8. Soil conservation and preservation-The loss or depletion of this country's vital farmland resources has not received a great deal of attention in the past. However, any plan for the future must certainly include provisions for preserving and enhancing this most basic, and precious, resource.

Single cropping, and the use of heavy equipment and greater amounts of fertilizers have contributed to the severe problem of soil compaction in many areas of our nation-the annual economic impact has been estimated at over 3 billion dollars. Combined with wind and water erosion, salt buildup, and other factors, the impact on our croplands is severe, and impossible to ignore.

The focus on soil building that once was such an important part of our farm program has been diminished. Federal policy must again encourage the expanded use of legumes, cover crops, and other soil building measures, to insure the continuation of our productive ability.

9. Programs designed to assist farmers-Are we rapidly approaching the time when we will have more people assisting farmers than there are farmers? As it stands today there is a maze of people, programs, and agencies to help farmers. In many instances there is no coordination, and many times conflicting advice. Last summer in Texas the severity of the drought was exceeded only by the farmers' confusion about where to go for loans and what to do.

Often the producer is faced with a number of alternatives when he needs only one clear, concise answer. This situation is counter-productive.

For as our finances become more limited, we must look at each governmentfunded agricultural program and ask these chilling questions. Are public funds being expended to enhance this nation's food supply and do they address the problems that threaten the very life blood of this nation? Does a program answer the question of production problems, marketing problems and is it necessary? We must improve the coordination of these programs, so that if one does not meet this goal, it will be replaced by a program which does. As one prunes a fruit tree for dead wood, then the Congress should eliminate obsolete programs so new growth will bear fruit.

10. Marketing strategies for the future-My final point concerns the basic philosophies and attitudes governing our role as the world's greatest agricultural power.

From this day on, we must begin to bargain and trade from a position of strength. In the next 20 years, the four-and-a-half billion people who now occupy this planet will grow to six billion. It is likely that our food and fiber will become more valuable than petroleum, and will constitute our greatest diplomatic tool. The hungry nations of the world will increasingly cast their eyes to America for their basic agricultural needs, and we must not allow hunger to exist when it is in our power to prevent it.

Our potential customers, however, may include nations which are not our allies. If we choose to deal with these countries, we must ensure that the price they pay for our farm commodities is a price that more than adequately compensates us for the product. We must strive never again to allow a bushel of wheat or a pound of corn to leave our shores at less than the cost of productionincluding an allowance for depletion of our soil, water and mineral resources, and a fair profit for the producer.

If this requires that separate price structures be set for domestic and export products, then so be it. This is certainly not unheard of in other countries.

Basically, these are the 10 areas which I feel form the most critical issues in agriculture in the coming decades.

But one of our greatest tasks in the years ahead will be to explain to the 97 percent of our population who do not farm why the other three percent is so important. If we are to achieve real progress toward building a long-range policy for agriculture, it will have to be with the understanding and support of the majority of our urban citizens and legislators. In the days ahead, debate will continue on what we call the "farm bill." But it is not simply a farm bill, but a food bill. It is a piece of legislation which touches the lives of every citizen of this country, and many others throughout the world.

It does not require a crystal ball to see that agriculture is becoming more of a mainstay to our country's security than ever before. We cannot afford to gamble with America's future. That is why we must address our agricultural needs now. before food lines form . . . before our natural resources dwindle further . . before vast acreages become barren for lack of water.

These situations do not exist today, and they may not exist tomorrow. But as Henry David Thoreau observed during his travels, "We could not correctly judge distances while on the mountain, but greatly exaggerated them. . ."

Today, we stand at the peak of the mountain. Let us not misjudge the need for action, and let us not exaggerate the time we have left to act.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. SHAKER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TAX LIMITATION COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, I am William H. Shaker, Executive Vice President of the 500,000 member National Tax Limitation Committee. We wish to thank the Senate Agricultural Committee for inviting us to participate in these hearings.

The original 1981 budget projected the cost of the food stamp program at 10.3 billion dollars. The Administration is proposing cuts of 2,304 billion dollars (source, fiscal year 1982 Budget revisions). We support this level of cut-because we support the entire Administration package of spending cuts. We believe it essential that the integrity of the entire package be maintained.

