<\/p>\n
Interviewee<\/strong>: Marshall Matz\nInterviewer<\/strong>: Jeffrey Boyce\nDate<\/strong>: December 15, 2016<\/p>\nDescription<\/strong>: Marshall Matz was the attorney for the American School Food Service Association.<\/p>\n<\/iframe><\/div>\n<p><strong>Jeffrey Boyce<\/strong>: I\u2019m Jeffrey Boyce and it is December 15, 2016. I\u2019m here in the Watergate complex with Marshall Matz. Thanks for taking the time to talk with me today Marshall.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Marshall Matz<\/strong>: Jeff, I\u2019m honored you came all this way to visit with me.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Can we begin by you telling me a little bit about yourself, where you were born and where you grew up?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I was born and raised in New England. After law school I took the Connecticut bar. I decided I wanted to move to a more rural environment and I presumed that would be northern New England, Maine. But as I was applying for jobs I was offered a position with South Dakota Legal Services, which sounded like the most exciting opportunity I had, and the most strange.<img decoding=\"async\" class=\" wp-image-5786 alignright\" src=\"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/MM-2011-Y-215x300.jpg\" alt=\"MM 2011 Y\" width=\"255\" height=\"356\" srcset=\"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/MM-2011-Y-215x300.jpg 215w, https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/MM-2011-Y.jpg 429w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 255px) 100vw, 255px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: The most rural I can imagine.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: The most rural; it was even more rural than Maine. So I said yes on the spot. And the reason that\u2019s relevant is that I moved to an Indian reservation in South Dakota. That was 1971, the year I graduated law school. In 1972 a Senator that I had never heard of, our senior Senator from South Dakota, George McGovern, was the nominee of the Democratic Party. So I got very caught up in that campaign and went to work for Senator McGovern. He became a very good friend of mine, and he eventually became George. After he lost to President Nixon in 1972 he said, \u201cMarshall, how would you like to move back to Washington and be my lawyer on nutrition programs?\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: I wondered about the connection. So that\u2019s how you met Senator McGovern, you took the job in South Dakota.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It was total coincidence, total. When I turned down the job in Maine I assumed that Senator Muskie would be the nominee, but I moved to South Dakota because it was even more rural and more challenging. And the chance to work with Native Americans was really exciting.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: What sort of work did you do with the Native Americans?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I was working with South Dakota Legal Services and we were representing Native Americans against the federal government, the tribe, against the state on\u00a0 criminal issues, civil issues. Sometimes we\u2019d fight with the IRS. Sometimes we\u2019d represent individual Indians who\u2019d been arrested for driving while intoxicated. It was the whole range.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: The whole gamut, OK.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: The whole gamut. So I actually spent the very first year of my practice as a lawyer mostly in tribal court, going into tribal court every single day on behalf of somebody on some charge. I don\u2019t want to get too bogged down here, but it was great fun. The states have no jurisdiction on the reservations. It\u2019s either the tribe that has jurisdiction, or the federal government, depending on the nature of the crime. But anyhow, Senator McGovern lost to President Nixon, and here we sit in the Watergate, which was the scene of the crime so to speak., He offered me a job, because he thought I was from South Dakota. It was years before he found out I wasn\u2019t really from South Dakota. I was a transplant.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: How interesting.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: In any event that led to a career in nutrition, and then that became agriculture, and it grew from domestic agriculture to global. So, now our law firm specializes in agriculture across the board, including nutrition, both domestically and globally.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: So what was that first committee that you worked on? You were general counsel for McGovern on the?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I wasn\u2019t general counsel at first, but I started as assistant counsel to the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, which everyone called either the Hunger Committee or the McGovern Committee.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: OK.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Eventually I became general counsel. That committee then merged in 1977 because it was so popular. It actually merged into the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and it became a permanent subcommittee, as opposed to a select committee, which is for a finite term of time. And a select committee has no legislative jurisdiction. The subcommittee on Agriculture had legislative jurisdiction, which means it could pass laws. I stayed there for a couple of years. In all it was seven years working for Chairman McGovern on the Hill. Senator Dole was the senior Republican. We became great friends, and of course the two of them sponsored a series of legislation. All of the Dole-McGovern bills, or the McGovern-Dole bills, on school lunch and food stamps and WIC, we created the WIC Program, and then after they both left office we were still in concert. Under President Clinton we created the Dole-McGovern International Feeding Program. They had left the Senate at that time. I was no longer working for the Senate, but we were all still working together on behalf of feeding kids, here and around the world. It was quite an extraordinary experience.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: How did the different sides of the aisle manage to work together in those days?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: You know, in those days it just didn\u2019t matter. And agriculture in general is a more bipartisan issue than other issues. So even today they work together better at the Ag Committee than they do on Defense, Foreign Affairs, or Trade. Ag is still better. Chairman Pat Roberts and senior Democrat Debbie Stabenow, they worked hard together on a child nutrition bill in 2016 that did not become law. But it was not for a lack of effort. And they have a very good rapport. So it\u2019s still better than other areas, but back then it was seamless. In fact the committee staff, we all sat together. The majority staff, the minority staff, we sat together. It was just seamless. You tended to serve the senators on the committee that were interested in whatever subject you had knowledge about. I knew something about nutrition and I knew more as we went along, and it was George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey and Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole and Chuck Percy that were interested in nutrition. So those were the senators that I served, and it didn\u2019t really matter what party they were in. It was just a fun, fun, unique experience and you were young, and I had long, curly hair, and had no clue how rare and unusual and extraordinary this opportunity was to do good things on behalf of the most powerful people in the United States.