of military readiness. mission readiness which you alluded to again is a group of 450 retired military leaders who just recently issued a report, which again reiterated the fact that one out of four 17 to 24-year-olds are not fit to fight, and one out of eight who are actually serving are actually obese, diagnosed obese that's $1.5 billion just to the dod's budget alone in terms of dealing with that program. when they say retreat is not an option, they're talking about retreat in terms of nutrition 58 standards, i think that's important to make that point clear. and i guess one question about the compliance issue, whether it's 90% or 95%, is gao. i mean what i think is important sometimes to not resite it is that what your department has been trying to do starting from zero in 2010 when the president signed this into law was to get the trend moving

in the right direction i guess the initiatives that you described, i mean, we're moving in that direction, isn't that right? it's not like we plateaued or we're sliding? the fact is, that people just sort of get more comfortable with the system, and also that you accommodate reasonable requests that were moving in the right direction. that's the point i want to give you a chance to describe. >> well, change obviously is difficult, you're absolutely right. the mission readiness is focused on this for the reasons you've articulated. health care cost reasons, economic productivity reasons for doing this. you know, i think i have some confidence in the level of compliance, because we rely and trust on our state partners who are administering this program, to give us the information from the individual school districts they receive. you have to assume that individual school systems are telling you the truth when they

say we're kpligs with this and we qualify now for the additional reimbursement rate. from a robert wood johnson survey of parents. 80% of parents think this is a good approach the students from the same survey indicate acceptance of this. it's going to take time just as it took time in terms of addressing the issues in 1946. i have no doubt we're going to see a health jurgen race of kids in this country. and our country is going to be better off for it. >> it's my intention to enter into the record -- i also would like to follow up on mr. thompson's complaint. they know the fact that the consumeption from the 1970s for

the average school child was 250 calories, it's slid dramatically, and sugary drink ss. >> i think that's frankly one of the reasons we're in the predicament we're in right now. mr. thompson's efforts which i think again has bipartisan sport support, and we welcome good suggestions to accomplish its goal. will help achieve the result that again these retired military leaders and yourself, now that you're on the record think really will help us get to improve children's health and readiness to deal with all physical challenges as they enter adulthood. >> i ask that this report be entered into the record. >> without objection. i would have been shocked if you had not brought up milk, for everyone's information, we're

keenly aware that there's a microphone problem up here and scrambling to see if we can solve it. >> last month the usda released its second access participation ledgeability study on measuring and reducing errors in the school meal programs. the department found a number of areas of fraud, waste and abuse. i have two questions regarding that and then my last question is regarding the administration's recent decision on trans fats and how that's going to translate into the school lunch program. the report cites improper payments being made. how prevalent and costly are these improper payments. what is the usda doing to prevent these occurrences. during 2005-2006, significant levels of program errors in

school food service providers, ability to verify whether a child was eligible for certain reimbursement categories. the most recent studsdies state levels of program errors remain high. to what degree do these errors affect the integrity of the program and access to meals for those who truly need them. when people who don't need them or shouldn't qualify are getting them. how much are these errors costing the taxpayer what is food nutrition services doing to address these errors and could you just address what kind of impact the decision by the administration is growing to have on school meal programs? >> we share the concern you have about program integrity. professionalizing the standards of the folks who are the cashiers, making determination at site on site. we know that's one of three mistake areas or problem areas,

raising the standards and the understanding and training for those individuals i think will help. we're also asking states to upgrade their training efforts as well. so personnel and the schools do a better job. secondly the use of community eligibility we know from the data and the review of statistics substantially reduces the errors you're concerned about, to the extent we can continue to look for ways to encourage districts roughly 6400 -- 6.4 million kids 14,000 schools, there are probably another 14,000 schools that could utilize community eligibility. they are unwilling or reluctant to do it because they've made the mathematical calculation they won't benefit financially or they're concerned about their impact on title 1. today title one is dependent on free and reduced lunch for your

kids. you didn't actually need an accurate -- a specific count of free and reduced lunch. we see a lot more school districts that would reduce the error rate. we have to make the application simpler, it's complicated. if you have parents who maybe english is a second language type of thing, we probably need to make sure that we figure out ways to simplify that apply indication to get the basic information. we've established an office of integrity to try to look at this earlier i mentioned the need for us to have an increased capacity from congress to review more schools. we currently are limited by congressional mandate to only review 3% of schools in terms of compliance. congressman thompson asked me if there's a number. my staff tells me 10% would be more accurate and more helpful if we could get up to 10% review. that would send a message, folks would begin to focus on the

importance of making sure we're accurate on all of this. data mining is also an opportunity for us to take a look and identify school districts that are having difficulties and maybe focus time and attention on those individual schools. there's a lot of activity going on in this space, i think we will see significant reductions in those numbers over time. to the issues of trans fats, it's not something i've had a chance to talk to our team about, obviously the ruling came out from fda today. but i did notice that 85% of food processors are already well on their way. there's a three-year implementation time line, i wouldn't anticipate this is going to create serious and significant problems in terms of standards relative to school lunch. >> do you think there might be an on slaught of litigation from attorneys toward some of these food companies that have been using trans fats in the last several years? and i mean is that a possibility? >> i want to make sure i

understand your question. in terms of people suing because of trans fats? >> right. >> well as a lawyer people can be pretty creative and look for opportunities potentially. i don't think there's -- i don't think you can discount that possibility. i would certainly hope that honestly, we would be looking for ways in which we could find consensus on issues involving nutrition. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman and mr. secretary, thank you for your testimony today as well as the time you recently took to travel to my district and hear from many of my constituents i appreciate your diligent work in the realm of childhood nutrition. i share with you and there's been a lot of discussion about that today much i want to bring

some other items to your attention as well. specific specifically i wanted to talk about the idea of establishing compliance around agricultural support programs that are funded by the federal government. as you know, this concept dates to the reagan administration attempting to curb environmental concerns through limiting taxpayer supports and subsidies. reduce exposure to taxpayers. specifically the conservation compliance program reduces soil erosion. making sure we don't do anything to increase short term production. reducing sediment taking improving water quality. and preserving and protecting wetlands. what we saw, however, in a 1995 inspector general's report is 20% of growers who see large subsidies are failing to comply with the conservation centers.

that's a lot of money that goes to those who are causing irreparable damage to our ecosystems. i was thrilled to see the conservation language added back. with a track record of 20% noncompliance. i wanted to ask how usda could better implement and enforce this provision going-forward. if you have any statistics from 20 years ago or if there are plans underway to come up with new statistics and how you plan to use the tool of withholding subsidies to ensure compliance. >> june one was an important date in terms of conservation compliance. on that date operators who did not have on file their 801026 form were required to do so. this is a new opportunity and new area for specialty crop producers. we've made a concerted effort in

terms of outreach to remind folks of that requirement. they now have an opportunity and responsibility for developing and devising a plan. and for our local nrcs offices to ensure that those plans are followed. i can tell you i'm proud of the fact that we have a record number of producers now enrolled in voluntary conservation of one sort or another. well over 500,000 producers are participating in conservation, well over 400 million acres which is a record, that number continues to rise and will no doubt continue to rise with the farm bill programs that we have, including the regional conservation partnership program, you know, we are looking for ways in which nrcs can provide less paper shuffling. so we just recently launched the nrcs gateway which allows for operators to be able to access information online at their

convenience without the necessity of coming to an office, that should free up folks to do more technical assistance, more review, more compliance activities. i don't know that there is any more recent study on the issue you raised. i'll certainly ask when i get back to the office if there is. >> i think you alluded to this it sounds like you're doing what you can to free up staff time and resources to ensure the program succeeds. >> i would encourage you and your staff to take a look at the new gateway we launched. it's a great opportunity for saving time and effort. it compliments the work that we're doing on the farm loan side with some of the automation that's taking place recently in terms of reporting. >> what about utilizing the tool of withholding subsidies for noncompliance? >> that is the ultimate responsibility or ultimate penalty if folks are not in compliance. and that's the law, and we will obviously follow the law.

>> thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, gentleman. mr. rokita. >> thank you chairman. mr. secretary, as chairman of the k through 12 subcommittee on education, on this committee, i've gone to schools all over indiana and all over the country and stuck my head in a lot of garbage cans to see what was in there. i know you do the same thing across the country, and i'm sure you would agree as well that the best part of that experience is talking with the kids. you seem to learn a lot. they continue to teach me at least. one of my concerns throughout all this, in the several hearings we've had is the potential for waste, fraud and abuse. and perhaps the real waste fraud and abuse, whether it's the fraud documented in the wic

program, or the ineligible students that are receiving freed and reduced breakfast and lunches. i appreciate the discussion we've had about needing to see more than 3% in terms of a sample, and you offered 10% as a goal that should be changed in law. if you do that on a school wide basis. 10%, shouldn't the schools also at least get a 10% sampling of the applications. i understand right now, they only do 3% under the law as well. >> i think the goal here is to figure out a way in which we can hold folks accountability. and figure out a way at which -- >> 3% at the school level? is the 3% application sampling at the school level? >> let me check, i don't know. >> yep, that's accurate. >> so we raise it to 10%. >> to the extent we think

looking at more applications will provide us more information that will allow us to reduce error rates, i would be in favor of anything that would enable this. you know obviously we don't want to create busy work for schools, i think we need to explain to them this is an issue we are all concerned about, and they have a responsibility to work with us to reduce the error rate. >> i might be able to help you with that. in light of other technology sies. you make a reasonable request. as i've gone to one school in particular, i believe it was in lafayette they made me a batch of mashed potatoes under their current goals and guidelines, and they were god awful. and then they made me a batch of mashed potato ses under the regulations they have to get to

in the next few years and they were just terrible. >> i think you could probably go to a school, if you went to all 99,000 schools that are currently trying to comply. you would find the circumstance a day a meal an entree that probably you wouldn't like. that's why we have focused on ways and strategies to help school districts do a better job. part of it is bringing chefs into the schools to explain how you might be able to utilize better cooking techniques. it's why we have focused on school equipment grants to give schools the ability to produce meals on site. linking struggling schools with succeeding schools, so they have a mentor who's in a similar circumstance to say you can do this. >> i found creative people there. these weren't deep fry cooks. the first batch of mashed potatoes had butter buds in them. the new regulations were under

30 milligrams of sodium. at some point you have to -- but all right, i understand what you're saying, maybe the chefs can come to our schools in indiana. going to the department of integrity you speak of. do you have all the teeth you need in law. >> i'm sorry, what? >> the department of integrity you speak of. do you have all the teeth you need in current law to make that integrity work? what do you envision it doing that's going to make this work. >> there are ways to decrease the error rate. it's working with software producers that could potentially reduce errors as well. if we're given more capacity and more opportunities to look at more schools there would be a responsibility there as well

there's data mining that can be done. if we have repeat issues involving a particular state. it may be able to identify where standardization, additional training in a particular state may be helpful. >> i'm out of time, i'm sorry. >> thank you, gentleman. >> >>. >> thank you, it's also nice to have a conversation with you. especially when you're reporting that over 90% of our schools in the country are now meeting the national guidelines for a school meal program. and i don't know what it's like around the family dinner, but my experience is that it's always that kid that made a stink about eating vegetables growing up, i get all the attention while everyone else quietly enjoyed what was put on the table. it's good to hear that 90% of

kids are feeding with the program, are getting along with it, if not complaining. i've heard some complaints for kids eating brown rice the school system has gradually added a little bit of brown rice over time. this approach is working. the public school system receives a grant to support childhood nutrition program it serves meals to over 11,000 school children. food costs have gone up since 1991 the year when the grants started i'm concerned there has been no review. proportional to the cause of

providing nutritional meals. exercise your authority to do so. my question is would you be willing to exercise this authority again to reveal payment rates in the northern marianas, so you can set the appropriate reimbursement rate of cost of food in that area in my district? >> i'd be happy to work with you congressman on that issue? obviously, more of a general comment on your comments. we're pleased with the fact that we're seeing more fruits and vegetable consumeption by kids as a result of these standards. when we deal with food waste, i hope that -- if not this committee, some committee will work with us to deal with the fact that today in america, 30% of all the food that is produced in this country is wasted. that's 133 billion pounds of food. that's a global issue as well.

and if you think about 30% you think about all the costs associated with producing that, it's a focus of ours now we have over 2,000 partners we can look at reduce inging -- >> i got turned on because i was fat, obese. >> 1/3 of children are overweight or obese. you talk about the childhood obesity epidemic. it's hard to make the link between obesity and hunger. can you help collar if i the link? between obesity and hunger? >> it is somewhat difficult for some to understand that they can sometimes be twin challenges that a particular youngster could face. if you live in a family that

tries to deal with the pangs of hunger, they look at processed foods, those families may have limited access to full scale grocery stores. it's one of the reasons why we have improved the snap program to allow the redemption of ebt benefits at farmer's markets the food and security initiative we launched encourage more food consumption for snap families. they can provide more nutritious, less empty calorie meals. and it is a challenge i continue to have the same challenge. i remember the fact that my mother put a cartoon on the refrigerator at our house, a

very very overweight child with a beanie cap, as a way of telling me to stay out of the fridge. >> i mention the energized the new relationship we have whether it's with the people in san francisco, your honolulu folks are very intentive, and even -- i want to mention the renewal of cooperation, and appreciate that, thank you for your leadership. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brown? >> mr. secretary. thank you. i have a couple questions the ranking member made a comment. it's our job to provide nutritious meals most of us agree with that statement in the short run, i want to get your thoughts on what you'd make of that in the long run, both on the economic and ethics front we

have $127 trillion on unfunded liability issues coming our way the impact of that the cbo director has a nice graph. by 2032, those four programs plus interest take up all federal revenues that's where we're headed. you look at a military crisis right now, the budget committee has a third of the budget to deal with. by 2032 we had zero. in discretionary funds. on the ethical backdrop our job to provide nutritious meals that leads into a host of complexity do we provide breakfast, lunches dinners, backpacks going home for the weekend. if you are you fuse to do any of this, are you less than 100% compassionate. along with this does it include health care, day care obesity

programs. we've heard folks say, this is a national defense, a national security issue. and then anything at the federal level, we have bureaucratic costs added to all this. and so going-forward, we have a crisis coming our way. in economics, if you incentivize the state which is what i think we're doing through these programs, to care for kids i get nervous about the caring and loving part. the more and more the federal role increases and the less and less role the parent decreases. i get the tension we all want to take care of the kids. i don't think there's any disagreement on that, we want to do the right thing. but education -- and i taught college for the last 18 years. education is precisely about educating kids and hopefully parents how this has not happened is part of the crisis. so they can live autonomous

lives in the future, and families can live in tact. is there any upper bound philosophically in your thought, in caring for our kids, and is this a short run glide path toward the next 16 years as we run into more and more economic head winds. in the long run i don't want to be sitting here at the federal level micro managing all these issues i think belong to the state and local level and ultimately the parent level. i want to get your thoughts on that. >> congressman, you raised obviously some really important questions. and frankly as you arewere asking your question, i was thinking back to my childhood, where i started out life in an orphanage, i was adopted into a

family where my mother suffered from alcoholism and prescription drug addiction. she was a mean lady when she drank. and she was a wonderful woman when she stopped. during the time she was drinking, she was not there. she was just flat out not there. you know i think there are fortunately and tragically a lot of families that deal with issues. someone's got to be there. somebody's got to be there. you would hope it would be a family member. you would hope. you wan bt it to be a family member. you want that family member not to feel overwhelmed. but maybe if you're dealing with two part time jobs and trying to juggle a couple kids and you're taking in your sister's kids because she's having problems. i think it's overwhelming. there has to be some way in which we provide some

assistance. we send our children to school, and obviously, you know, when they're in school, this whole notion, you would hope that the school district is taking care of them, protecting them, feeding them well and teaching them well i want a better life, i want a better way, i'm going to work hard and do what i need to do. i mention i was in baltimore yesterday i went to? library and saw wonderful, beautiful young kids there reading i don't know what their family circumstances were, there were three pop pop pops, i thought it was a tire or something. my security guy goes sir, did you hear those gunshots. you know somebody's got to be there. i would like it to be mom and dad, sometimes that's not

possible. someone's got to be there. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tacano. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you secretary veal sap on all the great work you've done on nutrition. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into record a statement from rodney taylor the director of unified school district. in reconsideration the healthy hungry kids act, how much are the lives of our children worth? a healthy hunger free kids act seeks to reinforce the -- millions struggle with obesity and hurricaner, standards provide one structured approach, as a country as parents, as