Columnist Mike Royko echoes a feeling that runs throughout the land when he writes: "I can't quarrel with cutting the food stamp program when one of my closest friends-a person who can usually be counted on to say the liberal thinggrinds her teeth every time she goes food shopping and sees someone using food stamps to pay for frozen lobster, while she has been carefully selecting the cheapest cuts of meat. Should one out of every 10 people really be drawing food stamps, paid for by people who are working hard and barely making ends meet themselves? A recent poll of our members-by 57 percent demands as their high priority that the food stamp program either be eliminated or significantly reduced in costs. For starters, it is imperative that the waste and fraud inherent in the program be eliminated immediately.

These feelings should not be misinterpreted-our members are not meanspirited. But all problems in society need not be necessarily solved by the institution of the federal government. The federal government has, to a large extent, preempted the charitable functions of society. The federal government-because of its large and impersonal size—is not the most effective institution to provide this function in all cases.

By the same token, the Administration is correct in that a safety net should be provided by the federal government until such time that other institutions in society develop to fill the gap.

Some wealth transfer programs run by the federal government are simply duplicative.

A large number of NTLC members are also Union members-blue collar workers who carry lunch buckets to work. One of their biggest complaints involves the hot school lunch program that they pay for with their tax dollars. These blue collar workers simply don't understand why kids can't carry their lunch to school in lunch pails or brown bags like they do.

Far less controversial than eliminating either the food stamp or lunch program would be to eliminate the overlap that presently exists between the two.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 43 percent of the households in the food stamp program also participate in the school lunch program. The Congressional Budget Office study_concluded that we are subsidizing four meals a day for 6.8 million children. Former welfare consultant and recently appointed Presidential Assistant for Policy Development, Robert Carleson, suggests, "making food stamps an offset against welfare grants whose basic values have been determined to be adequate." In any case, eliminating the duplication would save 600 million dollars annually.

One of the old movie classics, "Mr. Deeds Goes To Town," has as its hero a young man who visualizes two different rowboats. He asks: If I see two men in rowboats, should I help the one whose boat is sinking or the one who is simply tired of rowing?

In a way, as a society we face this same choice today. We can try to do bothMr. Deeds could have, too. But his resources would have run out more quickly, and so will ours, if we do not spend with more care for what we as a society most need.

Nine months ago, our committee commissioned a study, with an eye toward developing a methodology for identifying excessive government spending. We released this study in book form, Meeting America's Economic Crisis: A "Road Map" to Emergency Federal Spending Reductions, on February 15th. Glenn Pascall, recently appointed Director of Revenue for the States of Washington, was project director. He was assisted by NTLC president, Lewis K. Uhler; NTLC Executive Vice President, William H. Shaker; William Niskanen, UCLA; and Wm. Craig Stubblebine, Claremont Colleges. The study drew from the expertise of some fifty people from government, academia, business, as well as private institutions that monitor government activity.

Writing in the foreword to Meeting America's Economic Crisis, David Stockman said, "(The authors of the NTLC study) have some realistic advice for those whose

programs will be cut as well as for those who must do the cutting. The special interests can ignore the present economic situtation and the voters' mandate of last November. They can continue as part of the problem-lobbying for things as they've been. Or they can contribute to the solution by carefully examining their areas of expertise and making constructive suggestions to help trim the size and scope of government. I most enthusiastically recommend this study to anyone interested in confronting the problem of run away government spending."

We request that the sections directly concerning the food stamp program be made a part of the record (Expenditure Control Numbers 61, 62, 64, and 65).

CRITERIA

Our study developed a neutral set of criteria by which to judge programs. We tried to apply these criteria, without prejudice, across the whole budget. The more of these criteria a program or group of programs violate, the greater the need for a careful review of that program. With the help of a matrix based upon these criteria, we identified 83 specific expenditure control opportunities in all areas of the budget.