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: So there really were \u2018good old days\u2019? It\u2019s not just a –<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes. There were good old days, and I\u2019m hoping there\u2019ll still be some ahead of us, but – and the irony of it is I still staff Bob Dole to this day. I meet with him every couple of months, mostly for personal reasons, because it\u2019s just a deep friendship, but in this transition I\u2019ve had the opportunity to actually discuss with him the transition to the Trump Administration and work together a little bit on that, but let\u2019s keep that a secret.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: What were the highlights of that first committee you worked on? What were some of your proudest moments, or some of your most frustrating, or both?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Well I mean they had \u2013 Senators McGovern and Dole and the committee \u2013 just an extraordinary record of accomplishment. People cared about feeding hungry kids and feeding a hungry country. At first I didn\u2019t staff child nutrition. I staffed them on\u00a0 food stamps, and my friend and colleague who you interviewed, Alan Stone, did child nutrition.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Who sends his warm regards by the way.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Tell Alan hi back. But we reformed food stamps significantly. It used to be, believe it or not, that you had to buy your food stamps, which seemed crazy, because people were poor. And if you were that poor, having enough money at one point in time during the month to actually buy your stamps was very difficult, particularly for the elderly on fixed budgets. So we fundamentally reformed the Food Stamp Program so that people just got the net amount and you didn\u2019t have to buy stamps. We expanded school lunch and school breakfast. We created the WIC Program. I\u2019m saying the royal \u201cwe\u201d, because Senate staff, we\u2019re always more arrogant than House staff, but as you get older you just take that liberty. It was Senator Humphrey who had this idea that food stamps weren\u2019t enough if you were pregnant or lactating and you had a young infant. You needed something to supplement the nutritional basket. Everyone thought it was a good idea. No one even asked how much it would cost. We had no clue. There were no budget committees at that time. There was no budget. So everyone thought it was a good idea. It was enacted. And of course now it\u2019s feeding six, seven, eight million people. Those were very, very proud moments. And that team of McGovern-Dole continued even after they left the Senate, as I said. When President Clinton was in office they approached him on going global. And he liked that idea and he dedicated $300,000,000 to the McGovern-Dole Global Child Nutrition Program.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Did you work on that program?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes. I was at the White House with them when they announced it and President Clinton said, \u201cLet\u2019s do it.\u201d I remember Senator Dole turning to Senator McGovern. Now mind you, both had run for President, both were the nominee of their party- different parties- and both failed. But at one point Bob Dole said to George McGovern, \u201cSenator, I always wondered what the Oval Office looked like.\u201d And of course everybody got a chuckle out of it. It was a friendly time. Bill Clinton started as a George McGovern staff person in 1972.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: I didn\u2019t know that.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: As did Hillary Clinton. But at this point of course everybody was good friends and working together to feed kids. So it\u2019s been a very extraordinary legacy that I certainly didn\u2019t appreciate when I was fresh off an Indian reservation, and Alan Stone didn\u2019t appreciate. We just didn\u2019t know what we had. Of course now when you look back you say, \u201cOh my gosh.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: There had to be some frustrations. What were some of the tough moments?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Well there were, although by and large most of the moments were good. I do remember when President Carter was elected and he proposed the Department of Education, which has been created. But originally when he sent the child legislation to Capitol Hill he proposed that all the nutrition programs be transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Education, which we thought was a bad idea for a variety of reasons. The link to agriculture was very important, so we didn\u2019t want to give up that base. And even today the education establishment in the United States has never fully embraced the nutrition programs as a part of an education day. They think of it as a support system. So we opposed that \u2013 we of course being the senators opposed it, and we did win. We did prevail and the Department of Education was created, but the childnutrition programs stayed at USDA. I don\u2019t think of that as a bad memory. I just think of it as a challenge that we had to deal with, and we did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: And so after you left the Hill, what was next?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I left the Hill in 1980 after seven years on the Hill, and I\u2019ve changed firms a few times, but I\u2019ve been practicing agriculture and nutrition law ever since. As you know, our law firm specializes in agriculture and we are a full-service agriculture firm. Within that space I tend to be the global nutrition person, global agriculture person, and still have deep commitment to child nutrition. There\u2019s a special place in our heart for that. Even though there was a sad ending to our SNA chapter, there\u2019s a good feeling about those programs and what we did. As you know, some thirty million kids plus are being fed every single day, plus breakfast, which was insignificant when we started. It\u2019s a good feeling.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Tell me about the good old days first of the ASFSA and then SNA. You worked with, at least in child nutrition, some pretty well-known ladies. I understand you were instrumental in getting the first person from child nutrition into the Undersecretary position at FNS. Is that correct?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: That is true. We had a wonderful relationship. Josephine Martin recruited me. It was at the San Francisco ASFSA convention, and I was still working on the Hill, and she came up to me and said, \u201cYou know, I think you should leave Capitol Hill and go to work for ASFSA.\u201d I was flattered of course, and loved Josephine and all the SNA presidents. They were just such a wonderful group. But I thought about it and said no, I wasn\u2019t ready to do that, but if I left the Hill to join a law firm I\u2019d be just honored if they became my first client. And that\u2019s what happened. They made a commitment to use me as their attorney and I used that to jumpstart a legal career. That was 1980.<\/p>\n<p>It was years later, we were feeling our oats, and I was talking to the SNA Executive Board and the PPL Committee, and everyone\u2019s wondering, \u201cWell, who are we going to get in the next administration to deal with?\u201d And I said, \u201cWell, why are we waiting and seeing? Why don\u2019t we make an effort to get one of our people into the administration so that we have one of our people somewhere in the lineup?