people with moral consciences, we owe it to our children, the healthy hunger free kids act, gives all children the chance of living a healthy life. the cost to do nothing is far greater than the inconveniences of implementing what is already in place in most school districts. along those lines -- >> i think you just did put it in the record but of course, without objection. >> in california, our schools are required to meet higher standards for meals. about five years before the healthy hunger free kids act was last reauthored. state law helped them be ready for the standards. and demonstrated these kind of changes can be implemented on a large scale. can you point to other examples where schools or states led the way for improving nutrition for

children? >> well, i think there are probably examples of school districts in every single state where there was a concerned group of parents or concerned superintendent or principle or concerned group of teachers or combination of school nutrition personnel that knew they could do a better job and a better way. there are many, many school districts that for whatever reason have transitioned to a central kitchen to save money. now they would like to be able to do a better job. which is why the school equipment program is so important, some of the school districts you've had a chance to see probably equip themselves, probably spent the resources, had access to the resources, not every school district has that that's why the school equipment grant is so important. >> thank you. i can mention that the largest school district we don't have

exceptional resources. he's been able to improvise and do what he needs to do he's been so inspirational to me, i visited his facilities, he's used the buying power of the school district to support the local farmers in our area the food is fresher, and, therefore, more appealing to the young people, he strategized in terms of where he puts the salad bar, and by the way, he's implemented salad bars in nearly all of the schools. he puts the salad bar first so that young people have a chance to make healthier choices first, and just that simple innovation of one -- well, two innovations, the salad bar, and where you put the salad bar. all the students are finally passed the salad bar first, they're going to make choices for healthier food first.

>> cornell school of nutrition has put together a series of steps similar to what you've outlined in terms of placement. even if you name the vegetable we found with elementary schoolkids if you name carrots x-ray vision carrots, that will encourage kids to try a carrot or two. we put together 25 tool kits to distribute to school districts who are trying to figure out how to do this you don't have to reinvent the wheel, there are a lot of school districts that have figured this out. >> mr. taylor i know has been traveling around the country helping school districts. i thank you and your department for showing us the best practice s he's definitely shown our community this can all work. he grew up in a poor environment, he knew what hunger was, and he's committed his life

to making sure none of our children today have to go through that. he's been a real inspiration to our community. we thank you for the standards you're trying to implement. i can't help but wonder if those kids are disappointed when they don't get x-ray vision. >> thank you for coming over and talking about the lunch program. in georgia, we fully embrace the dietary guidelines set by the federal government. it's a no breather we want our kids to be healthy. georgia has only five schools that have not met the sixth sense certification guidelines, that speaks volume ss.

the director of the school nutrition division of the georgia department of education says georgia continues to face challenges with federal mandates of particular concern, explaining those mashed potatoes. and implementation of the usda smart snacks. i always go back to the kitchen and talk with the personnel who are preparing the foods and a lot of those folks are happy. back when i played football, they made us eat sodium tablets so i guess it depends on how

much exercise you get. when kids aren't eating the food, they think there's something wrong with the food. a significant loss in the food program for the schools. the school directors are concerned about their operation operational finances. the staff is what would have to be cut first if things don't change. as stated in your testimony, and flexibility is important to comply with federal standards for child nutrition. how can we work together to provide the subtle requirements for the usda smart snacks.

>> i think the sodium there are three targets that have to be met. we have provided a 10-year phase in, and have provided that flexibility until the dietary guidelines establish it's appropriate. so we have been working with the food processing companies to make those adjustments and there will be an adjustment but over time i would spend some time at the mccormick facility in maryland where they showed me how you can use spices to replace salt and the meal that they served me was extraordinary. within the calorie guidelines. there are ways to do this. there is flexibility provided in sodium and flexibility provided in terms of the pay equity issue. we want to make sure we're not

reimbursing or over compensating school districts for paid meals that they aren't subsidizeing their paid meals properly. if they have adequate reserves. on the smart snack piece of it again, they're -- i'd be happy to get information from you on the school districts see why they're losing the resources they're losing. >> after the federal child nutrition standards were implemented in 2012, we saw a drop in participation of school lunch programs, and clearly standards are having unintended effects. have we -- am i hearing that we're doing better now? or do we have plans to significantly decrease this

decline in the school lunch participation? >> we may have some disagreement about the accident of the decline, of the over 99000 schools in the country today, only 58 have dropped out. some of those who have dropped out are coming back in. there's a chronicle that outlines several of those coming back in. we know there are multiple reasons why an individual student may not participate it may well be some of the concerns that are expressed here, it may also be -- we've seen a rather dramatic increase in free and reduced lunch. folks at home feel they will do better for less. and we saw actually this trend occurring before the guidelines occurred. we need to continue to look for ways to make these meals as pleasing as possible. and to work with schools that are struggling, that's why we

created the team up for success, we started in the deep south with the number of school districts, we took the university of mississippi where they worked for a day and a half with them. looked on procurement, financing, looked at meal menus. we received good positive feedback, by the end of this year we will have touched all regions of the country with struggling schools. >> let me just say that i think that what we spend on feeding kids in this country is a great value. especially since we spend about $3 million per hour on war that we've never authorized. mr. secretary, nonprofit organizations and schools have to operate after school meal programs and the summer meal programs separately. these programs serve the same kids, the same meals at the same

location, just at different times of the year. now, they have different sets of paperwork, and often operate under different state agencies. it is a huge burden of paperwork. is there any opportunity to streamline these programs and make them easier to operate? >> well, the answer obviously we should look for ways in which we can streamline the programs. yesterday in baltimore, we committed ourselves to a demonstration project in the city of baltimore to see if that -- if we could work on creating a process of -- apparently we have a rule that says you can't serve three meals at the same location. so we're going to have a demonstration project to take a look at whether or not we can do that and what the concerns might be if you have suggestions we'd be open to them. >> congressman barry and i introduced a farm to school act.

can you speak to the benefits of farm to school for children and why you would support this additional flexibility in the program for early child care settings? >> well, the farm to school program has been extraordinary successful. we've done 221 grants and we've recently surveyed school districts and we found that there is about $350 million of economic benefit associated with farm to school. one of the benefits is keeping resources that are generated in a community in the community instead of sending it -- your resources for meals 1,000 miles away. there's economic benefit there's a freshness benefit, people like the idea that they're helping their local producers and kids can learn about what's being grown and raised in their vicinity. we know there's a multiple

billion dollar opportunity here it's particularly helpful to small and medium sized producers. and kids get access to fruits and vegetables that they may not otherwise consume. it's a -- to use a trite phrase, it's a win-win situation. frankly, school districts are learning that they can do this in a way that doesn't break the bank, and that it's quite popular. we've done quite a bit of -- i think we've done quite a bit of good with a relatively small amount of money, the program has 5 to $6 million in grantses. and what we do with those resources is we acquaint people with what is grown in their vicinity and their district within 150 to 200 mile radius. we help them with procurement. and then we basically steer them to food hubs and other facilities that can provide sufficient quantity to satisfy them. >> let me just ask one last question. this is about summer meals.

we've had a number of hearings where both sides testified that summer meals are significantly important to young people. but in the state of ohio only about 10% of low income children are getting summer meals, where the national average is about 16%. both still low. what solutions should this committee consider to ensure programs like summer meals are flexible enough to serve kids in need? i look at my largest city, the city of cleveland, 54% of all the kids there live in poverty. so the need is there how do we address it? >> i think it is a partnership that requires local engagement involvement from local political leaders, mayors, governors have to be engaged if they are, we see dramatic increases. one thing we need to do is figure out ways in which we can go to where the kids are, as opposed to having the kids go to where the meals are. we know, and i suspect you know in your city, you know where

kids will congress great during the summer. we need to figure out ways to ensure meals go to them, a playground, a swimming pool wherever they congregate, in my town, where kids grew up it was the little league diamond. ways we can go to where the kids are. right now, our process is the kids have to go to a central location. and sometimes they know where that central location is and we're trying to make it easy for parents to understand where that is but it is often times difficult to get there. we're trying to make it nonthreatening nonthreatening. anyway we can continue to promote flexibility in excess. we would be looking forward to working with you. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, and i look forward to working with you and the subcommittee chairman and all of my colleagues on this important issue. thank you mr. secretary for

your presence here today. my first question is prompted by some frustrations in the state of florida with, regard to transportation. as you know all current usda commodities must be placed on a truck of all like material. would it make sense to decrease costs to smaller school districts or use smaller trucks to offset -- >> congressman seems like a reasonable proposal and suggestion, i'd be more than happy to take that back to the office and see if there's a possibility for us working. we are very focused at usda on process improvement. it seems like it would be an improvement. i'd be happy to look into itp. >> i appreciate it. this is not a major challenge. for some of our rural districts, it's certainly posed challenging.