We felt that use of such across-the-board criteria represented a practicable and fair methodology of budget control. For the same reason, we feel that the suggested cuts must remain in a package. We think Congress should use these or similar criteria in assessing budget cuts; but it should surely not attempt to apply any standard for all programs without a commitment to defend it, entire, against those pressures from special interests and emotional appeals which will inevitably arise in opposition. Exemptions, if once permitted, will leave a policy of intended cuts in shambles. Making one group bear the burdens of austerity cannot be justified. Successful cuts must observe the principle of fairness; they must apply uniform standards across the board.

The criteria used in our study are: 1. tendency toward fraud and abuse; 2. tendency toward error, inefficiency, and waste; 3. duplication and/or lack of coordination with other programs; 4. failure to satisfy cost benefit tests; 5. unjustified expansion in benefit eligibility; 6. absence of a uniform national benefit; 7. impractical or unattainable goals; and 8. program better performed by state, local, or private agencies.

FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY

Several parts of the food stamp program fail to satisfy some or all of the first five criteria.

The first and most dramatic aspect of the food stamp program is its size. In March of last year 21.7 million Americans participated in the program-up from 15.3 million in October, 1979. According to the CBO, the food stamp program has grown from 1,350 percent between 1970 and 1980. Almost one of every ten Americans received food stamps (and this figure does not include those who, while technically eligible, did not for one reason or another actually collect them). Part of the reason for the sharp increase is that net rather than gross income determines eligibility. The law excludes so many items from gross income that the Administration has suggested applying an upward limit for eligibility of 130 percent of the poverty line. Our study proposes that Congress could further tighten eligibility here, without hurting the truly needy, by placing the limit at the poverty level plus a flat 15 percent allowance for work-related activities. The GAO has also recommended taking into account factors such as regional variation, family size, age, and sex in determining food stamp allotment without having a single standard allotment for all categories.

FOOD STAMP PURCHASE REQUIREMENT

In 1977, Congress eliminated the food stamp purchase requirement. This now appears as another contributing factor in the sharp increase in caseloads and costs. (The purchase requirement did not apply to the very poor even before its elimination.) In practice, the elimination of that requirement has resulted in many more marginal participants, because many people needlessly but profitably take advantage of their eligibility. Not only does having to pay even a small sum provide a deterrent for those who can't resist a "free lunch," but as former Congresswoman Leonor Sullivan, an early advocate of the food stamp program, said, everyone should at least pay something for food stamps so that they are considered something you buy. "Anything handed over free whether it be food stamps or anything else, invites cheating and abuse.” Certainly it might be argued that

.

many of those who really need food stamps would rather pay a small sum for their food than receive it as what Congresswoman Sullivan describes as a "mysterious gift." In addition to any such psychological benefits, restoring the purchase requirement would save an estimated $800 million a year.

FRAUD

One other serious problem which unfortunately besets the food stamp and many other government programs is fraud. A 1977 GAO audit found $500 million lost each year through food stamp errors, misrepresentation, and fraud. In some poor areas, food stamps have become an alternative currency. One suggested Senate bill (2376) "would require photo-identification cards for recipients, countersigned warrants, a national application crosschecked for duplicate benefits, and a standardized earnings clearance system." Certainly some combination of greater security and simpler eligibility standards (such as a figure based on gross rather than net income) would help to reduce the completely unacceptable degree of fraud now present in the system. Supporters of Senate Bill 2376 claim it would save an estimated $138 million a year.

The total estimated savings from all these recommendations equal $2.238 billion. The original calculations were for fiscal year 1981, although that total plus inflation (where applicable) should apply to the fiscal year 1982 budget as well.

The Committee will probably have noticed that there are considerable similarities between the Administration's suggested cuts and ours, although we suggest some cuts they do not and vice versa. We certainly do not oppose any of their recommendations (pro-rating the first month's benefits seems especially reasonable), although we do urge the Committee to consider some cuts in addition to those the Administration suggested, especially in the area of tighter income limits for eligibility.

THE POVERTY LINE

Few will argue that society must help the truly needy-but it is important that this committee as well as the Administration give some thought as to who the truly needy are. The poor, according to the U.S. Government's definition of poverty, you will always have with you.

We continue to hear that we still have as large a percentage of people in poverty today as we had at some specific time in the past. This is clearly true because poverty continues to be defined as the low end of the bell distribution curve.