\u201d Everyone seemed to like that idea and we put our heads together, and there was a consensus on which SNA person to support so we weren\u2019t competing with each other. And for a variety of reasons Shirley Watkins\u2019 name was put forward. And at first the Secretary, and I think it was Mike Espy who was the first Secretary for Bill Clinton, there was a feeling \u2018how can you have a school lunch lady who\u2019s running a little program in a little town somewhere\u2019 \u2013 even though Shirley was in Memphis and it was not a small program \u2013 but the perception of a school lunch lady running a hundred billion dollars\u2019 worth of programs was quite a stretch. It was a new thought.<\/p>\n<p>But we all organized, first within the organization, and then we networked with our allied organizations, the anti-hunger organizations, the agriculture groups, our friends, and we generated enough support that, to make a long story short, we prevailed. Shirley didn\u2019t become Assistant Secretary, but she was the Deputy Assistant Secretary, did a great job, and as a result we had enough credibility to do it yet again. And of course Janey Thornton came in later on and when she left Katie Wilson came in. They did fabulous jobs, but it required a lot of organizing, a lot of credibility, a lot of networking with other groups. You have to get everybody within SNA to agree.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Wasn\u2019t there a big letter-writing campaign?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes, absolutely. But even that was mellow, or thoughtful, because you don\u2019t want a massive letter-writing campaign \u2013 some of the presidents don\u2019t like that. Some don\u2019t mind. Some feel it\u2019s more of a quiet campaign. This time \u2013 I mean it\u2019s interesting \u2013 President-elect Donald Trump for the very, very first time actually has published a form for applicants. So if you want to apply to go into the Trump administration there is actually an application as if you were applying for a Civil Service position, but yet it\u2019s a political position. So things have changed with automation, and we\u2019ll see how that turns out. But it\u2019s a clever idea. It\u2019s certainly a sign of the times, but that\u2019s really how it happened. We figured we had a right to play in this space and to be involved politically so we organized within SNA and then we organized with all of our allies, because SNA\u2019s not the only organization that gets to express an opinion. If you\u2019re running a program of $100,000,000,000 there are a lot of people that are interested, and more people that are interested now than were back then, a lot more.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Who were some of the allies you worked with?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Oh, we worked with certainly the anti-hunger groups, FRAC, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, but then a host and a range of agriculture groups where we were seeking allies from them, because it is still the Department of Agriculture and it\u2019s the Secretary of Agriculture that makes that call in great part. It was an interesting experience. I think SNA now as a result has dramatically more credibility than it did in the early days, significantly. Current politics have changed things, but the basic premise that somebody who runs a school lunch program is qualified to administer the programs nationwide I think is now an accepted fact.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Did their move of their headquarters to the nation\u2019s capital improve their image or their profile to get more done?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I\u2019ve thought about that. It\u2019s good that they\u2019re here. I think their level of involvement has helped; their outreach from the field has helped. I don\u2019t think the mere fact that they\u2019re here in town dramatically influenced their credibility. Lots of things did. They\u2019ve grown as an organization for sure, and coming to town was a positive thing, but I don\u2019t think it was a game changer.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: OK. I just thought in Denver they were so far out.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It\u2019s true, but you know, it\u2019s a funny deal. There\u2019s almost a reverse bias. In some people\u2019s minds being from Denver gives you more credibility than being in Washington. SNA\u2019s power does not come from being in Washington. SNA\u2019s power, to the extent they have power, comes from representing 50,000 people, or 55,000 people, however many members they have now. I don\u2019t represent them anymore \u2013 it comes from representing constituents. That\u2019s where their power comes from. Whether it was me or somebody else representing SNA here in DC, you walk into a member of Congress\u2019s office or a Senator\u2019s office- where does your power come from? Your power comes from the fact that you\u2019re speaking on behalf of a constituent. And a white hat constituent, somebody back there in their congressional district who\u2019s trying to feed the children. That is where the power comes from.<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019ve had this discussion long and hard about the SNA PAC. Did we need a PAC? Does it help our powerbase? Yea, I think they needed a PAC, and it\u2019s a good PAC. But we used to call it a creampuff PAC, because it\u2019s so small. It supplements their powerbase, but that\u2019s not where their power comes from. Their power comes from representing constituents, and to that extent I don\u2019t think it mattered a lot whether you\u2019re in Denver or Washington. There\u2019s a convenience factor being in Washington. It\u2019s a good thing they moved to Washington, but –<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: But they had their Legislative Action Conference every year even when they were in Denver, correct?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Absolutely.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: And I hear they were some pretty good lobbyists.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I\u2019m proud of those years. We did well. It was disappointing when our paths were separated, because I thought we had a very productive thirty-one years. We had a long history of accomplishment. There were increased challenges ahead as the issues got more complicated. People were caring more not just about feeding kids, but the quality of the food, the greater detail on the specs. People were looking at not just a healthy diet and a balanced diet, but all of a sudden you\u2019re getting into the grams of sodium and the grams of fiber. It became a more complicated and specific menu pattern, so the issues got more complicated. But it was a very, very proud thirty-one years of accomplishment, and I\u2019m sorry it separated precipitously, which I thought was a wrong decision, but I\u2019m sure others thought was a wise decision.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Were there maybe a handful of key proud moments that you had working with them?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It would be hard, Jeff, to give you just a handful. They were my first client and they were special. There\u2019s no doubt about it. And the mission was special, feeding the nation\u2019s children. Good Lord, it certainly justified your existence. Those past-presidents became very good friends, Josephine and all the presidents we\u2019ve just mentioned, and Jane Wynn in particular, and Thelma Becker – these people became friends of mine. And they watched my family grow up. They watched my kids literally from birth until now my daughter\u2019s about to become a mother. I remember taking my daughter to the Las Vegas convention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: The SNA convention?