>> my second question is a little broader, i served on the miami-dade county school board often times i would think it's great we're making this effort to try to help kids have a healthier diet while they're in our schools. but if they go back home and continue their poor eating habits, maybe we're just spinning our wheels. do you have any ideas as we look ahead at this reauthorization as to what we can do if anything to empower parents to really take ownership over their children's diets, and understand that while the schools can help this is really primarily the responsibility of parents and families? >> one thing i think we've seen a remarkable increase in parental involvement and interest. when kids basically establish a school garden and are able to produce food that they then consume or invite parents to the school, so that the parents can go through the salad line and

have the tomato or the carrot or cucumber that the child actually produced. basically creating those kinds of opportunities where kids get excited about fruits and vegetables they produced and are able to proudly display them to mom or dad. or working with local grocery stores where they are willing to have a display of a locally produced school, you know, i know that whatever kids are involved in and whatever they're proud about, parents take notice. one way to do that is to create opportunities within schools that kids could then bring mom and dad into as a suggestion. i'll think about your question. that's the best i can do right now, if i come up with a better answer i'll be glad to convey it. >> we're making significant investments and we all know what a tough time a lot of the school districts are having complying and this is all important.

i don't mean to diminish it, it does make a difference. the problem of child nutrition and childhood obesity i don't think will ever be country take ownership for their children's health and diet and do the best they can at home. >> that's true. it's not just what they consume. it's how active they are and something parents clearly have an opportunity to promote which is physical activity. getting kids outdoors, having them participate in some kind of activity that gets them moving. as the first lady's let's move initiative is focused on and school districts looking at getting kids recess time and i think things in which parents are engaged in a positive way on this. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> ms. bonamici.

>> thank you for your response on the need for this program. i spent many years working in the league aid office and you quickly discover people don't struggle by choice. unfortunate circumstances typically lost a job, health care bills they couldn't pay, et cetera. appreciate your meaningful answer there. like other committee members, i visited a lot of schools and had lunch with many students. i try to avoid sticking my head into the garbage can but i have looked in there. we have great salad bars out in oregon in our schools. school gardens which you mentioned. mr. secretary, are great programs that nutrition education that kids take home with them and talk to their families about. and i agree with subcommittee chairman rokita. i learn a lot from talking to

students. i was in the state legislature when we got the junk food out of vending machines in the schools and compassionate, compelling testimony of students in a nutrition class learning about health and then go out in the hallway and see vending machines full of junk food and sent inconsistent messages. the students were persuasive there. i'm hopeful that this committee will work together to successfully reauthorize the child nutrition programs and build on the success of the healthy hunger free kids act. appreciate hearing the concerns from my colleagues. so i wanted to talk a little bit about something that doesn't get as much attention and i'm really pleased to be partnering with the committee colleague of new york of legislation to strengthen child and adult care food program. i appreciate the representative's interest in the program and working together to put cacfp on stable footing for millions of children it serves each day. children in preschool and

daycare, the cacfp provides after school programs and emergency shelters. so i wanted to begin with asking you about the department's process for preparing new meal standards, why are the new meal guidelines important. and then i also want to ask, following up on representative fudge's issue about streamlining, the usda is working with some of the large sponsors in the cacfp program to simplify their interactions with state agencies and hope those sponsors avoid needing to sup mit similar paperwork for multiple states so can you talk about both preparing the meal standards and guidelines and simplifying the paperwork for multi-state sponsors? >> well, there are over 178,000 participating locations in the program that you have asked for and obviously it's important for us to make sure that in all of those locations to the extent they involve children that we're sending a consistent message through the process, consistent

message with wic and snap. and snap ed. consistent message at the school. consistent message with summer feeding and important to ensure that the message that is we are sending are consistent. so obviously, we rely on the experts to give us a sense of what ought to be served to these youngsters and how it will be consistent with what they're likely to be served in the future at school and summer feeding and down the line. you know, it's important i think that we recognize that the reimbursement rates are relatively the same. they don't get the benefit of six-cent increase but in terms of the reimbursement rate's relatively the same so, you know, i think it's trying to remain consistency. now, the issue of process, we are engaged add usda in a process of improvement effort and ways to reduce duplication of paperwork, i'm all for it and i think that's why we're pushing community eligibility, direct

certification. these are all ways of producing better product, greater access, less cost and administrative hassle and errors. >> before my time runs out, i want to ask we want to make sure the cacfp works well for small providers and can you talk about the importance of keeping the small providers connected especially in rural areas? how can the department work together to encourage cacfp participation? >> just because a youngster is raised in a small town doesn't necessarily mean they get inadequate service or no service or improper service. my kids were in a very small daycare facility in a small town and i'm very sensitive to the needs of kids in rural areas for access. >> terrific. i thank you very much. i yield back. >> i understand that the secretary has a hard stop time

near 12:00. we have so much member interest here that i'm going to have to take the draconian step of limiting me believes from here out to three minutes. and i'll be fairly militant in cutting off the time. >> mr. chairman, we can -- in the interest of time, i'm here for you. so -- >> you're very generous. we're still going to limit to three minutes because i'm respectful of your time. i'm doing the math here and we could go until well past 12:00 if we don't limit the time, so with those new guidelines in place, mr. guthrie. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just did school visits. a lot of us talked about school visits and i think it's beneficial. and i sat down at roundtables with the people in the dietary world who do this and sat with them and i said when we started.

i said this probably is not going to go away. anything we want to do has to be signed by the president so what kind of things would make it be better and the kids eat more? they came up with some pretty good ideas. and some of the things we saw doing the visit, there was one particular -- you get particular instances hard to even explain. there was a hamburger that i thought tasted okay and you can only get three pickles and a person there guarding the jar and i remember the reporter going, well, what's wrong with pickles? it's sodium. it's gotten to where you had the lady there with the potato s had to put four in -- instead of the glove and the tray. the kid might get five and that was a sodium issue, as well. and so you do see these things with fruit in the -- the stuff you hear i actually saw. one kid at davis county middle school, healthiest trash can i have ever -- in town probably. that was a quote from that young

person. but there came -- how do we make it work and everybody at the table was in the school lunch program and so they wanted kids to eat healthy, too. flexibility on whole grains. the whole grain pasta is sticking together and gooey. no further decrease in sodium and a parent suggested they can't have thanksgiving dinner because there's too much sodium or calorie. on wednesday, they can't eat the rest of the week. and a parent says one day a month or flex days that doesn't count? everything in moderation. and so, when we sat down to say how can we make a program in place work better, those are suggestions. do you have any comments? they sound reasonable to me from people in the system. >> well, certainly, the whole grain pasta issue is one we recognized a concern about and provided flexibility and that was extended to whole grain generally. sodium issue we also recognized.

we also made some adjustments on the protein and portion size issues. so long as things fit within the overall guidelines for the week. so i think there is flexibility that we have provided and i think there are creative ways to deal with the flexibility to provide wholesome meals. >> within the authorization coming up, that might need to be included instead of waivers and flexibility but the flex day and there can be, p.e. day or field day, they could have pizza. i understand it's during the week and if they have a thanksgiving meal, it blows the whole week. >> just -- mine, in terms of flexibility, we gave that opportunity 1,900 school districts out of 15,000 were granted the flexibility. so i mean, 2,300 requested it. so it was a relatively small percentage of overall school districts and small percentage of schools. >> they mention -- >> gentleman's time has expired. ms. davis. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary.

