but who also provide additional competitive resources which foster the programs cost effective objectives.

Before closing Mr. Chairman, we would like to address ourselves to a problem of interpretation of Section 13(a) (1) of the National School Lunch Act's summer lunch provisions.

We feel that there has been generated a misconception that service institutions are required to use public school food service facilities and personnel as opposed to the service of private independent food service management companies.

In the interest of economics, continuity, efficiency and consistency, the Foodservice and Lodging Institute respectfully urges a clarification of the legislative intent or preferably, an amendment to Section 13(a) (1) demonstrating that:

"Nothing in this Section shall preclude a service institution from contracting with a private food service contractor for delivery of meals to school food service facilities or other facilities approved as food service sites."

This change would make it clear that every qualified supplier, whether schoolconnected or school-owned operators or food service management companies, would be eligible to participate in the program.

The selection of the supplier would then be a local rather than a federal decision and it would be based on local conditions in the best interest in the program. We further feel that such a recommendation is economically sound because it will obtain the best value for the taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, the food service industry is confident that your Subcommittee, the full Committee on Agriculture and the United States Senate will deal fairly and equitably in developing improved legislation on these subjects. The task is a difficult one but the end result will be extremely gratifying. We hope that our comments are given careful attention and that legislation is favorably considered and reported.

We want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to express the views of our industry.

If the members of this Subcommittee have any questions, we would be happy to respond.

Thank you.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12 OF S. 850

Amend Section 12 of S. 850 so that the last three sentences of Section 13(a) (1) of the National School Lunch Act shall read as follows:

"To the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the purposes of this section, preference in the selection of service institutions to receive assistance under this subsection shall be given to public and non-profit private schools which utilize existing foodservice and recreational facilities of such schools. Any eligible institution shall receive the Summer Food Program upon request. Nothing in this section shall be construed as precluding a service institution selected to receive assistance under this section from contracting on a competitive basis for the furnishing of meals and/or administration of the program."

EXPLANATION

Under present law, public and non-profit private schools are given preference without competitive bidding in the selection of institutions to receive assistance under the Summer Food Program. The absence of competitive bidding results in higher cost for the program. The rationale to justify this preference is to encourage the use of existing foodservice and recreational facilities of public and non-profit private schools. In many instances, however, the preference is given to schools even though the foodservice and recreational facilities of such schools are not used by the schools in conducting the Program. The above amendment would encourage the use of such facilities. Unless such facilities are in fact used, schools would have to meet the lower prices brought about by competition when seeking assistance under this Summer Food Program.

The second amendment suggested would permit non-profit service institutions to contract on a competitive basis not only for the furnishing of required meals, but also for the administration and effective management of the program. Under the present law, in many instances non-profit service institutions do not have the proper resources to manage the program. While such local organizations are most appropriate to sponsor local Summer Food Programs because they recognize the need where it exists and they have the sites for the orderly distribution of meals furnished under the Program, they do not have the resources to assure that the

program will qualify for Federal reimbursement. As a result. frequently, nonprofit service institutions are required to assume substantial financial risk for the payment of meals purchased which may or may not be reimbursed by the Federal Government depending on whether the program is properly administered. The determination as to proper administration and qualification for reimbursement generally occurs a significant time after the meals have been furnished and consumed. We urge that service institutions be permitted to contract for the proper administration of the program on a competitive basis if they so desire. This will relieve the service institution from the financial risk involved by placing the burden for proper administration and distribution of meals on the party who furnished the meals and who after performance seeks reimbursement for the meals furnished.

In our opinion, uncertainty of payment for meals furnished because of failure to properly administer the program is the principle reason why the program has not been utilized to the extent that the need for the program warrants.

Senator McGOVERN. Rabbi Gorodetsky, are you and your group ready to be heard?

We are going to work out a change now in the schedule. After we have heard the rabbi and his group, we will recess an hour for lunch, between 1 p.m., and 2 p.m., and then take the balance of the witnesses at 2 o'clock. That will give us a little more time.

If you can identify your associates here, we will proceed. STATEMENT OF RABBI SHOLOM GORODETSKY, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, HASSIDIC CORP. FOR URBAN CONCERNS, BROOKLYN, N.Y.