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: The SNA convention or ASFSA, I don\u2019t remember. So Hayley was about ten or twelve, and they teased me. What kind of lawyer brings their daughter to Vegas? The guy has to be a little daffy. But we had a ball, and the SNA Executive Board, Hayley, and I went to some of the shows together. But I got teased about that. It was a family affair and there\u2019s no doubt about it. And we were on an important mission, which was to feed the nation\u2019s children. I don\u2019t remember any \u2013 I\u2019m sure there were some challenges, but we faced them.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Ketchup as a vegetable?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: That was a challenge, but the point of it is we all approached it together. I remember when some members of Congress proposed that we get rid of USDA commodities, or cash out the Commodities Program. That was a very, very divisive issue. In fact the House Education Committee decided not get rid of commodities on a TIE vote, a TIE vote, which was the closest and most aggressive battle I can remember. Chairman Ford, who was then head of the House Education Committee, actually accused me of a conflict of interest because I had worked for the Senate Committee on Agriculture.. He demanded – I think it was Jane Wynn who was ASFSA President \u2013 Mr. Ford demanded that SNA poll their PPL Committee, one by one, to make sure that the representation we were making to the Congress was accurate, and that SNA, as opposed to Marshall Matz, opposed getting rid of commodities. So, the hearing adjourned and SNA did in fact poll all members of the PPL Committee, and the next day we went back to Congress and said, \u201cNo, it was really a vote of the PPL Committee, and we want to stay with commodities because it provided a good political base for the program\u201d, which it did. It was a smart decision. That issue comes up every once in a while. Cash is more efficient. It\u2019s easier to distribute. But we thought the commodities gave us a political base that was important to keeping the program. And when years later Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich proposed a block grant, all of our agriculture allies helped us oppose that.<\/p>\n<p>Block grants are again another issue. It concerns me that I don\u2019t think folks at the grassroots necessarily understand what a block grant is. A block grant terminates the School Lunch Program. Yea, it gets rid of some rules, but it gets rid of the guarantee that the school food service authority will get reimbursed for every meal served. It will provide a fixed amount of money and if there\u2019s a recession and the number of kids on free lunch goes up they may be short of cash. So I think it\u2019s quite important.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: And so what are you up to these days? Tell me about that.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It\u2019s interesting. When you\u2019re an agriculture firm you get involved in a wide range of issues. We\u2019re still involved in domestic school lunch. We still represent ACDA, American Commodity Distribution Association, all of whom are SNA members, so we stay involved. I still represent some of those Indian reservations where I started.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Really?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes I do. As a matter of fact we have a lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture, which we now have settled, at least I hope so. I do global agricultural development. I probably commute once a year at least to Africa, working to help African leaders increase production of agriculture. The Global Child Nutrition Foundation, which was an arm of SNA, is a client. But so are forestry issues and research issues. We also represent South Dakota State University. If it touches USDA, our firm\u2019s probably involved with it. It\u2019s a fun assortment. I spend much more time at AID, the Agency for International Development, because my practice has really gone from domestic nutrition, and domestic agriculture, to global agriculture. It\u2019s still interesting and it keeps me going and that\u2019s why I haven\u2019t retired quite yet.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: I can tell you enjoy it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It\u2019s been a great, great thrill.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Jeff, I\u2019m thrilled to do so and flattered that you came all this way to talk to me. You\u2019re forcing me to recollect a little bit and bring back just wonderful, wonderful memories. I feel like when it comes to food and nutrition and agriculture I\u2019ve sort of been a witness to history.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: You have.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I don\u2019t think Alan Stone and I had any clue at the time. Alan was the other person \u2013 McGovern hired two people off the campaign, Alan and me, and each day we\u2019d sort of pinch ourselves and say, \u201cWhy in God\u2019s name, with all the talented, bright Ivy League kids that were working on that campaign in \u201972, did McGovern choose us?\u201d Eventually after he lost his Senate seat, George McGovern became a member of our firm and we remained close until he passed away.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Oh really?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes. And the historian in you might enjoy this story. When our law firm moved here to the Watergate, which is where we are, thinking back to the Nixon-McGovern campaign and the break-in at the Watergate which led to the impeachment effort of President Nixon, George McGovern put out a one-sentence press release that got picked up all over the United States that said, \u201cI sure hope nobody breaks into my office this time.\u201d And his office still remains. Our conference room is still called the George McGovern Conference Room, and we do a lot of work on nutrition.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Honoring a great man.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Honoring a great man, and Bob Dole lives in the Watergate right behind us. Secretary Jack Block is a member of our firm. He was Ronald Reagan\u2019s Secretary of Agriculture and we\u2019ve named our other conference room after Secretary Block, because we don\u2019t see agriculture or nutrition as a partisan issue.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: As it shouldn\u2019t be.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: No, it shouldn\u2019t be. Feeding kids is not a partisan exercise, and agriculture production\u2019s not a partisan exercise.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Well again, thank you so much for taking the time today.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Jeff, good to meet you. Thank you.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Thank you. It was a pleasure.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Interviewee: Marshall Matz Interviewer: Jeffrey Boyce Date: December 15, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,25],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5785"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5785"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5785\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10108,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5785\/revisions\/10108"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5785"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5785"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5785"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Description<\/strong>: Marshall Matz was the attorney for the American School Food Service Association.