thank you for sharing your personal story which i think really is compelling and reminds us there are many, many families that are not able to take all the advice in the world we'd loof to give them and i appreciate that. i wanted to focus quickly, though, on california's historic drought right now because this has really exacerbated food insecurity for many, many of our families in areas where this really does matter. it means job losses. accumulation of a host of issues and i know you're familiar, obviously, with the electronic benefit transfer program and the fact that many of the families who would benefit of school meals in the year are not able to do that. they don't have a facility, they don't have a place to go and so expanding that program in these drought stricken areas would be helpful. in california. i know that, you know, i'd love

to see that. i have a bill. i'd love to see that nationally. i think it makes sense. the pilot programs have shown it makes a difference. i think young people not getting the nutrition they need in the summertime, they're going to lose out by not being in school to begin with and this exacerbates that problem. what about the drought stricken communities in california? i don't live in one as much as many of the communities but i'm just -- i'm concerned because this would be a good place to focus. >> well, we agree. and we're encouraging folks to consider appropriations process an expansion of the program because we know it works. we know it results in more fruits and vegetables consumption and healthier choices for the kids in the summer and deals with the issue of a lack of access if you don't have a congregate site some place in the rural area or too far away. you don't have transportation or too dangerous to get to. so we're very much inclined to want to see an expansion of that program and really about dollars

and cents f. they give us the resource, we'll extend it and look at ways in which we can help people in distress. i've got a much more fuller extent answer to the drought issue which we'll be able to provide your staff. >> right. i think there certainly are issues. other countries have done far better job with this but for the time being while we wait for that and host of other remedy that is are out there, this is a problem. so is there anything else we can do to -- i think make the case that these ebt pilot programs really have demonstrated for us the fact they work and they keep kids from losing they could otherwise -- >> i think if you can show -- i think it's basically responding to the fact that this is a program that reduces hunger, that responds to folks who are in severe distress, expands access to fruits and vegetables and at the end of the day expands reach, this program at a minimum gets to 30% of the kids versus national average of 16 so

you make the case you're getting more help to more kids. >> gentle lady's time expired. dr. row? >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being here and your service to our country and i'm going to talk as fast as a southerner can. i'm talked to one of our school districts in rural ap la cha where i live. free and reduced lunch and said the kids are not eating. many of them throwing the food away. kids are leaving there hungry. i said what do you do when they're hungry? he feeds them. what mr. guthrie was talking about the food police deciding how many pickles on a hamburger is where we're from the view we have is ridiculous. and so, when you limit the portions, the size and i've eaten many school lunches. i like to go and talk to kids. i do that a lot. i'm saying one school director passed this around. lost $877,000 on the program.

that's what it cost in a poor county where i live so they're having trouble financing this. i want to get something else and what mr. gri value who said is correct. 69% of adults over 20 are overweight and the average woman today weighs what the average male did in 1960. so we have gotten larger as a country. no question. i wrote you a letter a year and a half ago -- a little over a year ago about the usda to release a comprehensive report on snap benefits are used. and to date, in spite of numerous follow-ups we haven't heard anything. basically what we heard was, wrote a letter in july. again, in november. and it was supposed to be out in march. and it's still not out and the reason for that is because that is a huge program. and i think unless you affect that program about how foods are bought and prepared there in a more healthy way, you're never

going to fix the school lunch. the kids are going home to their parents and when is a that report coming out? can you tell me? >> i can check. i don't know the answer to that question, congressman, but -- >> i don't want to interrupt you but i use the wic program for years as an ob/gyn doctor. it works. when you put healthy food out there for people to eat. we spent between $2 billion and $4 billion estimated last year on soft drinks, and i know that's not good news to the soft drink industry, but that's not food. and we should be looking at this massive program, if we could get the data. i can tell you, when i go into harris teeter, which i have an apartment there, they know exactly what i buy. the usda should be able to tell us what those recipients are buying and narrow those food choices so they're eating healthier. those cdc data i just presented are real, and it's a nationwide problem. >> i can tell you that what snap

folks are buying is not that much different than what the rest of the country is buying. >> but they're buying it with tax dollars. >> the gentleman's time has expired. ms. clark? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for being here mr. secretary, and i appreciate your personal story and the empathy that you bring to these issues, and i also appreciate the concerns with things my colleagues have raised with the smaller schools and the problems they're having providing healthy school meals. i am open to your approach. look at flavored milks, trucking and how we can do better by rural communities, but what really strikes me is that in the richest country in the world, nearly 16 million children struggle with food insecurity. that's one in five american children.

and we know this brings lower academic success, increased health factors, obesity. cardiovascular disease and increased health care costs. so in three minutes, i'd like to know our strategy for solving childhood hunger, and i really would like to have your opinion on where do we need to focus? is it expanding eligibility for nutrition asis tax programs like wic? is it expanding accessibility to proposals similar to adjunctive and community eligibility or is it simply time to increase snap benefits so these kids can also eat when they get home? >> boy, there, i think it's all of the above, in a sense. i would say that this administration has started that process of improving and expanding. and doing it in a way that is

focussed on integrity. we've reduced the integrity concerns on the snap program. we're addressing them in wic, and now we have an aggressive effort that we are under way in terms of the school lunch programs. so part of it is making sure that we spend the dollars we have wisely. part of it is creating ways in which access to programs is tim -- simpler. we're encouraging direct certification. if title i's a barrier, that would provide for fewer access we need to be working with the department of education to figure out how to get through that barrier. so it's just knocking these barriers down. >> great. thank you. we did it. and thank you. i really appreciate your testimony today and the work that you're doing, and we look forward to working with you.

>> thank you. >> i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. mr. grossman? >> thank you. i also toured a lot of my local schools and get the same thing we get here. the federal requirements are going up. kids are throwing away their food. if they have an open campus, the kids are fleeing the school lunch room to go to the mcdonald's or whatever across the street, because they don't want the federally mandated food. the question i have for you, you know, i think it's just odd that here on a federal level we're telling people, school districts what they can serve for lunch. because i always thought most of us were taught what a nutritious lunch is when we were probably in elementary school. therefore i wonder about just giving them the money and not worrying about the paperwork. how many people do you have and how much cost goes into paying for these programs?

>> well, the school lunch program is roughly $12.5 billion. school -- >> i mean, the administration. not how much is the checks that we send out. >> you know, i don't know that the administration is, i don't know specifically the answer to that, but i will tell you this. we, the chairman mentioned the number of employees working at usda, mr. chairman, it's no longer 100,000. it's more like 85,000. so we're operating on an operating budget that's less than it was when i became secretary. so i can assure you that we're looking for every administrative efficiency. so i don't think administration's the issue here. and frankly, it's not that we

tell specifically what needs to be served, but we give people guide lines and standards, and then they have freedom to figure out ways, creative ways to meet those standards. >> it shouldn't be that difficult to make a healthy lunch. right now we couldn't be doing worse. people are throwing away the food. and if you have open campus, the kids are leaving the campus and looking for somewhere else to eat. >> congressman, with due respect -- >> the question i have -- >> studies show there isn't more food waste before the program. food waste is an issue that transcends the school lunch program. >> the question i want to know, when i talk to my local school districts who frequently want more money. they wonder how much we are spending here to administer a program that is kind of based on the idea that the local people don't know how to make lunch. how many employees do you have and how much does it cost to administer this program? >> i'll be happy to provide you that answer, but i would also say that those very same people may be living in a state where they've not spent all the money we've provided to them, and my

question to them would be why aren't you spending those resources if you're strapped. why is that the case? the gentleman's time has expired. ms. adams? >> thank you. i have some serious issues with food insecurity in north carolina. we've got a high rate, 26% in the 12th district that i represent. food insecurity is over 30%. so i launched a hunger initiative last month in the district, and i heard some very disturbing things from some of the people who actually came and had a discussion with me. but i wanted to, i heard a troubling story about a child who was 20 to 30 feet from the approved site where the bus stop where the food was being served. and the mother mentioned that

she was very concerned because the child could not actually take the food on the front porch, which is right in front of the stop. and, because of the current regulations, and she felt that her child was being treated like an animal, forced to eat in the dirt. i know that's not the intent of the law, but just wanted to ask you what changes you thought needed to make, we needed to make to ensure that we're not discouraging participation in the program and making children feel less than they ought to feel. >> i would say one, we discussed briefly the need to extend the ept program that's been successful in embracing and encouraging access and flexibility and also continue to work on ways in which we can provide greater flexibility in the site locations for where kids are as opposed to forcing kids to go to a site. you know, it is somewhat up to the local folks who basically

are the sponsors of this program how strict they are about all of this. but i would say those would be two suggestions. >> okay. just one other thing. we have about 600,000 children who qualify for free and reduced lunch and only 14% are accessing. i think you've addressed some of those problems. but what type of discretion would the usda have to do to waive some of the current regulations that would prevent students who are eligible for free lunch in not taking advantage of it? >> well, i think that the first suggestion would be to make sure if a school district is taking full advantage of the programs that exist. it may very well be that they are qualified for the program that would reduce administrative concerns. so i would be happy to work with you to identify the school district you are concerned about to see if they meet be able to take advantage of cep.