In 1941, the poverty level for a family of four was $836 or $5,595 in 1980 dollars. Yet the Department of Labor statistics defines the poverty line in 1980 as $8,410. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Labor statistics defines the minimal low standard of living for 1980 as $13,918.

Those in the minimal low standard of living in 1980 would have been in relatively good shape economically in 1941.

CONCLUSION

The choices this Committee and others throughout the Congress will face over the next few weeks will test our character and our wisdom. That we are undergoing a period of some economic difficulty few doubt. But the solution for those difficulties has been the occasion of much debate. The President has proposed a package of spending cuts. They seem to NTLC to follow the principle of fairness and to cut according to specific criteria. The American people believe these cuts represent a good faith effort to address our problems. Congress can unify our country over a serious attempt to cure our economic ills and contain our everexpanding government.

But for this to happen, each Congressional committee must avoid overprotecting the programs within its purview. We are confident that you will speak out against any proposal the consequences of which you deem to be disastrous. But if a given cut exposes you to the pressures of passions and politics, now is the time for character and wisdom. The need for character is obvious. While wisdom is required to understand that we must take risks to escape our economic troubles; that successful opposition will not only lead to an increase in the scale of government but also eliminate our chances for unification in opposing those troubles; and finally that some of those who are tired of rowing will naturally gripe if we quit helping them row.

But we must remember through all this the alternative of a decaying economy unable to save even our drowning citizens. We need responsible cuts now to enable us to meet our responsibilities in the future.

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION

The American Dietetic Association (ADA) endorses the $3.1 billion budget cut proposed in the Food Stamp Program by the Reagan Administration in its March 10, 1982 Budget Revisions.

Limited studies that are available on the Food Stamp Program suggest that the major nutritional objection of this program has, at best, been only partially achieved. One major reason may be the lack of nutrition eduction as a component of the Food Stamp Program. Studies have shown that Food Stamp recipients do not use their added purchasing power to buy more nutritious foods; thus, the effectiveness of this program is questionable.

The ADA recommends that the efficacy of eliminating overlapping School Lunch and Food Stamp benefits be investigated. Because Food Stamp benefits would need to be prorated for each school-age child over the school year (about 165 days), the ADA questions whether the administrative costs might not be higher than the projected $600 million savings.

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) appreciates the opportunity to submit our views and recommendations on the reduction proposals by the administration on the food stamp program.

Many of the more than one million AFSCME members have worked in this program as caseworkers, supervisors, and support staff since its inception in 1964. In addition, some of our members are compelled, because of their low salaries as public employees, to rely on its benefits in order to meet the minimal needs of their families. Both as providers of services, and, to some degree, as consumers, we have been intimately involved with this program and the many changes that have been worked upon it over the years.

We have supported it steadfastly because we regard it as a major shield against hunger and malnutrition. Those of our members who determine and redetermine food stamp program eligibility can attest to this fact by the dramatic and poignant experiences they encounter each day in interfacing with impoverished Americans who are caught in a net of economic deprivation. They sense and feel the difference that the program means for millions of American children and adults between eating reasonably well and not having enough food to sustain a minimal level of health and nutrition. They are correct in their judgment that the vast majority of the participants in the program are deserving of continued assistance; that they will suffer serious harm if their program benefits are reduced, or worse still, eliminated.

Twenty-two million Americans are participating today in the program at an annual Federal cost of approximately $11 billion.

Who are they? What are their characteristics, Nearly twelve million are children under 17. Over two million are elderly or disabled persons. About half are recipients of public assistance. More than three million are single parents with children.

They have very low incomes. The average annual gross income is about $3,900 for a food stamp household. They have few assets. Three-fifths of recipient households have no liquid assets at all. They live in every State. In Septmeber 1980: Nearly one million lived in New England states. Six million lived in mid-Atlantic states. Five million in the Southeast states. Three million in the Midwest states. Two million in the Southwest states. One million in the Mountain Plains states. Two million in the Western states. Nearly two million in Puerto Rico.

Food stamp benefit levels (the amount of free food stamps recipients receive) are based on the "Thrifty Food Plan." This is the lowest priced of the Department of Agriculture's four family food plans. Department of Agriculture surveys