<\/p>\n<\/iframe><\/div>\n<p><strong>Jeffrey Boyce<\/strong>: I\u2019m Jeffrey Boyce and it is December 15, 2016. I\u2019m here in the Watergate complex with Marshall Matz. Thanks for taking the time to talk with me today Marshall.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Marshall Matz<\/strong>: Jeff, I\u2019m honored you came all this way to visit with me.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Can we begin by you telling me a little bit about yourself, where you were born and where you grew up?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I was born and raised in New England. After law school I took the Connecticut bar. I decided I wanted to move to a more rural environment and I presumed that would be northern New England, Maine. But as I was applying for jobs I was offered a position with South Dakota Legal Services, which sounded like the most exciting opportunity I had, and the most strange.<img decoding=\"async\" class=\" wp-image-5786 alignright\" src=\"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/MM-2011-Y-215x300.jpg\" alt=\"MM 2011 Y\" width=\"255\" height=\"356\" srcset=\"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/MM-2011-Y-215x300.jpg 215w, https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/MM-2011-Y.jpg 429w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 255px) 100vw, 255px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: The most rural I can imagine.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: The most rural; it was even more rural than Maine. So I said yes on the spot. And the reason that\u2019s relevant is that I moved to an Indian reservation in South Dakota. That was 1971, the year I graduated law school. In 1972 a Senator that I had never heard of, our senior Senator from South Dakota, George McGovern, was the nominee of the Democratic Party. So I got very caught up in that campaign and went to work for Senator McGovern. He became a very good friend of mine, and he eventually became George. After he lost to President Nixon in 1972 he said, \u201cMarshall, how would you like to move back to Washington and be my lawyer on nutrition programs?\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: I wondered about the connection. So that\u2019s how you met Senator McGovern, you took the job in South Dakota.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It was total coincidence, total. When I turned down the job in Maine I assumed that Senator Muskie would be the nominee, but I moved to South Dakota because it was even more rural and more challenging. And the chance to work with Native Americans was really exciting.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: What sort of work did you do with the Native Americans?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I was working with South Dakota Legal Services and we were representing Native Americans against the federal government, the tribe, against the state on\u00a0 criminal issues, civil issues. Sometimes we\u2019d fight with the IRS. Sometimes we\u2019d represent individual Indians who\u2019d been arrested for driving while intoxicated. It was the whole range.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: The whole gamut, OK.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: The whole gamut. So I actually spent the very first year of my practice as a lawyer mostly in tribal court, going into tribal court every single day on behalf of somebody on some charge. I don\u2019t want to get too bogged down here, but it was great fun. The states have no jurisdiction on the reservations. It\u2019s either the tribe that has jurisdiction, or the federal government, depending on the nature of the crime. But anyhow, Senator McGovern lost to President Nixon, and here we sit in the Watergate, which was the scene of the crime so to speak., He offered me a job, because he thought I was from South Dakota. It was years before he found out I wasn\u2019t really from South Dakota. I was a transplant.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: How interesting.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: In any event that led to a career in nutrition, and then that became agriculture, and it grew from domestic agriculture to global. So, now our law firm specializes in agriculture across the board, including nutrition, both domestically and globally.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: So what was that first committee that you worked on? You were general counsel for McGovern on the?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I wasn\u2019t general counsel at first, but I started as assistant counsel to the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, which everyone called either the Hunger Committee or the McGovern Committee.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: OK.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Eventually I became general counsel. That committee then merged in 1977 because it was so popular. It actually merged into the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and it became a permanent subcommittee, as opposed to a select committee, which is for a finite term of time. And a select committee has no legislative jurisdiction. The subcommittee on Agriculture had legislative jurisdiction, which means it could pass laws. I stayed there for a couple of years. In all it was seven years working for Chairman McGovern on the Hill. Senator Dole was the senior Republican. We became great friends, and of course the two of them sponsored a series of legislation. All of the Dole-McGovern bills, or the McGovern-Dole bills, on school lunch and food stamps and WIC, we created the WIC Program, and then after they both left office we were still in concert. Under President Clinton we created the Dole-McGovern International Feeding Program. They had left the Senate at that time. I was no longer working for the Senate, but we were all still working together on behalf of feeding kids, here and around the world. It was quite an extraordinary experience.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: How did the different sides of the aisle manage to work together in those days?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: You know, in those days it just didn\u2019t matter. And agriculture in general is a more bipartisan issue than other issues. So even today they work together better at the Ag Committee than they do on Defense, Foreign Affairs, or Trade. Ag is still better. Chairman Pat Roberts and senior Democrat Debbie Stabenow, they worked hard together on a child nutrition bill in 2016 that did not become law. But it was not for a lack of effort. And they have a very good rapport. So it\u2019s still better than other areas, but back then it was seamless. In fact the committee staff, we all sat together. The majority staff, the minority staff, we sat together. It was just seamless. You tended to serve the senators on the committee that were interested in whatever subject you had knowledge about. I knew something about nutrition and I knew more as we went along, and it was George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey and Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole and Chuck Percy that were interested in nutrition. So those were the senators that I served, and it didn\u2019t really matter what party they were in. It was just a fun, fun, unique experience and you were young, and I had long, curly hair, and had no clue how rare and unusual and extraordinary this opportunity was to do good things on behalf of the most powerful people in the United States.