>> thank you. >> gentle lady yields back. mr. bishop? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. appreciate your testimony. the wic program, we've had a little discussion about it today. there is a legislative mandate to rebate infant formula. and for the allowance to do that for other foods. i've had discussions with folks in my district, and there's concerns that have been raised that the rebates limit parental choice for both the wic participants and the nonparticipants. and i wonder if you might be able to offer up some solutions to the committee today to promote what was intended by those rebates with cost containment as well as trying to find a way to do it without limiting parental choice. and also i'd like some input from you as to who you view should be able to choose the products they see as best for

the kids. >> well, we, obviously, are mindful of the need for the balance between a healthy package and a reasonable cost to the taxpayers. food inflation i think's increased by 12% since the time i've been secretary. the wic costs have increased by 1%. so the package concept is trying to maintain reasonable costs. the issue of flexibility, i know that we have provided some degree of flexibility on formula. part of the challenge is that some of the folks and the choices that people want to make are much more expensive. that gets into a whole cost issue. you know, i thought you were going maybe asking about the notion that some of the formula

makers are concerned about. too many people taking advantage of the wic program. because of the way in which states admin stir the medicaid program. and i think the key there is to make sure that the data that they have, the industry has and the data that we have match. because today that's not the case. there's significant delta between what they claim folks who are ineligible for wic and we claim. so there's a set of issues there that i think we need to be addressing. >> gentleman yields back. mr. jeffers. >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you secretary vilsack for your testimony here today as well as your leadership on these very important issues. in the limited time that i have, i was hoping that we could drill down some on the childhood obesity problem that we've got in america. now more than one third of children in the united states are considered overweight or obese, is that correct? >> yes. >> and is it fair to say that this level of obesity is a national epidemic? >> it's of obviously great concern. >> so these children are placed at greater risk of heart disease, is that correct? >> a number of diseases.

diabetes, hypertension. >> greater risk of liver disease? >> may very well be. >> stroke? >> greater risk of illness. i'm not a doctor. and i did raise my hand to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. so i want to make sure -- >> in fairness, he did. >> is it fair to say that childhood obesity increases the likelihood of bullying in school? >> in my personal experience, i would say that's true. >> does it increase the likelihood of social isolation? >> yes. >> is it fair it increases the a severe emotional distress? >> i wouldn't be surprised if that weren't true. >> now the health care cost of

obese its per year in the united states is as high as $147 billion, is that correct? >> i'm not sure what the number is, but i know there's a high rate related to obesity. >> in your view, could you speak to some of the things the department of agriculture has taken to address this epidemic of childhood obesity and the severe financial health, emotional cost connected to it. >> improving the wic program to focus on fruits and vegetables that kids might not otherwise consume, working with the snap families to allow hem access to fruits and vegetables at farmers markets. focussing on improved school lunches and breakfasts in terms of the standards and the calories to make sure kids are getting nutrition but not something that is unhealthy for them. >> and last question.

in your view has the implementation of the healthy kids act of 2010 effectively addressed the problem of childhood obesity? >> i think it's a component, congressman. i think the issue of exercise and physical activity is equally important component to all of this. they are balanced. you have to have both of them. it's not just calories in. it's also calories out. >> thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. mr. messer? >> appreciate you being here. appreciate your stamina. i have had the opportunity to meet with your wife christi in her role as the senior adviser at usaid. and i know we share one thing in common in life and that is that we overachieved in marriage, because she is a dynamic professional and somebody that appreciate her insights. i represent a mostly rural area of indiana. ag-based economy.

when you go to the schools, a lot of the schools are on tree and reduced lunch. i want you to, pan upon the challenges with the summer food service program. as you know, this program's existed for 40 years. this monday, the indiana department announced its 2015 summer food service sites. and unfortunately, in indiana, only about 14% of folks who are on free and reduced lunch are going to have access to those kinds of programs in the summer. we have our disagreements on these programs. i think we all agree that no kid in america should go hungry. and, you know, obviously, the first answer is always more money. but beyond that, what can we do to try to make sure that more kids in america won't be going hungry this summer? >> i think encouraging the seamless summer program where schools that are, kids are comfortable going to and would be allowed to continue servicing food and better utilization of our school properties.

i think working with mayors and governors to sort of put the spotlight on this and encourage greater community participation and certainly at the local level as a former mayor myself. i know that the park and recreation department could be an important component to expanding access and frankly, more flexibility in our programs in terms of where kids have to go or how the meals can get to them. >> that's the challenge, the transportation. >> it's a huge challenge in rural areas, which is why we ought to be focussing on more mobility, in terms of how the meals can get to where the kids are as opposed to how the kids can get to where the meals are. >> thank you, no questioning. >> gentleman yields back. we have had an opportunity for everybody to have a discussion with the secretary. we're pretty dog gone close to 12:00. we're going to wrap up here and i'm going to ask for any closing remarks.

>> thank you, mr. secretary, for your hard work and visiting virginia and working with our first lady, dorothy mcculiff on child nutrition issues and the importance of good nutrition and for military personnel and the future health care costs and in response to the questions from the gentleman from new york, the behavior associated with obesity can have budgetary impacts. we've done, made progress over the last few years in terms of the standards with virtually all 95% as i understand it, school systems reporting compliance with the upgraded standards and the community eligibility, which means more people can participate. we need to continue making that

progress and i thank you for being with us today. >> i, too, want to thank you, mr. secretary. you've been a great witness. you've got a heck of a big job. we're going to try to do the very best that we can when we look at reauthorizing this to address concerns. you've heard a number of them today. perhaps we're looking at different statistics. but all of us, it's fair to say all of us want these kids to have a healthy lunch. i think that many of us have talked to, listened to, eaten with and all of those things, gone to schools and see that there still are some real concerns about cost and flexibility.

so we'll be looking at that. very much appreciate your testimony today. i want to thank you for being here. and there being no further business, we're adjourned. tomorrow morning another hearing on the recent security breach at the office of personnel management affecting records of millions who work with government contracts. testifying on data security. that will be live tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. tonight on the communicators co-chair of the congressional privacy caucus on the recent fcc

regulation rules and the issues with privacy and cyber security. >> you have the basic principle whose information is it? is it automatically in the public domain because i choose to use a mobile app and we know that the way these things work they go into the cloud and all of that? or can i use it and still have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy. if you take a latter view that changes the way you regulate and the way you legislate. if you take the position that i am by act of being a part of by participating and using the app i am foregoing my individual right to privacy that's a different issue in its entirety. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span 2.

