nationally, frozen, shipped, stored, thawed, reworked, frozen again, shipped again, thawed again and quite possibly as much as ten months later with what nutrition and taste it has left, plopped on the tray of an unenthusiastic school child.

Total purchases under the regular commodity beef purchasing program from July 3, 1974 to February 5, 1975 were 134,134,000 pounds. The costs become staggering when we note that with every cent saved $1,341,340.00 could be saved. If our ground beef patty situation in southeast Michigan were the exact rule of thumb nationwide then from July 3, 1974 to February 5, 1975, $24,398,974.00 would have been saved had beef purchasing taken place on a local level rather than through national commodity purchasing.

On the next chart, Mr. Chairman, we see the other two categories of ground beef purchased under the commodity program, bulk ground beef and broiled patties. Again the increased costs are apparent.

1. Cost of operating federal commodity meat buying program.

2. Waste and additional labor in using bulk commodities in the schools.
3. Voluminous recordkeeping and reports required by government in

accounting for commodities.

The economies of commodity beef purchasing warrant change in the program. But more than economy demands some change in this program, Mr. Chairman.

In the school cafeterias across the country, precooked patties and raw patties are generally used for hamburger sandwiches. It is difficult and in many school districts impossible for school dietitians and food service managers to handle the ground beef unless given to a processor for rework. This usually means thawing and refreezing the meat.

Earlier I said my remarks are limited to commodity purchases of meat only. Other commodity purchases do not overwhelm the school dietitian or food service manager the way meat purchases do. Other commodities, peanut butter for example, come in manageable forms-all one needs is a trusty can opener in most instances. Sophisticated and expensive storage equipment is not necessary. Outside processing is not necessary. Meat is the commodity that presents complications. Other commodities like canned fruit do not. These other commodities present neither the complications nor the added costs.

Ground beef in whatever frozen form it comes to the school must have special storage facilities thawing facilities. Ground beef should be thawed in a cooler and this type of space is in very short supply. What is taking place every day in schools over the land is thawing of ground beef at room temperature.

Children have another problem with what is on their plates. Commodity purchasing forces school dietitians to serve the same items too often over too long a period of time which creates student dissatisfaction over school lunches. In other words, even with a well-done hamburger the child can get a raw deal.

Commodity purchasing is further frustrating for the school food service manager because the timing and quantities of donated beef shipments are uncertain, so the schools have planning difficulty. Often the amount of meat received exceeds the school's needs and some leftovers are wasted. In addition although federal and state offices complete their allocation of product prior to the end of the school year, considerable amounts of ground beef are not utilized prior to school closing and must be held until fall. Besides excessive storage cost, the quality deteriorates.

Other folks at the local level also are frustrated by the commodity beef program. The small businessman has practically been eliminated from participating in this program. His frustrations are twofold (1) he is still called on by the local school cafeteria supervisor to supply fill in items the school may occasionally need. Often the items are ordered in such minimal quantities the local purveyor loses money in supplying them. He does so anyway because he has to face the supervisor on the street, in church, or at the next Kiwanis meeting, and because at a future time the supervisor may call with a profitable order, and the purveyor, already badly hurt by the commodity purchase program cannot afford to lose further business.

The small businessman purveyor also is frustrated with the cycle that places him in an economic vise. In the best of free enterprise traditions he works and competes to make money, and pays his share of taxes. Yet part of those taxes goes to a commodity beef-purchasing program which costs far more than is necessary to accomplish the job, deprives him of business, and awards it to a few large companies.

Many small processors have been hurt tremendously by the loss of business and many jobs have been eliminated. It is difficult enough in these times to be competitive in the market place but to compete against free is impossible. These small business people have a stake in their local school systems and can do a cheaper and more efficient job of supplying perishable meat items to schools in their trade area than that resulting from the commodity program.

The commodity beef purchasing program started 40 years ago. In those days it was a workable way to support a distressed cattle market. The substantial commodity beef purchases made this year had very little effect on today's gigantic cattle market. Let's look at what has happened to the program intended to support a sagging beef market. The next chart shows a chronology of beef prices as the USDA was awarding contracts for frozen ground beef.