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: So there really were \u2018good old days\u2019? It\u2019s not just a –<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes. There were good old days, and I\u2019m hoping there\u2019ll still be some ahead of us, but – and the irony of it is I still staff Bob Dole to this day. I meet with him every couple of months, mostly for personal reasons, because it\u2019s just a deep friendship, but in this transition I\u2019ve had the opportunity to actually discuss with him the transition to the Trump Administration and work together a little bit on that, but let\u2019s keep that a secret.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: What were the highlights of that first committee you worked on? What were some of your proudest moments, or some of your most frustrating, or both?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Well I mean they had \u2013 Senators McGovern and Dole and the committee \u2013 just an extraordinary record of accomplishment. People cared about feeding hungry kids and feeding a hungry country. At first I didn\u2019t staff child nutrition. I staffed them on\u00a0 food stamps, and my friend and colleague who you interviewed, Alan Stone, did child nutrition.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Who sends his warm regards by the way.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Tell Alan hi back. But we reformed food stamps significantly. It used to be, believe it or not, that you had to buy your food stamps, which seemed crazy, because people were poor. And if you were that poor, having enough money at one point in time during the month to actually buy your stamps was very difficult, particularly for the elderly on fixed budgets. So we fundamentally reformed the Food Stamp Program so that people just got the net amount and you didn\u2019t have to buy stamps. We expanded school lunch and school breakfast. We created the WIC Program. I\u2019m saying the royal \u201cwe\u201d, because Senate staff, we\u2019re always more arrogant than House staff, but as you get older you just take that liberty. It was Senator Humphrey who had this idea that food stamps weren\u2019t enough if you were pregnant or lactating and you had a young infant. You needed something to supplement the nutritional basket. Everyone thought it was a good idea. No one even asked how much it would cost. We had no clue. There were no budget committees at that time. There was no budget. So everyone thought it was a good idea. It was enacted. And of course now it\u2019s feeding six, seven, eight million people. Those were very, very proud moments. And that team of McGovern-Dole continued even after they left the Senate, as I said. When President Clinton was in office they approached him on going global. And he liked that idea and he dedicated $300,000,000 to the McGovern-Dole Global Child Nutrition Program.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Did you work on that program?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes. I was at the White House with them when they announced it and President Clinton said, \u201cLet\u2019s do it.\u201d I remember Senator Dole turning to Senator McGovern. Now mind you, both had run for President, both were the nominee of their party- different parties- and both failed. But at one point Bob Dole said to George McGovern, \u201cSenator, I always wondered what the Oval Office looked like.\u201d And of course everybody got a chuckle out of it. It was a friendly time. Bill Clinton started as a George McGovern staff person in 1972.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: I didn\u2019t know that.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: As did Hillary Clinton. But at this point of course everybody was good friends and working together to feed kids. So it\u2019s been a very extraordinary legacy that I certainly didn\u2019t appreciate when I was fresh off an Indian reservation, and Alan Stone didn\u2019t appreciate. We just didn\u2019t know what we had. Of course now when you look back you say, \u201cOh my gosh.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: There had to be some frustrations. What were some of the tough moments?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Well there were, although by and large most of the moments were good. I do remember when President Carter was elected and he proposed the Department of Education, which has been created. But originally when he sent the child legislation to Capitol Hill he proposed that all the nutrition programs be transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Education, which we thought was a bad idea for a variety of reasons. The link to agriculture was very important, so we didn\u2019t want to give up that base. And even today the education establishment in the United States has never fully embraced the nutrition programs as a part of an education day. They think of it as a support system. So we opposed that \u2013 we of course being the senators opposed it, and we did win. We did prevail and the Department of Education was created, but the childnutrition programs stayed at USDA. I don\u2019t think of that as a bad memory. I just think of it as a challenge that we had to deal with, and we did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: And so after you left the Hill, what was next?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I left the Hill in 1980 after seven years on the Hill, and I\u2019ve changed firms a few times, but I\u2019ve been practicing agriculture and nutrition law ever since. As you know, our law firm specializes in agriculture and we are a full-service agriculture firm. Within that space I tend to be the global nutrition person, global agriculture person, and still have deep commitment to child nutrition. There\u2019s a special place in our heart for that. Even though there was a sad ending to our SNA chapter, there\u2019s a good feeling about those programs and what we did. As you know, some thirty million kids plus are being fed every single day, plus breakfast, which was insignificant when we started. It\u2019s a good feeling.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Tell me about the good old days first of the ASFSA and then SNA. You worked with, at least in child nutrition, some pretty well-known ladies. I understand you were instrumental in getting the first person from child nutrition into the Undersecretary position at FNS. Is that correct?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: That is true. We had a wonderful relationship. Josephine Martin recruited me. It was at the San Francisco ASFSA convention, and I was still working on the Hill, and she came up to me and said, \u201cYou know, I think you should leave Capitol Hill and go to work for ASFSA.\u201d I was flattered of course, and loved Josephine and all the SNA presidents. They were just such a wonderful group. But I thought about it and said no, I wasn\u2019t ready to do that, but if I left the Hill to join a law firm I\u2019d be just honored if they became my first client. And that\u2019s what happened. They made a commitment to use me as their attorney and I used that to jumpstart a legal career. That was 1980.<\/p>\n<p>It was years later, we were feeling our oats, and I was talking to the SNA Executive Board and the PPL Committee, and everyone\u2019s wondering, \u201cWell, who are we going to get in the next administration to deal with?\u201d And I said, \u201cWell, why are we waiting and seeing? Why don\u2019t we make an effort to get one of our people into the administration so that we have one of our people somewhere in the lineup?\u201d Everyone seemed to like that idea and we put our heads together, and there was a consensus on which SNA person to support so we weren\u2019t competing with each other. And for a variety of reasons Shirley Watkins\u2019 name was put forward. And at first the Secretary, and I think it was Mike Espy who was the first Secretary for Bill Clinton, there was a feeling \u2018how can you have a school lunch lady who\u2019s running a little program in a little town somewhere\u2019 \u2013 even though Shirley was in Memphis and it was not a small program \u2013 but the perception of a school lunch lady running a hundred billion dollars\u2019 worth of programs was quite a stretch. It was a new thought.<\/p>\n<p>But we all organized, first within the organization, and then we networked with our allied organizations, the anti-hunger organizations, the agriculture groups, our friends, and we generated enough support that, to make a long story short, we prevailed. Shirley didn\u2019t become Assistant Secretary, but she was the Deputy Assistant Secretary, did a great job, and as a result we had enough credibility to do it yet again. And of course Janey Thornton came in later on and when she left Katie Wilson came in. They did fabulous jobs, but it required a lot of organizing, a lot of credibility, a lot of networking with other groups. You have to get everybody within SNA to agree.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Wasn\u2019t there a big letter-writing campaign?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes, absolutely. But even that was mellow, or thoughtful, because you don\u2019t want a massive letter-writing campaign \u2013 some of the presidents don\u2019t like that. Some don\u2019t mind. Some feel it\u2019s more of a quiet campaign. This time \u2013 I mean it\u2019s interesting \u2013 President-elect Donald Trump for the very, very first time actually has published a form for applicants. So if you want to apply to go into the Trump administration there is actually an application as if you were applying for a Civil Service position, but yet it\u2019s a political position. So things have changed with automation, and we\u2019ll see how that turns out. But it\u2019s a clever idea. It\u2019s certainly a sign of the times, but that\u2019s really how it happened. We figured we had a right to play in this space and to be involved politically so we organized within SNA and then we organized with all of our allies, because SNA\u2019s not the only organization that gets to express an opinion. If you\u2019re running a program of $100,000,000,000 there are a lot of people that are interested, and more people that are interested now than were back then, a lot more.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Who were some of the allies you worked with?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Oh, we worked with certainly the anti-hunger groups, FRAC, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, but then a host and a range of agriculture groups where we were seeking allies from them, because it is still the Department of Agriculture and it\u2019s the Secretary of Agriculture that makes that call in great part. It was an interesting experience. I think SNA now as a result has dramatically more credibility than it did in the early days, significantly. Current politics have changed things, but the basic premise that somebody who runs a school lunch program is qualified to administer the programs nationwide I think is now an accepted fact.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Did their move of their headquarters to the nation\u2019s capital improve their image or their profile to get more done?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I\u2019ve thought about that. It\u2019s good that they\u2019re here. I think their level of involvement has helped; their outreach from the field has helped. I don\u2019t think the mere fact that they\u2019re here in town dramatically influenced their credibility. Lots of things did. They\u2019ve grown as an organization for sure, and coming to town was a positive thing, but I don\u2019t think it was a game changer.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: OK. I just thought in Denver they were so far out.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It\u2019s true, but you know, it\u2019s a funny deal. There\u2019s almost a reverse bias. In some people\u2019s minds being from Denver gives you more credibility than being in Washington. SNA\u2019s power does not come from being in Washington. SNA\u2019s power, to the extent they have power, comes from representing 50,000 people, or 55,000 people, however many members they have now. I don\u2019t represent them anymore \u2013 it comes from representing constituents. That\u2019s where their power comes from. Whether it was me or somebody else representing SNA here in DC, you walk into a member of Congress\u2019s office or a Senator\u2019s office- where does your power come from? Your power comes from the fact that you\u2019re speaking on behalf of a constituent. And a white hat constituent, somebody back there in their congressional district who\u2019s trying to feed the children. That is where the power comes from.<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019ve had this discussion long and hard about the SNA PAC. Did we need a PAC? Does it help our powerbase? Yea, I think they needed a PAC, and it\u2019s a good PAC. But we used to call it a creampuff PAC, because it\u2019s so small. It supplements their powerbase, but that\u2019s not where their power comes from. Their power comes from representing constituents, and to that extent I don\u2019t think it mattered a lot whether you\u2019re in Denver or Washington. There\u2019s a convenience factor being in Washington. It\u2019s a good thing they moved to Washington, but –<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: But they had their Legislative Action Conference every year even when they were in Denver, correct?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Absolutely.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: And I hear they were some pretty good lobbyists.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I\u2019m proud of those years. We did well. It was disappointing when our paths were separated, because I thought we had a very productive thirty-one years. We had a long history of accomplishment. There were increased challenges ahead as the issues got more complicated. People were caring more not just about feeding kids, but the quality of the food, the greater detail on the specs. People were looking at not just a healthy diet and a balanced diet, but all of a sudden you\u2019re getting into the grams of sodium and the grams of fiber. It became a more complicated and specific menu pattern, so the issues got more complicated. But it was a very, very proud thirty-one years of accomplishment, and I\u2019m sorry it separated precipitously, which I thought was a wrong decision, but I\u2019m sure others thought was a wise decision.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Were there maybe a handful of key proud moments that you had working with them?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It would be hard, Jeff, to give you just a handful. They were my first client and they were special. There\u2019s no doubt about it. And the mission was special, feeding the nation\u2019s children. Good Lord, it certainly justified your existence. Those past-presidents became very good friends, Josephine and all the presidents we\u2019ve just mentioned, and Jane Wynn in particular, and Thelma Becker – these people became friends of mine. And they watched my family grow up. They watched my kids literally from birth until now my daughter\u2019s about to become a mother. I remember taking my daughter to the Las Vegas convention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: The SNA convention?