Rabbi GORODETSKY. David Farber, who is executive director of our organization; and Rabbi Katz, who is the director of special programs. Thank you, Senator McGovern.

I represent the Hassidic Corp. for Urban Concerns, an OEO-funded community action group providing direct services to hundreds and thousands of New Yorkers of all races and creeds.

I am privileged to be here today to testify on behalf of a bill to amend the National School Lunch and the Child Nutrition Acts and for the purpose of brevity I shall dwell upon the area in which we are most familiar with, namely the summer feeding program.

We are here to discuss primarily the summer feeding program. I can think of no more visible, direct and effective program than the actual feeding of needy young people during the hot summer days. Our agency alone distributes over 150,000 meals daily to young people aged 3 to 20 throughout the city of New York. We were somewhat shocked and amazed when we heard that this program might be curtailed, especially at this time, with the economic situation as we find it now in the country.

We were amazed at the inappropriateness of the timing. At a time when unemployment is at its highest in decades, when inflation affects food costs significantly, when young people are doomed to walk the hot streets of New York City aimlessly for lack of jobs and other opportunities previously available but now discontinued due to Federal, State and municipal funding cuts, at a time when the parents of these young people are plagued by inflation and unemployment and cutting down on food as an economy measure, at this time we thought it was heartless to even consider curtailment of such a

program.

Now, there are programs and there are programs. Some are designed to benefit the community indirectly, or deal with the subconscious. The summer feeding program deals with the immediacy and reality of the condition. Each child actually receives a meal, a nutritious meal, and consumes that meal in the location where he or she receives it. Moreover, because of the availability of this program many voluntary summer day camps, block associations, social and civic groups are able to conduct summer programs for young people who otherwise would be left with nothing productive to do all summer long.

And what are we really talking about? We are not discussing largesse from the Government for luxury purposes. We are not asking to provide these poor young people with sirloin steaks or caviar, but rather with a daily meal requirement of nutrition typical of a USDA type A lunch.

Let us talk for a moment about the side effects of the summer feeding

program.

It relieves the feeding burdens of families hard hit by the economy; it assures poor young people of at least a nutritious meal per day; it helps community organizations operate voluntary summer educational and recreational programs for the needy; it provides employment for thousands of New Yorkers involved in the production and distribution and supervision of meals; it increases business for the small food supplier hard hit by the economy; it produces business for the farmer, dairyman and, in the process, provides employment for thousands of others involved in all aspects of food preparation from its inception. It truly has the kind of domino effect which deals with human needs and the general economy of the regions and the Nation. It is for this reason that we were amazed that this program was in jeopardy. We thought for certain that the program would be doubled and perhaps carried over beyond the summer months. But then again we are not economists, all we know is what we see, and what we see is poverty and hunger and some smiling faces when those meals arrive in huge refrigerated trucks.

The efforts of the Senate and Congress have apparently assured the continuation of the summer feeding program so that in the summer of 1975 the children will indeed be serviced again. We commend the many men and women who dedicated themselves to the struggle and saw it crowned with success.

We are extremely pleased and wholeheartedly support some of the amendments that are being added to the bill. In particular, we urge the adoption of the following amendments: (a) USDA should provide advance payment and startup costs so that those involved in the management of the program can realistically and effectively prepare and maintain a successful program; (b) reduce the rate of low income children in areas being serviced from 50 percent eligibility to 33 percent, which will enable many more children to benefit from this

program.

I would like to commend Senator McGovern and this committee for taking the leadership in this area and I am hopeful that those of us who are fortunate enough to have our steaks and not worry about where the next meal is coming from, will find the compassion and understanding to provide other Americans less fortunate than we are. with at least a humble but nutritious meal.

Finally, let us understand that America is after all one large family. Just as millions of families in America, hurt by the temporary economic setbacks, are earnestly considering their own cuts in their households and would only consider depriving their children of minimum food requirements as a last desperate move, likewise, our Nation, in its search for economy, should first deal with nonessential items. And the only time we could possibly consider depriving the poor of food is when we reach the hour of total despair. We have not reached this hour, and by the grace of God we never will. This is a great and righteous Nation; we shall again regain our strength and in fact, grow from strength to strength.

