Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
CHILD NUTRITION AND WIC REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2004
ADDITION OF NEW STATES TO THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I hope to clarify our intent on one provision of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004-the provision pertaining to the Fruit and Vegetable Program.

When the Fruit and Vegetable Program was first enacted as part of the 2002 farm bill, the legislative language did not specify which States were to be participants in the program, but the States were specified in the conference report. The Department of Agriculture followed the conference recommendations.

Because we are passing this bill with a somewhat unusual process that will not involve a conference report, I would like to clarify which States are intended to be added to the program. Committee staff discussions have intended that the additional States to participate in the Fruit and Vegetable Program are Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota, and this was our understanding as we finalized this bill. I am in agreement with these discussions, and it is on this basis that we are completing this bill.

Mr. COCHRAN. I do not disagree with the Senator from Iowa.

INCENTIVE CRITERIA FOR REDUCTION OF NONRESPONSE RATES AND SUBSTITUTION

Mr. HARKIN, Mr. President, I hope to clarify the operation of certain provisions in the bill. As the chairman knows, the section of the bill titled, "Household Applications," provides school districts with an incentive to reduce the nonresponse rate during the income verification process. I would like to offer an example of the operation of 10-percent improvement criteria in nonresponse rates, so that the committee's intent is not misinterpreted. A district with a non-response rate of 40 percent, for example, would have to reduce its nonresponse rate to 36 percent, in order to meet the 10-percent improvement criteria and be entitled to maintain existing verification procedures under current law.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is, indeed, correct in his calculations. The provision calling for a 10-percent improvement in S. 2507 would operate in precisely the manner that the Senator from Iowa described.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman. I would also like to discuss the new substitution provision in the bill. In some school districts in my State and across the country, there are children whose household income is extremely difficult to verify, no matter how vigorous the effort put forth by school officials. The applications I am referring to are for children whose parents regularly do not respond to other school communications or are from a community that is suspicious of questions from governmental entities, including school districts. The families of these children may no longer be residing at the address of record, are not reachable by phone, or may exhibit other such barriers to verification. Am I correct that these are the type of applications envisioned in the bill's subparagraph titled "Individual Review"?

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is once again correct. This bill recognizes that there are certain situations when it may be nearly impossible for a school district to get in touch with the families of children who are eligible for this program. In situations such as those the Senator described, and other similar ones, the school district may decline to verify up to 5 percent of the approved applications selected for verification and replace those applications with other approved applications.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman.