Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1669427
label
1976/08/10 HR14514 Cashout of Food Stamps for Supplemental Security Income Beneficiaries in California
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1669427
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1976/08/10 HR14514 Cashout of Food Stamps for Supplemental Security Income Beneficiaries in California
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
California
Food stamps
Legislation
Welfare
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1669427
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-08-31
month
8
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-08-01
month
8
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c9d4d8e6694abf1d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 52, folder "8/9/76 HR14514 Cashout of Food
Stamps for Supplemental Security Income Beneficiaries in California" of the White House
Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
&8/10/16
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
OT BUT
WASHINGTON
August 9, 1976
Last Day: August 11
Statement
issued
8/11/76
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON Jui
SUBJECT:
H.R. 14514 Cashout of Food
Stamps for Supplemental
archives
Security Income Beneficiaries
in California
8/11/76
Attached for your consideration is H.R. 14514, sponsored
by Representative Corman.
The enrolled bill would allow California to remain a food
stamp "cashout" State if it continues to make cost-of-living
adjustments in its State SSI supplementary payments, passes
through to SSI beneficiaries a specified part of the Federal
cost-of-living increase in SSI payments in 1976, and
passes through all future Federal cost-of-living increases.
A detailed discussion of the provisions of the enrolled
bill report is provided in OMB's enrolled bill report
at Tab A.
OMB, Max Friedersdorf, Counsel's Office (Lazarus) and I
recommend approval of the enrolled bill and the proposed
signing statement which calls attention to problems with
the bill and the need for comprehensive food stamp reform
legislation. The White House Editorial Office (Smith)
has approved the text of the statement.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign H.R. 14514 at Tab B.
That you approve the signing statement at Tab C.
Approve It
Disapprove
FORD : LIBRARY OERALD
Digitized from Box 52 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
CHECK
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATEMENTS
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 5 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 14514 - Cashout of food
stamps for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) beneficiaries in California
Sponsor - Rep. Corman (D) California
Last Day for Action
August 11, 1976 - Wednesday
Purpose
Allows California to remain a food stamp "cashout" State
if it continues to make cost-of-living adjustmentsin
its State SSI supplementary payments, passes through to
SSI beneficiaries a specified part of the Federal cost-
of-living increase in SSI payments in 1976, and passes
through all future Federal cost-of-living increases.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval (Signing
statement attached)
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
Approval (Signing
statement attached)
Department of Agriculture
Defers to HEW
Discussion
H.R. 14514 seeks to address a situation now facing the
State of California because--unlike the few other "cashout"
States--it prefers to increase direct State financial support
to SSI recipients rather than initiate a food stamp program
for those recipients. Federal legislation to deal with
this problem was urged by the Governor and the legislature
of California.
2
Background
On January 1, 1974, the effective date of the SSI program,
States which elected to supplement the Federal SSI benefit
beyond the level required to "grandfather" beneficiaries
converted from the State public assistance rolls were
permitted to "cash out" food stamps by increasing their
supplement by $10 per month in lieu of offering food stamps
to SSI beneficiaries. This extra payment, intended to rep-
resent, in effect, the bonus value of food stamps, was
federally financed.
Under current law, to be eligible for such a "cashout",
a State must be a recipient of Federal "hold-harmless"
payments. Hold-harmless payments, designed to protect States
from an increase in State costs over those incurred in 1972,
are associated with the Federal requirement to assure that
beneficiaries on the State rolls prior to 1974 would receive
no less under the SSI program than under the former State
public assistance program of aid to the aged, blind and
disabled. As these beneficiaries fall off the rolls and
Federal SSI benefit levels increase, States no longer
receive "hold-harmless" payments. California ceased to
be eligible for hold-harmless payments on July 1, 1976,
but wishes to remain a "cashout" State, i.e., to not make
food stamps available to its SSI recipients.
Summary of enrolled bill
H.R. 14514 would permit California to retain its "cashout"
status as long as it meets the following conditions:
1. California would have to continue the State law
in effect June 1, 1976, which requires periodic State
cost-of-living increases under the State's supplementary
payments program.
2. California would also have to pass through to
SSI recipients the full amount of all future cost-of-
living (CPI) increases in the Federal SSI payment, in
addition to the increases required under State law.
3. For this calendar year, California could
attribute to the July State supplement level increase
$7 of the $10 per month CPI increase in the Federal SSI
payment to individuals (proportionately more for couples)
which became effective in July 1976, thereby reducing the
State costs for supplementation.
3
If California decides to give up its cashout status, it
could not be regained.
When H.R. 14514 was scheduled for House floor action, the
Administration opposed its passage on the grounds that
it would help only California, to the exclusion of all
other States, and because it could establish a costly
precedent leading to requiring all States to pass through
Federal CPI benefit increases to SSI recipients. The
bill was opposed by all the minority members of the House
Ways and Means Committee and was passed by the House by
a vote of 210 to 179. It passed the Senate in identical
form by voice vote.
On the House floor, Congressman Ketchum offered a sub-
stitute which would simply have permitted California to
remain a "cashout" State without any conditions. His
proposal was defeated 162-227.
Arguments for approval
1. States should have maximum discretion to
determine the purposes of their State expenditures. The
bill would honor California's preference to increase financial
assistance to SSI recipients rather than diverting money
to finance and administer a food stamp program for such
recipients--which, from a long-range policy point of view,
is in the right direction.
2. Since H.R. 14514 is predicated on California's
own choice as to whether or not to remain a "cashout"
State, HEW does not believe the conditions set forth in
the bill are inconsistent with its past opposition to efforts
to limit the optional nature of State supplementary payments
programs, including any requirement that States pass
through to SSI recipients Federal CPI increases. California
would be free at any time to elect to provide food stamps
and, should it do so, it would no longer be subject to the
cost-of-living requirements in H.R. 14514.
3. California estimates that the Federal/State cost
of administering the food stamp program for SSI recipients
in the State would be $62 million, while the total food
stamp bonus value would be only $24 million. Implementation
of a food stamp program for SSI beneficiaries would therefore
not be cost effective.
4
4. There would be no added Federal cost to implement
H.R. 14514. There would, in fact, be a Federal budget
saving which we estimate to range between $50-$70 million
a year, representing the bonus value of food stamps for SSI
beneficiaries in California and the associated food stamp
administrative costs, which are 50% federally financed.
5. As an argument that SSI recipients would not be
adversely affected, advocates of the bill point to the
fact that California is increasing its State supplementa-
tion for SSI by $14 this year under its State cost-of-
living law, a greater increase than in any other State
except Alaska. Moreover, after one year, full Federal
benefit increases would have to be passed along to SSI
beneficiaries in California, unlike other States which can
use the Federal increases to reduce their supplementation.
6. California officials indicated to the House
Committee that they expected only one-third of the SSI
recipients in the State to participate in the food stamp
program if they became eligible. Under the enrolled bill,
on the other hand, all California SSI recipients would
receive additional cash rather than mere food stamp
eligibility, and the elderly would not be faced with the
difficulties of reporting income and being certified for
food stamps.
Arguments against approval
1. H.R. 14514 would allow special treatment for only
one State; the two other States which lost hold-harmless
status on July 1, 1976--New York and Nevada-- have decided
to provide food stamps to their SSI recipients. Permitting
California alone to elect not to have SSI recipients
receive food stamps could serve as a precedent to encourage
other States to seek special exemptions from other national
programs. The Ways and Means Committee minority members
stated of the bill: "We can find no compelling national
justification for its enactment; to the contrary, we believe
that its approval only would undermine the sound principle
of consistent Federal policy toward all States.'
2. The Federal Government should not try to direct
California's fiscal affairs by dictating conditions to
the State. Approval of the requirement for a pass-through
of Federal SSI benefit increases in this bill might be
perceived as a shift away from previous Administration
5
opposition to such mandatory pass-through provisions.
Such a provision, to be applicable to all States, is
expected to be offered as an amendment to H.R. 8911,
a bill containing various SSI amendments, which is
expected to reach the House floor shortly.
3. Opponents question California's high estimate
of the administrative cost of providing food stamps
to SSI recipients, noting that the State already has a
food stamp apparatus and that other States have not claimed
hardships in providing benefits under the program to their
SSI recipients.
4. Opponents also argue that the aged would be losers
under the bill, for the benefit of the State budget. They
cite that under present law, SSI beneficiaries in California
would have an increased benefit level of $14 per month
this year under State law, and $10 per month under the
Federal law CPI provision--for a total of $24; in addition,
they would be eligible for food stamps. Under H.R. 14514,
however, the benefit level for SSI recipients in California
would increase only $17, consisting of a $10 Federal SSI
CPI increase and $7 financed by the State, while they would
not be eligible for food stamps.
5. The Ways and Means Committee minority argued
that California is really seeking through this legislation
to divert funds from food stamp administration in order
to provide a 6% increase in benefits to recipients of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). They
indicated they did not believe the needy aged in the
State should be denied access to food stamps for the
narrowly designed purpose of responding to other interests
within the State, especially since many welfare recipients
are able to work, while the elderly usually cannot.
Recommendations
HEW recommends approval, primarily on the basis that the
bill is consistent with the philosophy of maximizing State
discretion to operate State-financed programs as each
State determines is appropriate. The Department would,
however, prefer that the relationship between the food
stamp program and public assistance programs be addressed
by comprehensive reform legislation instead of by piece-
meal legislation which meets the needs of only one State.
Furthermore, HEW is concerned that legislation of this
sort poses the danger of establishing a precedent "whereby
6
other States will expect the enactment of special legisla-
tion relieving them of generally applied requirements
in order to meet their own particular needs." Nevertheless,
HEW does not believe that its concerns are sufficient to
warrant disapproval of the enrolled bill. HEW proposes a
signing statement addressing these concerns, and urging
action on food stamp reform legislation.
Agriculture defers to HEW. Agriculture states that the
bill will accomplish four of its important objectives:
(1) the food assistance needs of SSI recipients in
California are recognized, (2) Federal costs will not be
increased as they would be if SSI beneficiaries in
California were eligible for food stamps, (3) the adminis-
trative burdens and costs of certifying California SSI
beneficiaries for food stamps are eliminated, and (4)
since the bill is retroactive to July 1, 1976, the issue of
food stamp eligibility for SSI recipients in California is
resolved.
We share HEW's concerns about the possible precedential
effect of this enrolled bill in providing one State with
special legislation. We are also concerned about the
possible precedent for mandating a pass-through of Federal
CPI increases for all States. Moreover, we agree that
comprehensive reform of the relationship between the food
stamp and welfare programs would be preferable. Nevertheless,
we concur with HEW's conclusion that the objections to the
bill are not sufficiently serious to warrant your dis-
approval.
Accordingly, we recommend that you approve H.R. 14514
and that you issue a signing statement calling attention
to the problems with the bill and the need for comprehensive
food stamp reform legislation. We have attached a draft
signing statement which draws on the draft proposed by
HEW.
James Director m. Trey for
Legislative Reference
Enclosures
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have today signed with considerable reluctance
H.R. 14514, a bill which would permit the State of
California to provide direct financial assistance
rather than food stamps to beneficiaries of the
Supplemental Security Income program in that State,
under certain conditions. The Supplemental Security
Income program and the food stamp program are both
national in scope, and it should not be necessary to
enact a special bill because of the situation in a
particular State.