coming up next, a discussion on the epa's waters of the u.s. or clean water rule from a recent event hosted by the environmental law institute here in washington. the rule was finalized on may 27 and it expands federal control of land and water resources. epa official was among the panel of experts takingcretion questions on the new rule. >> hello, everybody, and welcome. >> yeah, they are all green. >> good afternoon everyone and welcome to the environmental law institute. i'm scott, the acting president of the institute and we're bringing you the discussion of recently released clean water rule. environmental professionals speak in acronyms, the phrase at the core of the this rule, waters of the united states is

often referred to as wotus. many of us talk about it that way. the wotus rule was issued by the army corps of engineers and demarcates the federal jurisdiction for clean water act and this has a significant impact on the kinds of activities required to the obtain federal permits ranging from land development that might impact wetlands to discharges into streams and rivers. we are bringing you a panel of top experts the today to explain the role. help place the role in context, discuss any remaining questions and explore the likely future for the role and i'm pack. this is part of the environmental law to make law work for better economic, social and environmental outcomes, through our research, education, convenings and publications we make environmental progress real but examining u.s. law like we are doing today and educating 2,000 judges in 25 countries or working with with partners to strengthen jordan's water management, liberia's timber

management or mexico's implementation of water measures. our approach is strictly non-partisan and we believe by bringing all prospectives to the table, we can achieve better environmental results. the four professionals we bring you today are at the heart of the on going effort to clearly articulate the scope of federal jurisdiction over water protection. sit a tough issue having made three high profile trips and one we're anxious to discuss. we'll ask agency representatives to provide an overview of the rule and those from industry and ngo perspectives will provide their thoughts. we'll leave at least 45 minutes for dialogue and discussion so please send in your questions on the webinar and those in the audience please use the microphone. to start, we have ken who is department thety assistant administrator in the office of water in the u.s. water and environmental agency. prior to joining epa ken held several senior positions on the

staffs of the house committee and infrastructure and environment and public works. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, scott and thank you to all of you and my fellow panelist. congress created the clean water act to protect navigable waters which congress defined as the waters of the united states while the territorial seas is defined in the act, waters of the united states is not. the clean water act has but what definition of waters protected by all programs including those from discharges from cities and industry under section 402 permitting for the discharge of field material under section 404 and oil and hazardous waste under section 311 among others. all of these programs further the clean water acts to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. congress left it to epa and the army to define the waters as

united states. existing regulations defined waters of the united states as traditional waters interstate waters, all other waters that could affect interstate or foreign commerce, impoundments, tributaries and more. the definition of waters of the united states three times between 1985 and 2006. in protection for 60% of the nation's streams and millions of acres of wet land haves been confusing and complex as a result of last two of those decisions. in 1985 the supreme court addressed the scope for the first time in a case which involved wetlands adjacent to traditional water. in a unanimous opinion, the supreme course talked about the integrated nature of the aquatic

ecosystem and importance of adjacent wetlands on the ecosystem. the court observed that protecting aquatic i can sew systems for water moves and cycles and it is essential that discharge of -- then in 2001 the supreme court held non-applicable waters on interstate ponds by might tory -- mieg-migratory birds was not in and of itself a sufficient basis under the clean water act and the agency stopped doing so immediately following that. the court in 1985 also noted that it found that congress' concern for the protection of water quality in ecosystems indicated the intent to regulate systems bound up with the waters of the united states and that it was the significant nexus between the wetlands and waters

that informed the leading in the previous river said case in 1985. while the swank decision in the 2001 case did not invalidate the agency's regulations, it emphasized some type of relationship was necessary for jurisdiction. it also introduced the concept of significant nexus. in 2006, the supreme court considered the scope of waters of the united states in the joint decisions which involved wetlands, adjacent to nonnavigable tributaryies. while all members of the court agreed that the term waters of the united states encompasses waters including wetlands beyond those that a navigable in fact, the case yielded no majority opinion, the nine justices managed to author five separate opinions. covering relativity permanent flowing bodies of water connected to traditional waters

as well as wetlands with a continuous surface. the plurality noted the reference to relatively permanent did not quote necessarily exclude streams, rivers or lakes that might dry up in extraordinary circumstances such as drought closed quote or again quoting seasonal rivers which contain continuous flow but no flow during dry months. justice kennedy in his concurring opinion concluded waters of the united states encompasses wetlands that are or were reasonably so made and quoted swank in support of that position. he stated wetlands possess the secrets significant nexus alone or in combination of similarly situated lands in the region affect the chemical, physically and biological integrity of

covered waters, justice kennedy's opinion notes such a relationship must be more than speculative or insubstantial and neither the plurality or kennedy opinion invalidated any of the regulatory provisions to finding waters of the united states is we have three court cases, one unanimously upheld the regulation and two that did not address it so why do we do a rule? so we did the rule because the confusion and uncertainty stemming from the last two supreme court cases created a request for over the past ten years for epa and the arm corps to undertake a rule making to provide clarity on what waters are protected by the clean water act. and there was a lot of confusion, recall i mentioned that there were five opinions from nine justices that were confused and did not agree. request came from both parties, both chambers, state and local

agency officials, industry, agriculture, resource ex traction, environmental and conservation groups, developers and builders, scientists and the general public. secondly, one in three americans rely on seasonal or streams for their drinking water and they are not clearly protected today. and third, many states have limitations on their ability to fill the gap and protect waters no longer covered by the federal clean water act after swank and repanos. it was a study in 2013 that concluded about a little over two-thirds of the states have lawed that could restrict their authority to regulate waters affecting streams wetlands and other waters not protected by the clean water act. and while some state restrictions are easier to overcome than others, the record has been the states are not taking action. what does the rule do? the clean water rule protects streams and wet lands that are scientifically shown to have the greatest impact on down stream

water quality and form the foundation of our nation's water resources. epa and army are ensuring that waters protected under the clean water act are more precisely defined and easier for business and industry to understand and and consistent with the law and the latest science. the clean water rule creates eight categories of jurisdiction l waters, subject to definitions and limits in the rule and two categories that is subject to a nexus analysis and then repeated, the clean water rule continues jurisdiction for traditionally navigating waters and impoundments. there is no change from the current rule. what did change? the clean water rule clearly defines, remember the clean water act protects with thor ways and their non-transcribe a

-- nonnavigable tributaries and must show physical features of water in bed and banks and unordinary high water mark, the rule provides protection for head waters that have features and science shows can have a significant connection to and effect on the down stream waters, rule provides certainty. rule protects waters that are next to rivers, lakes and their tributaries because science shows that they impact down stream waters. for the first time, the rule sets boundaries on covering nearby waters that are physical and measurable. those are the six areas considered jurisdiction by rule. i want to emphasize today under the current rule there is a case specific analysis based on determining whether there is an effect on interstate commerce

the new test is whether there is a significant nexus, a connection between an upstream water and down stream water and whether there is an ability to have a significant effect from upstream to down stream. science shows that specific water features can function like a system and impact the health of down stream waters. so the first waters subject to significant nexus analysis are the five regional waters that we identified in the rule. carolina bays, western pools in california and texas coastal prairie wetlands when they impact down strep waters, in determining, the functions will be evaluated as a system. in their watershed but still be subject to the a significant nexus analysis. the second category of water subject to a significant nexus analysis are those within the

100 flood plane as well as waters with a significant nexus within 4,000 feet of these jurisdictional waters. that's it. much clearer, much simpler, more bright lines more transparent and fewer case specific analysis. the new rule focuses on streams not ditches providing protection to ditches constructed by streams and can carry pollution down stream. a ditch not constructed in a stream and flows only when it rains is not covered. the new rule maintains the status quo for municipal separate storm systems. we do not change how those waters are treated and we encourage the continuing use of green infrastructure. so i said we reduced the number of case specific analysis that are required. today almost any water in america could be put through a lengthy case specific analysis even if ultimately it would not be subject to the clean water act. the new rule significantly

limitathize use of case specific analysis by limiting the number of similarly situated waters. the new rule maintains and expands exclusions from old rule to new but also adds three types of ditches, ground water, gullies, not wetland swales to list as excluded and water delivery reuse and erosional features. other features such as stock ponds, cooling ponds are excluded. the rule only protects waters that have historically been covered by the clean water act. it does not address land use. it does not regulate ground water or tile drains. it does not change our policies and regulation on irrigation or water transfers. we have a rule that is based on

solid science. it aligns with the supreme court;e decisions. it is based on the experience and expertise of epa and the army. and it strengthens the clean water act for the benefit of the american people. >> thank you so much. next we'll hear from deputy general counsel and silver works and in this position, craig provides legal advice to other secretary officials on matters involving army instillations, lands and facilities and environmental law, protection of wet lands and legal issues relating to the u.s. army core of engineers and regulatory programs. craig spent his career in the army legal service and he survived the river crossing to make it here with us today. >> i was saying on the train over here, one thing we probably need as much as clean water is a reliable metro. anyway, first of all, let me thank scott and the entire team

for arranging today's seminar and welcome everybody that's here both in person and on the phone this afternoon. the the today's seminar is particularly timely and essential. i say essential because it is so critical for everyone whether you're an opponent of the rule or supporter of the rule to have a solid understanding on what the rule does and doesn't do. i've been up, we were up on the hill earlier mid last week both on the senate side and house side and did this for both the preamble and did it for the 2008 guidance and it always alarms me of folks with a strong opinion of the rule but don't really understand the rule and that's a sad state but the rule isn't very long. ken did an excellent analysis of

