MCGOVERN FIGHTS FOOD CUTBACK; CHAIRS HEARING, RELEASES REPORTS

Senator George McGovern, (D-S.D.), Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, today released two staff reports completed by the Nutrition Committees that show increasing participation and acceptance of child nutrition programs by millions of Americans.

One of these reports covers the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs which the Administration is attempting to drastically cut back; the other covers the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) Program, which the Administration is seeking to eliminate entirely.

Concurrent to the release of these reports, McGovern is chairing hearings before the Senate Agriculture Committee on S. 850, legislation he has introduced which, if passed, will defeat the Administration's plan and continue all the child nutrition programs.

McGovern, in referring to his bill (S. 850), and the Committee reports, said: I can't imagine whose advice the Administration took in deciding to attack these programs. Thousands of administrators and participants in these programs have written to me expressing their feeling that the President's proposal is a total child nutrition disaster, one that would set back these programs 30 years. The two Nutrition Committee prints released today verify this fact. The 289page print entitled "WIC Program Survey-1975" shows that States, even in this very early stage of the program, are showing substantially reduced anemia among low income mothers and infants, increased maternal weight gain, increased birth weights, better dietary intakes, and decreased infant mortalities.

In addition, all States are reporting that by making WIC food available through health clinics, overall clinic participation has increased considerably, mothers are coming in earlier for prenatal visits, and the number of children going through medical screening and immunization has increased. Each of these is likely to lead to reduced medical costs.

In summarizing the WIC print, McGovern noted:

This program is working exactly as it was intended. My bill, S. 850, is intended to extend the WIC program, and correct many of its early problems.

The second Nutrition Committee print, entitled "School Food Program Needs1975", shows the continued use of school lunch and breakfast programs by over 25 million American schoolchildren each day, a number that would be cut in half by the Administration's plan.

This report also shows that: the cost of producing a school lunch has gone up 13% this last year, bringing the two-year total increase to about 28%; most States have increased the amounts they are charging students by 5¢ or more; most States have at least doubled their participation in the reduced price program, which is offered to children from lower-middle income families and which legislation expanded last year; and, States report that if the school lunch program were universal, they would save millions of dollars in administrative costs. In concluding his opening remarks before the hearing, McGovern said: What makes this attempt to eliminate and cut back child nutrition particularly foolhardy is that it comes at a time when these programs, tried and proven, could be a real help to the people of this country, without a great increase in cost. At a time when food costs are rising over 15 percent per year, when unemploy ment is hitting recordbreaking numbers, when double digit inflation is bewildering almost everyone, when the farm economy is in trouble, and when local economics need a boost, the Federal nutrition programs are in a unique position to be used to help, not to hurt, our people.

S. 850 is an attempt to help continue, improve and modestly expand these programs.

Hearings will be held today and Thursday in the Senate Agriculture Committee Hearing Room 324, Russell Senate Office Building.

Today's witnesses include:

Honorable Richard L. Feltner, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Marketing and Consumer Service.

Miss Josephine Martin. Administrator, School Food Service Program, Georgia Dept. of Education (also Chairman, Legislative Comm. American School Food Service Assn.).

Mrs. Annie Galbraith, Pres.-Elect, American Dietetic Association, Boston, Massachusetts.

Mr. Gabriel Stickle, Vice Pres. for Programs, National Foundation March of Dimes, White Plains, N.Y.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT DOLE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. Chairman, I welcome these hearings on child nutrition legislation and I am hopeful that after we have heard all of the witnesses today and Thursday, we can begin shaping a more equitable, responsibly funded nutrition program for our children.

For every Member of the Congress is interested in assuring that American children have nutritious diets. And it has long since been decided that the Federal Government-working with the States-has a major responsibility for achieving this worthy objective. But we in the Congress must shape the specific programs which will meet the general goal of all child nutrition legislation-to safeguard the health and well being of the Nation's children.

I hope we will fully explore each of the alternative courses of action before us-from the administration's “block grant" child nutrition approach to more comprehensive extensions of current child nutrition laws such as Senator McGovern's and Senator Humphrey's proposals (S. 850 and S. 894).

THE KANSAS EXPERIENCE

More specifically, I am especially interested in the experience over the past several months in my State of Kansas where our schools have been receiving cash payments in lieu of commodities in the administration of school feeding programs. For the initial experience strongly indicates that Kansas schools have been able to realize substantial cost savings in administration while continuing to make economical bulk purchases of a wider variety of nutritious foods. I am pleased that Mrs. Ione George, director of school food services for the Kansas Department of Education is here today to relate the Kansas experience with cash in lieu of commodities to the committee.

As a matter of fact, the Kansas experience has led me to request that my staff and the staffs of the Agriculture and the Nutrition Committees explore the possibility of legislation which would extend present child nutrition programs for another year so that the Kansas experience can be fully tested. For if the results of the first several months of cash in lieu of commodities are duplicated in future months, it may be advisable to make this alternative method of Federal assistance available to other States. I am confident that if similar nutritional results can be achieved in a manner which saves money and, at the same time, increases local control over food purchases, other jurisdictions would welcome this approach.

EXTENSION OF COMMODITY PROGRAM

For this reason, I think it is important that we do not lock ourselves into a long-term extension of the commodity program. Surely, most Members of the Congress—as well as State officials-would favor an efficient cash program which not only provides nutritious foods but also stimulates local economies and assists small businessmen who provide the food to local child nutrition programs.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to acknowledge the presence of another witness from Kansas at today's hearings-Mr. Ed Scott of Parsons, Kansas. Mr. Scott represents a company which has devised equipment which may be of benefit to schools in meeting the full accounting requirements of the School Lunch Act which go into effect this July. I am sure that Mr. Scott's testimony will be of interest to all the members of the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUBERT HUMPHREY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

I welcome the initiation of hearings on the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Programs in order to determine their content and direction in the coming years.

The Administration earlier this year indicated its intention to seek legislation which would replace all existing child nutrition programs with a single program of block grants to the states. To date, I am happy to say, I have not seen any legislation introduced along those lines.

My reaction to the Administration's proposal was to describe it as an "anti" child food assistance act and a "blockbuster" rather than a block grant. I hope that we can use these hearings to examine the programs in order to strengthen and improve them rather than risk setting back the work and progress of 30 years in meeting the needs, health and well-being of the 31 million American children who participate in these programs.

At our February agricultural hearings in which Secretary Butz participated, I argued that the Department should not be so obsessed with the fact that over half of the budget at the Department is concerned with what some people refer' to as "welfare programs." I pointed out to the Secretary that it is up to the Congress to legislate and the Department to administer the laws as written. I hope that this message has gotten through to Secretary Butz.

1

I look on these child nutrition programs as vital to the health and welfare of our nation and its future. And the Department of Agriculture should recognize that it has a major stake in supplying the commodities on which these programs are based.

One of the major programs which we need to examine is the school lunch program. I have recommended that a universal school lunch program be developed so that all school children would receive at least one balanced and nutritious meal each day.

We have seen the enrollment in this program decline as the prices for school lunches have steadily gone upward. For each 5 cent increase in the cost of a meal, it is estimated that there is a 5 to 10 percent loss in participation. In my view, food is as important as books. The Administration's block grant proposal, on the other hand, would cause an additional seven to ten million students to drop out of the school lunch program.

We need to take the initiative in freeing school administrators from performing a welfare function when their real business is education. We should be looking for ways to simplify this program and relieve school administrators of the paper work connected with it.

I was happy to hear from the Minnesota Director of the Child Nutrition Programs, Mr. Charles Matthews, that:

"The most effective legislative change which we would recommend to help stop the loss of paying students in the lunch program would be the adoption of a universal school lunch program with only a nominal charge, if any."

This is the direction which I sincerely believe that we should be moving toward in our school lunch program.

In the meantime, we should give careful consideration to the provision under Section 5 of S. 850, whereby the eligibility level for reduced price lunches would be increased to 100 percent above the poverty level. This section would be one important step in strengthening this program.

These hearings should also give special attention to the special supplemental food program, commonly referred to as W.I.C. (Women, Infants and Children). This program is designed to provide high protein diet supplementation to lowincome women, infants and children found to be at nutritional risk. The idea of the legislation is to reach people during those critical periods when nutrition intervention would do the most good for them and give the taxpayers the best return for their dollar.

This program has already brought strong and favorable responses from the States and recipients under the program. My bill, S. 822, and S. 850 propose to make a number of important changes to extend and further strengthen this

program.

Under this legislation, funds for administrative expenses would be increased, with nutrition education and outreach included under the administrative cost section.

S. 882 also envisions the establishment of a National Advisory Council on maternal, fetal and infant nutrition, which would be composed of administrators, health professionals, nutritionists, W.I.C. directors and W.I.C. participants. This council would meet with the Secretary of Agriculture on a regular basis and provide him with the best professional thinking and information regarding this program.

I believe that the W.I.C. program is one of the more exciting and important initiatives which we have undertaken in recent years in the health and nutrition area. This Congress must make every effort to see that the program is strengthened and improved.

Our hearings also need to examine the summer food program and the school breakfast program. I believe these programs meet significant needs and should be extended.

The Congress, through S. 1310, has already moved to provide a 90-day extension for the summer feeding program so that planning can go forward for this summer's activities. However, we need to get away from such last minute actions regarding these programs. We need to find ways of reviewing and planning these programs in a more orderly fashion.

I also would recommend that these hearings take a careful look at the whole area of U.S.D.A. purchase and donation of commodities and the issue of providing cash in lieu of commodities. The Minnesota Director of Child Nutrition Programs estimates that discontinuing the commodity distribution program would require an additional cash reimbursement of at least ten cents per meal. We also will need to look at the commodity program for institutions which the Administration has proposed to eliminate.

We should take a careful look at the actual meals offered from the standpoint of nutrition and reducing waste.

I hope that the Administration will be cooperative in these hearings. The child nutrition programs meet a critical need, particularly at this time of economic recession. Let us together look for ways of making improvements in these programs rather than destroying what has been built with care and hard work.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Domestic food assistance programs aimed at child nutrition have been the subject of considerable discussion over the past four decades. Due to agricultural surpluses that developed in the early 1930's various nutrition-oriented price assistance legislation was enacted to aid farmers. By 1937, 15 states had passed statutes establishing low-cost school lunch programs. In 1940 there was more innovation to provide aid to farmers and the "Penny Milk Program" was developed where the USDA reimbursed local sponsors for purchase and distribution of milk to children in schools and other institutions.

In 1946 the "National School Lunch Act" was passed. The national priority changed from aiding farmers to feeding children. The objectives of the act included a combination of encouraging domestic consumption and safeguarding the health of children.

The United States Department of Agriculture now carries out a number of separate feeding programs. These include school lunch, school breakfast, equipment assistance to schools, non-school child feeding, special milk, special supplemental programs for women, infants and children, commodity donations to schools, summer camps, child-care centers, non-profit institutions and Indian reservations. Food assistance programs also provide for nutrition education for low-income families.

The mission of the child nutrition programs which have been developed under federal auspices is to safeguard the health and well-being of the nation's children and to encourage domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food. I would like to indicate how valuable child nutrition programs have been to Kentucky.

There are 1,555 schools approved in Kentucky for the School Lunch Program. Of 678,000 children in average daily attendance over 577,000 are reached by the School Lunch Program.

Kentucky leads the nation in the School Breakfast Program. There are 641 schools that have operating programs and 110,000 Kentucky youth are fed.

Over 1,600 Kentucky schools participate in the Special Milk Program. In March 1975, 3 million half-pints of milk were consumed.

The Special Food Service Program for Children reaches 8,000 Kentucky children and serves 24,000 meals daily. Last year the Summer Feeding Program had 26 sponsors in Kentucky. This year it has 41 sponsors and is expected to reach 21,000 children during summer 1975.

The Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children is currently providing nutritious Food to over 12,000 Kentucky needy, low-income recipients. The Kentucky Public Health Association estimates that approximately 86,000 Kentuckians are eligible to be served by this program. In January 1974, Pikeville, Kentucky was the site of the first WIC program in the nation. In addition to the programs I have mentioned, the University of Kentucky employs 231 persons working in the Expanded Foods and Nutrition Education Program. The EPNEP Program is funded by 3d Smith-Lever funds and cur

rently reaches 7.200 families. The Kentucky 4-H program has reached over 18,000 youths regarding nutrition during the past six month period through a program utilizing over 2,000 volunteer leaders. And 4-H Mulligan Stew, a nutrition program carried out over Kentucky Educational Television, reached 53,000 Kentucky fifth graders last year.

The programs and efforts I have mentioned are important in decreasing the number of malnourished children, the number of birth defects due to malnutrition and the rate of mental retardation due to malnutrition. The benefits of these programs are of both a preventative nature and helpful in remedying an existing condition.

Our children are our greatest asset and their present welfare must be of our utmost concern. I feel the long-range benefits of child nutrition programs are far too valuable to be discontinued.

Senator MCGOVERN. Our first witness is the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Consumer Services, Mr. Feltner. We welcome you to the committee, Mr. Feltner. We are interested in your testimony.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. FELTNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. FELTNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Dole. We have submitted to you our prepared statement. Rather than read the entire statement, with your permission I would like to highlight it for you at this point, and then move to questions.

We do welcome this opportunity to participate in this hearing today on these various legislative proposals relating to Federal-State child nutrition programs.

The first thing I would like to do is discuss the child nutrition proposal that was contained in President Ford's budget for fiscal year 1976. The block grant approach, as it has become known, would increase Federal assistance to provide adequate nutrition for needy children, including needy infants and would at the same time serve as a means to reduce Federal costs, so there actually are two major factors here: trying to increase the assistance available to those who are truly needy, and also trying to reduce Federal costs.

The proposed legislation, officially known as the Child Food Assistance Act of 1975, would substitute one annual consolidated appropriation for all of the existing child nutrition funding that is now in effect. This proposal to substitute a single program for the current set of child nutrition programs is being made to assure that the States can provide the equivalent of a free meal to every needy child.

Estimates indicate that almost 700,000 needy children receive no program benefits currently because present programs are not available to them.

The administration's proposal would more than double current benefits for needy children by providing substantial increases in reimbursements for meals served for 1 year, rather than just during the school term. It would give the States, in addition, the flexibility of designing a feeding program tailored to the local conditions, either on a statewide basis or local areas within the State.

The USDA's budget for the current child nutrition programs, if these were extended in their present form, would be approximately $2.4 billion in fiscal 1976; in contrast to that, the estimated cost of the