The Congress has for many years been aware of the
deficiencies in legislation affecting the eligibility
for food stamps of Supplemental Security Income recipients.
The situation in California is only one result of the
failure of the Congress to enact my comprehensive food
stamp reform bill which is essential for improved
administration of the food stamp program in all States.
Making exceptions for special situations is a poor sub-
stitute for definitive corrective legislative action
on the food stamp program.
Another disturbing aspect of H.R. 14514 is that if
California elects to continue to provide cash instead of
food stamps after 1976, the bill would require that the
State pass through to SSI recipients all cost-of-living
increases in the Federal SSI amount. My Administration
has opposed the principle of a mandatory pass-through for
States in the past, because it would limit the States'
discretion to decide their own supplementary benefit levels.
I recognize that this legislation would permit California
to remove itself from the congressionally imposed restriction
upon action by the State legislature. Nevertheless, I do
2
not believe that the Federal Government should mandate
varying levels of SSI benefits in all States simply
because a few States in prior years elected to give
recipients cash in place of food stamps.
I recognize that some interim resolution of the
uncertain situation in California is necessary, in the
interest of the senior citizens and other SSI recipients.
Therefore, I am signing this bill. I must, however,
state my strong objection to the use of such narrowly
focused remedies instead of proceeding with the broad
reforms that are needed.
I urge the Congress to act without further delay
on my food stamp reform proposals that have been before
it since October 1975.
Statement
I have today signed with considerable reluctance
H.R. 14514, a bill which would permit the State of
California to provide direct financial assistance rather
than food stamps to beneficiaries of the Supplemental
Security Income program in that State, under certain
conditions. The Supplemental Security Income program and
the food stamp program are both national in scope, and
it should not be necessary to enact a special bill because
of the situation in a particular State.
The Congress has for many years been aware of the
deficiencies in legislation affecting the eligibility for
food stamps of Supplemental Security Income recipients.
The situation California situation is only one result of the failure
of the Congress to enact my comprehensive food stamp reform
bill which is essential for improved administration of the
food stamp program in all States. The practice of taking
exceptions when for special situations are brought to its atten-
tion is not at an poor appropriate substitute for definitive
corrective legislative action on the basic food stamp program.
Another disturbing aspect of H.R. 14514 is that if
California elects to continue to provide cash instead of
food stamps after 1976, 1t the would billwould be mandatory under the that bill
for the State to pass through to SSI recipients all cost-
amount
of-living increases in the Federal SSI benefit. My
Administration has opposed the principle of a mandatory
pass-through for States in the past, because it would
remove the States' discretion flexibility to decide upon their own
limit
"V RALD 1817 R. FORD
supplementary benefit levels. I recognize that this
legislation would permit California to remove itself from
2
the this congressionally imposed restriction upon action by
the State legislature. Nevertheless, I do not believe that
the Federal Government should mandate varying levels of
SSI benefits in all States simply because a few States in
prior years elected to give recipients cash in place of
food stamps.
am signing this bill as I recognize that some interim
resolution of the uncertain situation in California is
necessary, in the interest of the senior citizens and other
SSI recipients. ^ I must, however, state my strong objection
Therefore, Sam signing this bill.
to the use of expedient, such narrowly focused remedies,
instead
han proceeding with the broad reforms that are needed.
I urge the Congress to act without further delay on
my food stamp reform proposals that have been before it
since October 1975.
FORD & GERALD TERARY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 5 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 14514 - Cashout of food
stamps for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) beneficiaries in California
Sponsor - Rep. Corman (D) California
Last Day for Action
August 11, 1976 - Wednesday
Purpose
Allows California to remain a food stamp "cashout" State
if it continues to make cost-of-living adjustmentsin
its State SSI supplementary payments, passes through to
SSI beneficiaries a specified part of the Federal cost-
of-living increase in SSI payments in 1976, and passes
through all future Federal cost-of-living increases.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval (Signing
statement attached)
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
Approval (Signing
statement attached)
Department of Agriculture
Defers to HEW
Discussion
H.R. 14514 seeks to address a situation now facing the
State of California because--unlike the few other "cashout"
States--it prefers to increase direct State financial support
to SSI recipients rather than initiate a food stamp program
for those recipients. Federal legislation to deal with
this problem was urged by the Governor and the legislature
of California.
FORD of LIBRARY
Attached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have today signed with considerable reluctance
H.R. 14514, a bill which would permit the State of
California to provide direct financial assistance
rather than food stamps to beneficiaries of the
Supplemental Security Income program in that State,
under certain conditions. The Supplemental Security
Income program and the food stamp program are both
national in scope, and it should not be necessary to
enact a special bill because of the situation in a
particular State.
The Congress has for many years been aware of the
deficiencies in legislation affecting the eligibility
for food stamps of Supplemental Security Income recipients.
The situation in California is only one result of the
failure of the Congress to enact my comprehensive food
stamp reform bill which is essential for improved
administration of the food stamp program in all States.
Making exceptions for special situations is a poor sub-
stitute for definitive corrective legislative action
on the food stamp program.
Another disturbing aspect of H.R. 14514 is that if
California elects to continue to provide cash instead of
food stamps after 1976, the bill would require that the
State pass through to SSI recipients all cost-of-living
increases in the Federal SSI amount. My Administration
has opposed the principle of a mandatory pass-through for
States in the past, because it would limit the States'
discretion to decide their own supplementary benefit levels.
I recognize that this legislation would permit California
to remove itself from the congressionally imposed restriction
upon action by the State legislature. Nevertheless, I do
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
2
not believe that the Federal Government should mandate
varying levels of SSI benefits in all States simply
because a few States in prior years elected to give
recipients cash in place of food stamps.