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: The SNA convention or ASFSA, I don\u2019t remember. So Hayley was about ten or twelve, and they teased me. What kind of lawyer brings their daughter to Vegas? The guy has to be a little daffy. But we had a ball, and the SNA Executive Board, Hayley, and I went to some of the shows together. But I got teased about that. It was a family affair and there\u2019s no doubt about it. And we were on an important mission, which was to feed the nation\u2019s children. I don\u2019t remember any \u2013 I\u2019m sure there were some challenges, but we faced them.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Ketchup as a vegetable?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: That was a challenge, but the point of it is we all approached it together. I remember when some members of Congress proposed that we get rid of USDA commodities, or cash out the Commodities Program. That was a very, very divisive issue. In fact the House Education Committee decided not get rid of commodities on a TIE vote, a TIE vote, which was the closest and most aggressive battle I can remember. Chairman Ford, who was then head of the House Education Committee, actually accused me of a conflict of interest because I had worked for the Senate Committee on Agriculture.. He demanded – I think it was Jane Wynn who was ASFSA President \u2013 Mr. Ford demanded that SNA poll their PPL Committee, one by one, to make sure that the representation we were making to the Congress was accurate, and that SNA, as opposed to Marshall Matz, opposed getting rid of commodities. So, the hearing adjourned and SNA did in fact poll all members of the PPL Committee, and the next day we went back to Congress and said, \u201cNo, it was really a vote of the PPL Committee, and we want to stay with commodities because it provided a good political base for the program\u201d, which it did. It was a smart decision. That issue comes up every once in a while. Cash is more efficient. It\u2019s easier to distribute. But we thought the commodities gave us a political base that was important to keeping the program. And when years later Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich proposed a block grant, all of our agriculture allies helped us oppose that.<\/p>\n<p>Block grants are again another issue. It concerns me that I don\u2019t think folks at the grassroots necessarily understand what a block grant is. A block grant terminates the School Lunch Program. Yea, it gets rid of some rules, but it gets rid of the guarantee that the school food service authority will get reimbursed for every meal served. It will provide a fixed amount of money and if there\u2019s a recession and the number of kids on free lunch goes up they may be short of cash. So I think it\u2019s quite important.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: And so what are you up to these days? Tell me about that.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It\u2019s interesting. When you\u2019re an agriculture firm you get involved in a wide range of issues. We\u2019re still involved in domestic school lunch. We still represent ACDA, American Commodity Distribution Association, all of whom are SNA members, so we stay involved. I still represent some of those Indian reservations where I started.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Really?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes I do. As a matter of fact we have a lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture, which we now have settled, at least I hope so. I do global agricultural development. I probably commute once a year at least to Africa, working to help African leaders increase production of agriculture. The Global Child Nutrition Foundation, which was an arm of SNA, is a client. But so are forestry issues and research issues. We also represent South Dakota State University. If it touches USDA, our firm\u2019s probably involved with it. It\u2019s a fun assortment. I spend much more time at AID, the Agency for International Development, because my practice has really gone from domestic nutrition, and domestic agriculture, to global agriculture. It\u2019s still interesting and it keeps me going and that\u2019s why I haven\u2019t retired quite yet.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: I can tell you enjoy it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: It\u2019s been a great, great thrill.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Jeff, I\u2019m thrilled to do so and flattered that you came all this way to talk to me. You\u2019re forcing me to recollect a little bit and bring back just wonderful, wonderful memories. I feel like when it comes to food and nutrition and agriculture I\u2019ve sort of been a witness to history.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: You have.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: I don\u2019t think Alan Stone and I had any clue at the time. Alan was the other person \u2013 McGovern hired two people off the campaign, Alan and me, and each day we\u2019d sort of pinch ourselves and say, \u201cWhy in God\u2019s name, with all the talented, bright Ivy League kids that were working on that campaign in \u201972, did McGovern choose us?\u201d Eventually after he lost his Senate seat, George McGovern became a member of our firm and we remained close until he passed away.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Oh really?<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Yes. And the historian in you might enjoy this story. When our law firm moved here to the Watergate, which is where we are, thinking back to the Nixon-McGovern campaign and the break-in at the Watergate which led to the impeachment effort of President Nixon, George McGovern put out a one-sentence press release that got picked up all over the United States that said, \u201cI sure hope nobody breaks into my office this time.\u201d And his office still remains. Our conference room is still called the George McGovern Conference Room, and we do a lot of work on nutrition.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Honoring a great man.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Honoring a great man, and Bob Dole lives in the Watergate right behind us. Secretary Jack Block is a member of our firm. He was Ronald Reagan\u2019s Secretary of Agriculture and we\u2019ve named our other conference room after Secretary Block, because we don\u2019t see agriculture or nutrition as a partisan issue.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: As it shouldn\u2019t be.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: No, it shouldn\u2019t be. Feeding kids is not a partisan exercise, and agriculture production\u2019s not a partisan exercise.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Well again, thank you so much for taking the time today.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MM<\/strong>: Jeff, good to meet you. Thank you.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JB<\/strong>: Thank you. It was a pleasure.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Interviewee: Marshall Matz Interviewer: Jeffrey Boyce Date: December 15, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,25],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5785"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5785"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5785\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10108,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5785\/revisions\/10108"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5785"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5785"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theicn.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5785"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}