running you through the major steps we've coordinated and i'm not going to repeat i, i'll keep my comments pretty tight. but let me be clear, on behalf of the army, we truly believe the that the this rule is good for the nation and timely and relevant and needed to restore and maintain the words are important one of the most vital resources and that's an abundance of clean water. in preparing for today's seminar, i came across and we talked about this on friday, we put a rule nobody was supposed to quote law review articles but i came across a research paper, not a law review article written by professor william mines. in 2012, that was pretty timely and the article, which i commend anybody who has an interest in the clean water act and

particularly timely for what we're here to talk about today, his article or paper was entitled history of the 1972 clean water act. how the act became the capstone on a decade of extraordinary environmental reform and he observes this is in 2012, he says that many kerr renl issue haves a familiar ring to them and i won't bore you with specifics but lists several of them in his paper and i will say almost each and every one of them has been on the forefront of our discussion here in 2013, '14 and '15 as we approach the rule and he notes correctly i might add, that these same themes were debated 40 years ago

and are still relevant today. this is so because the need to protect our streams and rivers, our wetlands and our lakes is just as important today as it was back in 1972. the other thing i found particularly interesting and not being a historian on the clean water act or an expert in the clean water act, i found that in 1972 and '87 amendment, there was significant political controversy associated with the cheap water act itself and 1987 amendment but the nation's desire for clean water overshadowed the other issues and the law was passed and then again in '87 the amendments were passed. the army is a proud partner of the rule that we'll discuss this

afternoon, a full and equal partner, the army participated at every stage, every critical stage of this rules development. my client and colleague assistant secretary for civil works said this is a generational rule, it completes another chapter in the history of the clean the water act, and that, those words ring loud and clear and they are so truthful. you know, where the act is almost 40 years old and the current rules that are, this new rule once i goes into effect change over 30 years old. a long time has passed and as ken laid out for us a lot has happened in those 30 years, the current rules were written before the science was known. it's based in large measure on constitutional principles involving the lawful reach of

the commerce clause and yet in many instances as ken, again, just eluded to, we left unaltered many of the rules that are in the 1970 era regulations announced here on may 27th and i cannot emphasize the importance of understanding again what was changed and what was not changed when we went into the rule, we had three fundamental goals in mind and i believe i think ken would agree with me that we have a accomplished the goals we set out to do in the rule making exercise, one was the rule was to make commonsense changes. this is not a fundamental swing in rule making or the state of law in the clean water but it makes very important common

sense changes that will benefit both the water resource as well as our economy, as we said on the hill, i would ask everybody to lay the 1970 verses of the rule on and look carefully at i and tell me at the end that you don't see greater clarity in the new set of rules. the one thing that the old set of rules failed to do was to provide the requisite clarity that the regulators the professionals out in the field and the mud and water each and every day have set of rules they can say with certainty that a water is or is not jurisdiction l and thirdly, the rule in several important areas based

off of those supreme court decisions that ken eluded to, this rule establishes a requisite level of certainty that did not exist before and these are in the bright lines the changes that were made were are and were science based consistent with the decisions in swank and probably equally as important. they are responsive to the public and steak hold comments we received. it's widely known we received over 1.3 comments on the rule. many of them with particular views in point. we in proposing the announcing the proposed rule and preamble, we sought public comments. we went out and we actually got comments and again if you lay

the proposed rule down alongside of the final rule, you cannot, it cannot go mistaken that that rule changed and changed fundamentally. the rule clearly defines for first time what is jurisdiction l and equally as important, what is not jurisdictional in the rule. and then of course itch ming the rule are now defined with much greater clarity in section c of rule. imlmt implementitation. this is my last section. in the preamble we put a provision in the rule that we believe is both reasonable and responsible to help transition from the old rule to the new rule a any point in time the

core has a substantial amount of requests and applications for permits in the queue. they are in multiple stages of completeness, and so what we did in the rule was we established a grandfathering provision that we think will make for an efficient rule, essentially it goes like this is the that as of the date the rule goes into the federal register, the core's district commanders can make a determination if a rule is deemed to be complete on that day, doesn't have to be made on that day but if the district engineer looking on the date whenever that goes into the federal register that a file for a jd or applicant is complete then that rule will be allowed to be proceed and decided upon

under the existing rule. not with standing the fact i may come out after the date of rule unless the applicant wishes to come in under the new rule they can ask that the decision be held until after the effective date. once the rule goes into effect, any decisions thereafter except for the ones just deemed to be complete and process out, those new applications and decisions will be rendered under the new rule. so the core is going to officially implement the rules, training is already taking place. we're anxious to get started with that scott, i will turn it over back over to you. >> thanks, craig. before we go over to deed ruand

john. can you explain briefly. what the army's role is in the section and why the army is at table and why you were so involved? >> sure, the core implements one of the key sections in the clean water and that's the 404 section the discharge of dredged material is deemed to be a pollutant. there's a long history -- that article lays out exactly why the corp is involved. it goes back to 1899 and the river and harbor act and having the corp be responsible for navigating the inland waterways so traffic can get up and down the rivers. but the core implements section 404 of the clean water act. it's one of the provisions unlike the 402 program where

you're talking about discharge. the 404 permit program is so critical and i'm sure deidra will talk about this because it interfaces with development of lands, lands that may be wet or wetlands that may be on a particular property that someone wants to do something with and then they need a core permit to either enter into those waters, fill those waters dredge those waters, drain those waters of the like. and that's a lot of those waters as we know are all over country and the core has great visibility on its 404 permit program, so. >> thank you, craig. some of you will hear us talk about jurisdiction determinations and someone says i got this piece of property, do i need to get a permit for? >> correct, they come into the core seeking a jurisdiction

determination of which there are two types, one is a preliminary and the other is approved jurisdiction and essentially if you come in and it's a non-binding type of determination. and essentially for the most part the applicant just says well let's assume it's jurisdiction, what will i need and a permit is authorized more or less on the assumption the land is jurisdiction. someone wants to buy a piece of property or invest on a piece of property, one that they can perhaps challenge in court or otherwise would come in and seek approved jurisdiction and takes a significant amount of time in preparing administrative record to prove jd has an appeal process and many of them often times end up in litigation. thank you. >> thank you, craig. i want to make sure we're on the same page.

deidra duncan that represents major parties and her experience includes negotiating and obtaining permits for projects, counseling clients on administrative rule making and policy and regulatory clarifications and drafting federal and state legislation. prior to entering private practice, she served as general clean water acts section 404 regulatory program. thank you for coming today. >> thank you, scott and thank you for inviting me to speak today. i think i am the only person on this panel who has actually been involved in obtaining jurisdictional determinations both as a regulator when i was with the army and now in private

practice on behalf of regulated entities. from my perspective this rule unfortunately, fails to provide the public the clarity it's been asking for. i fails to provide meaningful limits on federal jurisdiction and it will be incredibly difficult to implement this rule for regulators, especially the core of engineers and i'll explain why i'm saying these things. first the definition is unchanged and maybe broader. there really were no substantive changes made to the tributariry definition itself even though many commenters urged the definition be narrowed or at a minimum clarified. the definition relies on high water mark but for over 20 years, the public told agencies in comment after comment that using the ordinary high water mark standard is very problematic. instead, the agencies continue

to use this term and in fact state that they can use evidence of historic conditions to document an ordinary high water mark. indeed, even justice kennedy in the decision emphasized that the ordinary high water mark stands is problematic. he stated the breadth of the ordinary high water mark standard which seems to leave wide room for regulation of drains, ditches and streams remote from water and carrying only minor water volumes toward it precludes it's adoption. the agency's use of the problematic term makes almost all the other parts of the regulation equally problematic. as the rules other categories of jurisdictions and exclusion from jurisdiction are tied to this broad tributary jurisdiction and the broad standard. for example, many of the

threshold distances which we've heard about for adjacent waters and case specific other waters are measured from the ordinary high water mark. and given the pervasiveness of ordinary high water marks on the landscape, it will become almost impossible to fall behind these distances moreover, even if the water is outside. it can still be regulated as long as it's within 4,000 feet of an ordinary high water mark. these limits are even less meaningful in light of the agency's position if any force of a feature is within the limits of the distance threshold, the entire feature is jurisdictional, but erosional features are excluded but only if they lack a bed and bank and ordinary high water mark. so it's kind