I recognize that some interim resolution of the
uncertain situation in California is necessary, in the
interest of the senior citizens and other SSI recipients.
Therefore, I am signing this bill. I must, however,
state my strong objection to the use of such narrowly
focused remedies instead of proceeding with the broad
reforms that are needed.
I urge the Congress to act without further delay
on my food stamp reform proposals that have been before
it since October 1975.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: August 6
Time: 915am
FOR ACTION: Spencer Johnson
0
cc (for information):
Jack Marsh
Max Friedeesedrf
Jim Cavanaggh
Steve McConahey on
Ed Schmults
Ken Lazarus on
Robert Hartmann (Signing statement attached)
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Time:
August 6
530pm
SUBJECT:
H.R. 14515-Cashout of food stamps for Supplemental
Security Income Beneficiaries in California
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
X
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
GERAED FORD
delay in submitting the required material, please
K. R. COLE, JR.
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
HEALTH,
of
EDUCATION.
AND
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
U.S.A.
The Honorable James T. Lynn
AUG 4 1976
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in response to your request for a report on
H.R. 14514, an enrolled bill "To permit a State which no
longer qualifies for hold harmless treatment under the
supplemental security income program to elect to remain a
food stamp cashout State upon condition that it pass through
a part of the 1976 cost-of-living increase in SSI benefits
and all of any subsequent increases in such benefits.'
In short, we recommend enactment of the enrolled bill.
Under section 8 of Public Law 93-233, effective January 1,
1974, States which were making optional supplementary payments
to recipients of supplemental security income (SSI) pursuant
to section 1616 (a) of the Social Security Act, the level of
which was found by the Secretary to have been specifically
increased SO as to include the bonus value of food stamps,
were given the option of electing "cash-out" status in lieu
of providing food stamps to SSI recipients. Six States were
originally given the option of cash-out status. Since
enactment of P.L. 93-233, there have been several extensions
of the statute to continue in effect the cash-out provisions.
As a result, this Department interpreted its authority under
the law to include annual redeterminations of cash-out
status.
In order to be eligible for cash-out status, the law requires,
among other things, that a State be eligible for "hold
harmless" protection under section 401 of P.L. 92-603. We
have determined that, beginning with the transition quarter,
the State of California, among others, will no longer qualify
as a hold-harmless State under section 401. Therefore,
under current law, California is no longer eligible for
cash-out status and will, for the period beginning July 1,
1976, be required to make food stamps available to SSI
recipients.
The Honorable James T. Lynn
2
Notwithstanding the provisions of current law and the status
of the State of California thereunder, the enrolled bill
would amend section 8 of P.L. 93-233 to require the Secretary
to find that California can retain its cash-out status if
that State satisfies certain new conditions which would be
imposed by the enrolled bill. In order for California to
remain, at its option, a cash-out State, it would have to
(1) continue in effect, for the period it desires to retain
cash-out status, the State law in effect on June 1, 1976,
which requires periodic State cost-of-living increases under
the State's supplementary payments program; (2) pass through
to SSI recipients $3.00, in the case of individuals, and
$4.50, in the case of eligible couples, of the Federal cost-
of-living increase ($10.10 in the case of individuals and
$15.20 in the case of eligible couples) which became effective
beginning July, 1976, pursuant to section 1617 of the Social
Security Act; and (3) pass through to SSI recipients the
full amount of all future cost-of-living increases in the
Federal SSI payment for the period during which California
desires to remain a cash-out State (in addition to paying
any future increases in the State supplementation required
during such period by the State law as in effect on June 1,
1976). California would be entitled to the cash-out option
provided by H.R. 14514 only for the period of consecutive
months, beginning July, 1976, during which it meets the
conditions imposed by the bill. Once the State surrenders
its cash-out status it could not be regained.
In the last fiscal year, there were four cash-out States--
California, Nevada, New York, and Massachusetts. We have
determined that only Massachusetts may retain its cash-out
status past June 30, 1976. Although Nevada and New York
have raised no objection to initiating a food stamp program
for SSI recipients, California prefers to provide increased
SSI benefits in lieu of food stamps.
The Department believes that, as a general matter, States
should have maximum flexibility to determine the purposes of
State expenditures. We have therefore opposed any effort to
limit the optional nature of State supplementary payments
The Honorable James T. Lynn
3
programs under section 1616 of the Social Security Act,
including any requirement that States pass through to SSI
recipients Federal cost-of-living increases under section 1617
of the Social Security Act. States are currently permitted
to use such Federal increases to reduce the level of State
supplementation.
Although our recommendation to approve the enrolled bill may
appear, at first, to be a reversal of our past opposition to
Federal interference with optional State supplementary
programs, our view of the enrolled bill is consistent with
the philosophy upon which our past opposition has been
based--maximization of State discretion to operate State-
financed programs as each State determines is appropriate.
In this instance, California prefers to continue increasing
direct State financial support to SSI recipients rather than
diverting such funds to finance and administer a food stamp
program for such recipients. Aside from any philosophical
considerations regarding the desirability of categorical
versus cash assistance, California alleges that the funds
necessary to cover the administrative costs of providing
food stamps to SSI recipients would be better expended on
increased cash assistance. We believe that this is a determi-
nation which California should have the right to make. The
purpose of requiring California to pass through Federal
cost-of-living increases and to continue to provide State
cost-of-living increases is to assure that cash will indeed
be provided to SSI recipients in lieu of food stamps. Further-
more, although we are opposed to the mandatory pass-through
of cost-of-living increases, we believe the conditions the
bill would impose upon California are not mandatory, but
rather offer that State an additional option not otherwise
available, since California would be free at any time to
elect to provide food stamps and would then no longer be
subject to the cost-of-living increase requirements contained
in the enrolled bill.
