to the claims of millions of needy persons in our land.

Mr. Chairman, we look to this committee, which in the past has taken leadership in this matter, to reassert again its defense of the neediest and to stand against an unjustifiable onslaught on the food stamp program so greatly needed by our Nation today.

I thank you for this opportunity, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you for a very articulate statement, sir. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Roger Honburger?

No, it was of Mr. Atwater.

Mr. STOCKWELL. The prosecutor from Florida?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. STOCKWELL. Yes, sir, I did.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you find very much you disagree?

Mr. STOCKWELL. No, sir, I do not disagree with that. It seems to me I would support every effort to weed out fraud in every way possible.

I have no disagreement with that.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I obviously met Mr. Atwater for the first time when he sat down, but I would be willing to wager that his heart is just as big in terms of the needy as those who may take a different view on this, I would not question that for a moment, sir. I think, it may be well worth saying for the record, that the citizens who are being most harmed by the abuse of this program are the most needy.

Now, for my part, other Senators can speak for themselves, but for my part, all I want to do is to make a responsible program out of it, and if I were not convinced by an overwhelming amount of evidence that the abuse of this program is so substantial, you and I would not be sitting looking at each other as friends.

Now, unfortunately you are sometimes misportrayed, I am sometimes misportrayed.

I would not for an instance say here is a man who will give away the whole Treasury, because I know better than that, and by the same token I know that I would assume that there is a substantial amount of compassion in my heart, but what we need to do is to make this program work in a way that it will encourage individual responsibility and diminish and dissipate what I perceive to be a growing attitude across this land, that I am going to get what I

can.

Now, this is not good for the individual, it certainly is not good for the country, and that is a very awful way I feel about it, but I appreciate your coming, and we have another rollcall vote, and I am going to request the committee again-

Mr. STOCKWELL. May I say one sentence, I question no motives here. I do feel that the amount of fraud in the program, at least by a study of the Department of Agriculture in late 1970 indicated less than 1 percent of participating households were involved in actual fraud, now even if it were slightly higher than that, I would hope the committee would not allow the existence of fraud to be the argument for cutting the program substantially.

I think one ought to deal with fraud directly as the gentleman from Florida has indicated to us. I appreciate this opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. I do not disagree with one statement in your remarks. I would like to discuss with you some time, not formally under these circumstances, but it has become almost a cliche that there is something about in Washington to reward the rich at the expense of the poor.

I would say to you, sir, that is simply not so.

Mr. STOCKWELL. If that is implied, I am not saying so, but I think the poor are under special attack right now.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will see, but I say again, the people who have the most to gain from an orderly process and responsive process are the people who are the most needy.

I thank you for coming.

Mr. STOCKWELL. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will stand in recess, and I will go vote and come back forthwith.

[Whereupon, the committee recessed.]

AFTER RECESS

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Senator Andrews, we have the most patient witnesses. Look at the witness list we have gone through for this day, and I have been running back and forth to vote, to meet a quorum, and all of that. Senator ANDREWS. We have had the Secretary of Education on another witness list, and the Secretary of Defense on a third committee.

You have been holding the fort.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, or it has been holding me.

We will now hear from Andrew J. Pasden, Jr., former member, investigations staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. I thank you for your patience.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. PASDEN, JR., FORMER MEMBER, INVESTIGATIONS STAFF, U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. PASDEN. I have a prepared statement, which I would like to submit for the record, and I will summarize it and give you the highlights.1

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, you may proceed.

Mr. PASDEN. My name is Andrew Pasden, and it is a distinct honor to appear before you today on a matter as important as the food stamp program. The topic of my testimony is a review in which I participated while a staff member of the investigations staff of the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

That review indicated a general agreement that the food stamp program is making a significant contribution to the nutritional well-being of needy Americans.

However, the program, as currently administered by the States, in accordance with Federal regulations, is particularly vulnerable to fraud and abuse. An unknown amount of fraud by recipients, errors by program workers, and loopholes in food stamp regulations. Some of the persons interviewed during our review estimated that the losses could be as high as 20 percent annually-or about $1.8 billion of the program's $9.2 billion total benefit cost in fiscal year 1980.

The vast majority of the approximately 300 State and local administrators, fraud investigators, and eligibility workers whom we interviewed during our review, told us that it is very easy for ineligible persons to get onto the food stamp rolls, and for eligible persons to receive more benefits than they are entitled to. Officials in each of the seven States we visited said the Federal regulations were too lax regarding verification of eligibility information and seriously restricted their ability to detect and prevent fraud.

According to Federal regulations in effect at the time this review was conducted, eligibility workers were required to verify only the applicant's reported income, alien status-if applicable-and any

'See p. 448 for the prepared statement of Mr. Pasden.