In closing, we wish to thank you again for the opportunity of testifying before your committee and to bring you the greetings from the thousands of young people we serve who thank you for helping them and for caring enough to fight for justice and righteousness. Senator McGOVERN. Thank you very much, rabbi; that was a very moving statement.

Just for your information-you may already know this-we did get an emergency bill through to extend the summer program. That is on the President's desk right now. It is just a 90-day extension, but it does take care of the summer until we can get more permanent authorization.

Is Mr. Farber going to testify?

Mr. FARBER. No, not at this time.

Senator McGOVERN. We know that you operate one of the best programs in the Nation, rabbi, and we are very impressed with what is going on in your program. I am hopeful that this new legislation. will be passed and it will enable you to do an even better job. Rabbi GORODETSKY. Thank you very much.

Senator MCGOVERN. Thank you for your patience.

We will recess now until 2 o'clock; and then we will open the hearing at that time with Mrs. Jeanne Nobel, president of the Maryland Food Committee.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. JAMES THORNTON [professional staff member, presiding]. We are now going to reconvene the hearings. We have had some difficulty in getting our Senators back here due to many other conflicting demands upon their time this afternoon, both on the floor and before other committees. In the interest of conserving your time and finishing up these hearings, we have permission to proceed.

If Mrs. Jeanne Nobel will please come forward, we will proceed.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JEANNE NOBLE, PRESIDENT, MARYLAND FOOD COMMITTEE, INC., BALTIMORE, MD.

Mrs. NOBLE. I am Jeanne Noble and I am president of the Maryland Food Committee, which since 1969 has worked as a citizens' committee against hunger, dedicated to seeing that the hungry in Maryland are fed. We thank you for this opportunity to speak on the proposed child nutrition legislation. As an antihunger committee, one of our concerns is to see that poor people in Maryland receive maximum benefits from the various federally funded food programs and, since we began 6

years ago, we have studied school meals, summer lunch and day care feeding programs, monitored them, and worked to increase participation in them.

At the present time, the Maryland Food Committee is strongly opposed to substituting a block grant system of funding for child nutrition programs. In the future, this may be a desirable change, however, it will require several years of planning for this transition and should be designed as a way of expanding and upgrading child nutrition, while at the same time returning power to local jurisdictions. This year's administration proposals, unfortunately, seem to be aimed at reducing the coverage and effectiveness of child nutrition efforts by lowering funds available and eliminating entirely the school breakfast program, special food service for children, the WIC program and the special milk program.

We feel that this is callous economy and that it spells disaster for child nutrition among low income people, both in Maryland and in the Nation. As the other speaker this morning has said, we do have to face the fact that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, which is the recession compounded by inflation.

We feel that there is ample evidence that hunger and malnutrition in children costs this Nation far more in dollars spent for medical care and corrective institutions than in dollars spent for nutrition programs. And from our perspective, the cost in human terms of undereducated, underemployed, sick and alienated persons is a national disgrace.

The first program I would like to talk about is the school lunch program, which of course, is the largest and oldest of the programs under consideration today. It was set up first of all of course, not just to use up surplus foods, but also to improve the nutrition and health of the Nation's children. Perhaps some of Maryland's experience would be helpful.

Our paid lunches have declined 10 million over the last 6 years. We have two exhibits attached which go into the participation of paid, free, and reduced lunches over these 6 years. We feel that this decline of 10 million is disastrous in terms of nutrition, especially in the face of the findings of the 16-State nutrition survey of the prevalence of nonnutrition among all schoolchildren, especially those in high school. Our free lunches have increased steadily. In 1969, we had a total of 3.5 million free lunches; and this year, we have 23.7. That is the total number of meals.

However, the increase in our reduced price lunches has been pathetic, and that is particularly in view of the fact that 1975 is the first year that our State has used the maximum allowable Federal income guidelines. The Maryland Food Committee estimates conservatively that a minimum of 60,000 children at present levels, are eligible to receive reduced price lunches. Only 8,300 are receiving them. There are still five counties in Maryland, including our "Hunger County," Somerset, which offer no reduced price lunch.

When we look at the statistics, we should remember two facts. Maryland has by law mandated a school lunch program in every public school where needy children are fed, but the reduced price meals are the option of the principal. Second, because of the tremendous gains