We are, however, troubled by the manner in which the bill
addresses the issue of food stamp eligibility. The relation-
ship between the food stamp program of the Department of
The Honorable James T. Lynn
4
Agriculture and the public assistance programs of this
Department would be better addressed by comprehensive reform
legislation than by piecemeal legislation meeting the needs
of only one State. In addition, legislation of this sort
poses the danger of establishing a precedent whereby other
States will expect the enactment of special legislation
relieving them of generally applied requirements in order to
meet their own particular needs. Nevertheless, we do not
believe our concern in this regard is sufficiently significant
to warrant veto of the enrolled bill.
There would be no additional Federal costs incurred as a
result of enactment of this bill.
For the reasons given, we recommend approval of the enrolled
bill. Because our support for the bill is qualified, we
have enclosed for consideration a draft signing statement.
Sincerely,
Secretary hynch
Enclosure
DRAFT SIGNING STATEMENT
I am signing this bill with considerable reluctance. The
Supplemental Security Income Program and the Food Stamp Program
are both national programs and it should not be necessary to
enact special bills because of a situation in a particular State.
The Congress has been aware of the deficiencies in
legislation affecting the eligibility for Food Stamps of
recipients of Supplemental Security Income since the initiation
of that program. The California situation is only one result of
the failure of the Congress to enact a food stamp reform bill
that is essential for improved administration of the food stamp
program in all States. The practice of making exceptions when
particular situations are brought to its attention is not an
appropriate substitute for definitive action on the basic food
stamp program.
I am signing this bill as I understand that some interim
resolution of the situation in California is necessary, but I
must state my strong objection to the use of expedient, narrowly
focused remedies rather than proceeding with the broad reforms
that are needed. I urge the Congress to act without further
delay on the food stamp reform proposals that have been before
it for many months.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
DEPARTMENT OF CREDITIONS
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20250
August 4. 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn, Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in reply to a request from your office for a report on the
enrolled enactment of H.R. 14514, which would amend P.L. 93-233 to
permit California, which no longer qualifies for hold-harmless treat-
ment under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, to elect
to remain a food stamp cashout State upon condition that it pass through
a part of the 1976 cost-of-living increase in SSI benefits.
Because the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) is the
Federal agency responsible for administering the SSI program, this
Department defers to DHEW's judgment concerning the President's
approval of this bill. However, it should be pointed out that the
bill will accomplish four important objectives of this Department.
First, the food assistance needs of SSI recipients in California are
recognized. Second, Federal costs will not be increased as they would
be if California SSI recipients became eligible for the minimum food
stamp bonus. Third, the administrative burden and costs of certifying
these 340,000 recipients for the Food Stamp Program in a short period
of time are removed. Fourth, because the bill's provisions are retro-
active to July 1, 1976, the issue of food stamp eligibility for SSI
recipients in California is resolved.
Sincerely,
John A. Secretary Knebel I. 7
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: August 2
Time:
noon
FOR ACTION: Sarah Massengale
CC (for information):
Steve McConahey
Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Jim Cavanaugh
Ken Lazarus
Ed Schmults
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: August 3
noon
Time:
SUBJECT:
appropriation language change for the
medical facilities construction grant program
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
no objection
SCM 8/3/76
P-Jalled Jadly
at 10 45
8m
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
James M. Cannon
delay in submitting the required material, please
For the President
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: August 6
Time: 915am
FOR ACTION:
Spencer Johnson
CC (for information):
Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Jim Cavanaugh
Steve McConahey
Ed Schmults
Ken Lazarus
Robert Hartmann (Signing statement attached)
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Time:
August 6
530pm
SUBJECT:
H.R. 14515-Cashout of food stamps for Supplemental
Security Income Beneficiaries in California
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
No objection -- Ken Lazarus 8/6/76
GERALD FORD
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Cannon
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
the
President
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINCTON :
August 6, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
MAX L. FRIEDERSDORF
6.
SUBJECT:
H.R. 14515 - Cashout of food stamps for
Supplemental Security Income Beneficiaries
in California
The Office of Legislative Affairs concurs with the agencies
that the subject bill be signed.
Attachments
FORD i LIBRARY SERVIC
94TH CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
2d Session
No. 94-1310
STATE CASH-OUT STATUS UNDER SSI PROGRAM
JUNE 28, 1976.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. ULLMAN, from the Committee on Ways and Means,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
[To accompany H.R. 14514]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 14514) to permit a State which no longer qualifies for hold
harmless treatment under the supplemental security income program
to elect to remain a food stamp cash-out State upon condition that it
pass through a part of the 1976 cost-of-living increase in SSI benefits
and all of any subsequent increases in such benefits, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recom-
mend that the bill do pass.
I. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Your Committee bill would allow a state which no longer qualifies
for hold harmless treatment under the supplemental security income
program to elect to retain food stamp "cash out" status upon condition
that it pass through a part of the 1976 cost-of-living increase in SSI
benefits and all of any subsequent increases to such benefits.
Under Section 8 of Public Law 93-233, SSI recipients are cate-
gorically ineligible to purchase food stamps in those states in which
the Federal government is contributing an equivalent amount to the
bonus value of food stamps through the states' hold harmless pay-
ment pursuant to Section 401 of P.L. 92-603. These states' adjusted
payment levels are increased to include the bonus value of food stamps
and that bonus value must be part of the Federally administered sup-
plement. In other words, if a state loses hold harmless status, the SSI
57-006
RALD FORD VIBRARY
2
3.
recipients become eligible for food stamps, and it is no longer a cash-
With respect to subdivision (B) of clause (3), the following state-
out state.
On July 1, when the SSI cost-of-living increase takes effect, three
expenditures. ment is made. The bill contains no new budget authority and no tax
states will lose their hold harmless designation. Thus, the SSI recipi-
With respect to subdivision (D) of clause (3), the Committee ad-
ents in the states of California, New York, and Nevada will be allowed
vises that no oversight findings or recommendations have been made
to purchase food stamps.
by the Committee on Government Operations with respect to the sub-
New York and Nevada at this time have decided to provide food
ject matter of this legislation.
stamps to SSI recipients and have begun an administrative mecha-
In compliance with Rule XI clause 2(1) (3) (C), a cost estimate
nism to accomplish this task. However, the Governor and the State
for H.R. 14514 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office is con-
Legislature of California prefer to retain cash-out status for food
tained in Section III of this report.
stamps.
They claim that only one third of the SSI recipients are expected
III. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE FOR H.R. 14514
to participate in the food stamp program and where the bonus value
of food stamps is low, the total value of the benefit would not be as
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
high as the administrative cost. They estimate that the Federal-state
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
cost of administering the food stamp program would be $62 million,
Washington, D.C., June 25, 1976.
while the total bonus value of the food stamps would only be 424
Hon. AL ULLMAN,
million.
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Repre-
Accordingly, your Committee's bill specifies the conditions under
sentatives, Washington, D.C.
which a state losing hold harmless status may continue to retain food
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN Pursuant to Section 403 of the Congressional
stamp "cash-out" status. A compromise position has been reached
Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget Office has prepared the
which would require that:
attached cost estimate for H.R. 14514, legislation permitting states in
1. In Fiscal Year 1977. a state would have to provide for a $3 in-
"hold harmless" status under the Supplemental Security Income Pro-
crease in the amounts paid to individual SSI recipients and a pro-
gram to retain cash-out provisions for Food Stamps.
portionate increase to couples.
As you will note, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that
2. In years after FY 1977, a state would have to provide for a
there will be no budgetary cost for any provisions of the Committee
pass through of Federal SSI cost-of-living increases or general in-
bill. Explanations for these determinations are provided in the cost
creases in SSI.
estimate discussion.
3. If current state law provides for a cost-of-living increase in the
Should the Committee SO desire, we would be pleased to discuss this
state supplementary payments, such an increase may not be counted
cost estimate further with Members or staff.
in determining whether the state has provided for the $3 increase to
Sincerely,
individuals and the proportionate increase to couples.
ALICE M. RIVLIN,
Director.
II. OTHER MATTERS REQUIRED To BE DISCUSSED
Attachment.
In compliance with clause 7(a) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
Cost estimate: The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that
House of Representatives, the following statement is made. The Com-
there will be no Federal cost in connection with the implementation of
mittee found that there would be no Federal cost connected with the
H.R. 14514.
implementation of H.R. 14514.
Basis for estimate: The shift of SSI recipients in to normal Food
In compliance with clause 2(1) (2) (B) of Rule XI of the House of
Stamp application and determination channels would not alter the
Representatives, the following statement is made. The bill H.R. 14514
benefits to those individuals. Thus, if States elected not to retain cash-
was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a
out provisions, the only costs incurred would be increases in adminis-
recorded vote of 15 ayes, 13 noes.
trative expenses.
In compliance with clause 2(1) (4) of Rule XI of the House of
H.R. 14314 allows States to retain cash-out provisions and thus
Representatives, the following statement is made. H.R. 14514 should
saves any increase in administrative expenses resulting from the addi-
not have any inflationary impact on prices or on the cost of operation
tional burden on the Food Stamp program. Also, the conditions upon
of the national economy because it has no significant cost features.
which retention of cash-out provisions is allowed involves only costs
In compliance with clause 2(1) (3) subdivisions (A), (B) and (D)
to the States and not the Federal government.
of Rule XI of the House of Representatives, the following statements
are made. With respect to subdivision (A) of clause (3), the Com-
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
mittee's review of the situation addressed by H.R. 14514 revealed that
this legislation is warranted.
In compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-
H.R. 1310
H.R. 1310
4
5
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
subsections (b) (3) and (f) of this section, the level of State supple-
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
mentary payment under section 1616(a) shall be found by the Secre-
law in which no change is proposed is shown in romain)
tary to have been specifically increased so as to include the bonus value
of food stamps (1) only if, prior to October 1, 1973, the State has
SECTION 8 OF PUBLIC LAW 93-233
entered into an agreement with the Secretary or taken other positive
steps which demonstrate its intention to provide supplementary pay-
AN ACT To provide a 7-percent increase in soical security benefits beginning
with March 1974 and an additional 4-percent increase beginning with June
ments under section 1616(a) at a level which is at least equal to the
1974, to provide increases in supplemental security income benefits, and for
maximum level which can be determined under section 401 (b) (1) of
the Social Security Amendments of 1972 and which is such that the
other purposes.
limitation on State fiscal liability under section 401 does result in a
*
reduction in the amount which would otherwise be payable to the
ELIGIBILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME RECIPIENTS FOR FOOD
Secretary by the State, and (2) only with respect to such months as
STAMPS
the State may, at its option, elect.
(d) In any case where-
SEC. 8. (a) (1) Section 3(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 is
(1) a finding with respect to the level of a State's supplementary
amended effective only for the 6-month period beginning January 1,
payments under section 1616 of the Social Security Act has
1974 to read as it did before amendment by Public Law 92-603 and
heretofore been made by the Secretary in accordance with sub-
Public Law 93-86, but with the addition of the following new sen-
section (c) of this section, but
tence at the end thereof: "For the 6-month period beginning Janu-
(2) on or after July 1, 1976, the limitation on fiscal liability
ary 1, 1974 no individual, who receives supplemental security income
under section 401 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 no
benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act, State supple-
longer applies 80 as to reduce the amount which would otherwise
mentary payments described in section 1616 of such Act, or payments
be payable to the Secretary by such State, with the result that the
of the type referred to in section 212 (a) of Public Law 93-66, shall be
finding 80 made is no longer effective (and that the food stamp
considered to be a member of a household or an elderly person for
eligibility of the households and persons involved is or would be
purposes of this Act for any month during such period, if, for such
restored),
month, such individual resides in a State which provides State sup-
the Secretary shall nevertheless find upon the request of such State,
plementary payments (A) of the type described in section 1616 of
for the purposes specified in subsection (c) of this section, that the
the Social Security Act, and (B) the level of which has been found
level of such State's supplementary payments has been specifically
by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to have been
increased 80 as to include the bonus value of food stamps during any
specifically increased SO as to include the bonus value of food stamps."
period in which-
(2) Section (b) of Public Law 93-86 shall not be effective for the
(A) the law of such State requires that there be passed on to
6-month period beginning January 1, 1974.
all recipients of such payments for any month an amount equal
(b) (1) Section 4(c) of Public Law 93-86 shall not be effective for
to any portion of the amount payable to an individual with no
the 6-month period beginning January 1, 1974.
other income pursuant to section 1611(b) of the Social Security
(2) The last sentence of section 416 of the Act of October 31, 1949
Act for such month, in excess of the amount such an individual
(as added by section 411 (g) of Public Law 92-603) shall not be effec-
would have been so paid if the dollar figures in effect under such
tive for the 6-month period beginning January 1, 1974.
section (and section 1611 (1) (A) and (a) (2) (A) of such Act)
(3) For the 6-month period beginning January 1, 1974, no individ-
were $1,977.60 (in the case of such an eligible individual) and
ual, who receives supplemental security income benefits under title
$2,967.60 (in the case of such an individual with an eligible
XVI of the Social Security Act, State supplementary payments
spouse), which results from and would not be payable but for
described in section 1616 of such Act, or payments of the type referred
one or more cost-of-living increases occurring in or after 1976
to in section (a) of Public Law 93-66, shall be considered to be
purusant to section 1617 of such Act or one or more general in-
a member of a household for any purpose of the food distribution
creases enacted by law in or after 1976 in such dollar figures; and
program for families under section 32 of Public Law 74-320, section
(B) the amount required to be passed on pursuant to such State
416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, or any other law, for any month
law in any month is in addition to any increase in the payment
during such period, if, for such month, such individual resides in a
described in section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act, or in the
State which provides State supplementary payments (A) of the type
payment made under an agreement entered into under section
described in section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act, and (B) the
212 (a) of Public Law 93-66, which is made by or under State law
level of which has been found by the Secretary of Health, Education,
(or would, but for an increase in supplemental security income
and Welfare to have been specifically increased SO as to include the
benefits referred to in subparagraph (A), be so made) and which
bonus value of food stamps.
becomes effective on or before the date on which the increase in
(c) For purposes of the last sentence of section 3(e) of the Food
supplemental security income benefits (referred to in such sub-
Stamp Act of 1964 (as amended by subsection (a) of this section) and
paragraph) is effective.
H.R. 1310
H.R. 1310
6
If the preceding sentence is not applicable to a State with respect to
any period beginning after September 1977 because such State is not
MINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 14314
in compliance with subparagraph (B), but becomes applicable to such
State with respect to a subsequent period upon such compliance, there
We are opposed to H.R. 14514 because we believe that it is a wolf
shall be substituted for the dollar figures specified in subparagraph
in sheep's clothing. It is not, as the majority describes it, simply a
(A), for purposes of applying such subparagraph with respect to such
means of enabling the State of California to continue to "cash out"
subsequent period, the corresponding dollar figures which were in ef-
food stamps for SSI recipients, upon the condition that the State pass
fect immediately prior to the beginning of the period during which
$3 of the Federal benefit increase of this year and the full amount of
such subparagraph was not applicable to such State.
future increases through to SSI beneficiaries.
[(d)] (e) Section 401 (b) (1) of the Social Security Amendments of
This legislation was conceived by majority members of the Cali-
1972 is amended by striking out everything after the word "exceed"
fornia delegation as an expedient means of advancing the interests
and inserting in lieu thereof: "a payment level modification (as defined
of that State's administration. We can find no compelling national
in paragraph (2) of this subsection) with respect to such plans."
justification for its enactment; to the contrary, we believe that its
[(e)] (f) The amendment made by subsection (d) shall be effective
approval only would undermine the sound principle of consistent Fed-
only for the 6-month period beginning January 1, 1974, except that
eral policy toward all States.
such amendment shall not during such period, be effective in any State
As a result of increases in Federal SSI benefits, California will cease
which provides supplementary payments of the type described in sec-
to be in the "hold harmless" category on July 1 of this year. In the
tion 1616 (a) of the Social Security Act the level of which has been
absence of special legislation, California will lose the option of cashing
found by the Secretary to have been specifically increased SO as to
out food stamps for SSI recipients. Unlike other States facing similar
include the bonus value of food stamps.
circumstances, California is seeking to avoid implementation of food
stamps. Behind this objective lurks a more parochial motive than the
stated concern over administrative expense.
It is apparent that California seeks to divert funds from food stamp
administration in order to provide a six percent increase in benefits to
AFDC recipients. Such an increase presently is being considered by
the legislature, as an addition to the cost-of-living increase which an-
nually is awarded to welfare recipients.
On July 1, the basic Federal SSI benefit will increase from $158 to
$168. If this bill is not enacted, the California grant for a single aged
person, including State supplementation, will increase from $259 to
$273. SSI recipients would become eligible to purchase food stamps.
If California legislators wish to achieve a greater balance between
assistance to the aged and to the AFDC population, the State certainly
may do SO within the parameters of its own resources. But we cannot
participate in a Federal action which would deny the needy aged in
that State of access to food stamps, which are generally available else-
where, for the narrowly designed purpose of responding to other in-
terests within the State.
The fact that many welfare recipients are able to work, while the
elderly usually cannot, only magnifies the inappropriateness of this
proposed Federal policy. We urge the defeat of this legislation.
JOHN J. DUNCAN.
BILL ARCHER.
BARBER B. CONABLE, Jr.
WILLIAM A. STEIGER.
Gux VANDER JAGT.
PHILIP M. CRANE.
WILLIAM M. KETCHUM.
HERMAN T. SCHNEEBELL.
DONALD D. CLANCY.
BILL FRENZEL.
JAMES G. MARTIN.
L. A. BAFALIS.
(7)
H.R. 1310
O
LIBRA
H. R. 14514
FORD
Ainety-fourth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six
An Art
To permit a State which no longer qualifies for hold harmless treatment under
the supplemental security income program to elect to remain a food stamp
cashout State upon condition that it pass through a part of the 1976 cost-of-
living increase in SSI benefits and all of any subsequent increases in such
benefits.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 8
of Public Law 93-233 is amended by redesignating subsections (d) and
(e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively, and by inserting after
subsection (c) the following new subsection:
"(d) Upon the request of the State of California the Secretary
shall find, for purposes of the provisions specified in subsection (c) of
this section, that the level of such State's supplementary payments of
the type described in section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act has
been specifically increased for any month after June 1976 SO as to
include the bonus value of food stampsif-
"(1) the State law as in effect for such month specifically pro-
vides for increases in such payments on account of increases in
the level of benefits payable under title XVI of the Social Security
Act in a manner designed to assure that, whenever a cost-of-living
increase in the level of benefits payable under such title XVI
becomes effective for any month after June 1976, the amount of
the State supplementary payment payable, for each month with
respect to which such cost-of-living increase is effective, to any
individual or to any individual with an eligible spouse, will be
increased by such amount as is necessary to assure that-
"(A) the aggregate of (i) the amount payable for such
month to such individual, or to such individual with an
eligible spouse, under such title XVI, and (ii) the amount
payable for such month to such individual, or to such indi-
vidual with an eligible spouse, under the State's supple-
mentary payments program,
will exceed, by an amount which is not less than the monthly
amount of such cost-of-living increase (plus the monthly amount
of any previous cost-of-living increases in the level of benefits
payable under title XVI of the Social Security Act which became
effective for months after June 1976)-
"(B) the aggregate of the amounts which would otherwise
have been payable, to such individual (or to such individual
with an eligible spouse), under such title XVI and under the
State's supplementary payments program for such month
under the law as in effect on June 1, 1976; and
"(2) such month is (A) the month of July 1976, or (B) a
month thereafter which is in a period of consecutive months the
first of which is July 1976 and each of which is a month with
respect to which the conditions of paragraph (1) are met.
As used in this subsection, the term 'cost-of-living increase in the level
of benefits payable under title XVI of the Social Security Act' means
an increase in benefits payable under such title XVI by reason of the
H.R. 14514-2
operation of section 1617 of such Act; except that the cost-of-living
increase in the level of benefits payable under such title XVI which
became effective for the month of July 1976 shall be deemed (for
purposes of determining the amount of the required excess referred to
in the matter following subparagraph (A) and preceding subpara-
graph (B) in paragraph (1)) to have provided an increase of $3.00
per month in the case of an individual without an eligible spouse and
$4.50 per month in the case of an individual with an eligible spouse.".
(b) The provision of section 8 of Public Law 93-233 redesignated
as subsection (f) by subsection (a) of this section is amended by strik-
ing out "subsection (d)" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (e)".
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 11, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I
have signed with considerable reluctance
H.R. 14514, a bill which would permit the State of
California to provide direct financial assistance
rather than food stamps to beneficiaries of the
Supplemental Security Income program in that State,
under certain conditions. The Supplemental Security
Income program and the food stamp program are both
national in scope, and it should not be necessary to
enact a special bill because of the situation in a
particular State.
The Congress has for many years been aware of the
deficiencies in legislation affecting the eligibility
for food stamps of Supplemental Security Income recipients.
The situation in California is only one result of the
failure of the Congress to enact my comprehensive food
stamp reform bill which is essential for improved
administration of the food stamp program in all States.
Making exceptions for special situations is a poor sub--
stitute for definitive corrective legislative action
on the food stamp program.
Another disturbing aspect of H.R. 14514 is that if
California elects to continue to provide cash instead of
food stamps after 1976, the bill would require that the
State pass through to SSI recipients all cost-of-living
increases in the Federal SSI amount. My Administration
has opposed the principle of a mandatory pass-through for
States in the past, because it would limit the States'
discretion to decide their own supplementary benefit levels.
I recognize that this legislation would permit California
to remove itself from the congressionally imposed restriction
upon action by the State legislature. Nevertheless, I do
not believe that the Federal Government should mandate
varying levels of SSI benefits in all States simply
because a few States in prior years elected to give
recipients cash in place of food stamps.
I recognize that some interim resolution of the
uncertain situation in California is necessary, in the
interest of the senior citizens and other SSI recipients.
Therefore, I am signing this bill. I must, however,
state my strong objection to the use of such narrowly
focused remedies instead of proceeding with the broad
reforms that are needed.
I urge the Congress to act without further delay
on my food stamp reform proposals that have been before
it since October 1975.
# # #
FORD
GERALD