7/3 7/17 7/31 8/15 8/28 9/12 9/25 10/10 10/23 11/6 11/20 12/4 12/18 1/2 1/15 1/29 2/5

1974

1975

The full line figure on the graph shows the decline in contract price in cents per pound of frozen ground beef. Despite government purchasing you will see by the dotted line on the graph during this period of July, 1974 thru February, 1975, government commodity beef purchasing was not successful in turning around the declining meat prices. We should have never expected that it would, for these purchases did nothing for demand, they only altered the sources of supply. Thus, Mr. Chairman, the commodity beef purchasing program not only has been a blow to the small businessmen in the meat business but has not produced a concurrent brighter picture for the meat market overall.

Beyond the problems I have just mentioned I think it only fair to ask why the school districts are not complaining about the beef that the government is giving them. The answer lies in a simple adage-"don't bite the hand that feeds you.' The people who bear the burden of preparing meals for our children are appreciative of government assistance and certainly do not want any criticism of the commodity beef program to result in any federal curtailment of the assistance available to them. I think we can all easily understand that position. We are certain that if assured of equivalent funds they will certainly take the funds.

NAMP comes here today not with gripes alone, but with some suggestions. We recommend as an alternative to commodity purchasing of beef some vehicle of direct money grants or meat vouchers-some vehicle which would put the purchasing power and responsibilities directly in the hands of the local school districts.

What would be gained by such alternatives? I already have mentioned that for every penny shaved from the costs after the initial purchase price, almost one and a half million dollars would be saved. With direct money grants or some coupon system costs begin to decline immediately. It certainly is much easier and cheaper to transport food vouchers than carloads of frozen meat.

Delivery costs to the states and delivery and storage costs upon arrival would be eliminated. Administrative costs presently incurred from the time the beef arrives in the state to the moment it is served in the local school cafeteria would be reduced substantially.

It is clear from the bar charts we reviewed earlier that millions can be saved every year were school districts allowed to purchase beef at the local level. Without federal assistance this would be impossible, so school districts have put up with the frustrations the commodity program has produced.

Beyond the money saved there would be other advantages. Since one or more thawing and refreezing stages could be eliminated, buying from the local market would give the dietitian a fresher, more nutritional and more flavorful product and the children a more tasty meal. Long term storing of beef would be unnecessary, and the dietitian could plan a variety of meals unrestricted by the single form of ground beef available through commodity purchasing. Waste would be eliminated if purchases occurred at the local level as the schools would only buy what was required when it was required. Delivery of orders could take place daily if desirable, eliminating the need for costly storage and thawing facilities at the local schools and improving sanitation of the product.

With the local school making its own purchases the small businessman would have an opportunity with other local competition to provide meat. Obviously that would help us with more business, Mr. Chairman. We do not think that is unreasonable. As already mentioned, we work daily with the local school districts now. We believe we can give them a quality product with better service, and at a cheaper price. We have every good incentive to do so-the competition at the local level is lively, the desire to live in a better community is apparent, and the responsibility of feeding our own children is a heavy one.

Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen. In behalf of the National Association of Meat Purveyors I have suggested the commodity purchase program as it pertains to meat be changed to affect many economies and improvements of quality and service.

Our statistical information and technological knowledge are at the disposal of you and the staff of your Subcommittee as am I and my colleagues with me. If we can be helpful in drafting legislative language to implement our proposals, that will be a continuation of the pleasure you have given us by your attention and interest. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Next we have Ms. Greenwood and Ms. Harvey.

Ms. Greenwood is the national project director for Children's Residential Institutions, and Ms. Harvey is the WIC advocacy project director of The Children's Foundation.

We are very happy to have you here. I note, Ms. Greenwood, that you have a statement for the record, and Ms. Harvey, you do also. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF LLEWELLYN GREENWOOD, NATIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS PROJECT, THE CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION

Ms. GREENWOOD. Thank you. My name is Llewellyn Greenwood, director of a nationwide project for The Children's Foundation, funded in part by the American Legion Child Welfare Foundation to determine the Federal food assistance needs of children in residential institutions.

We have just completed an 18-month national study and analysis of these needs. The results of our findings are in our report,

Children," portions of which I would like to have entered in the record, if I may.* *

Senator LEAHY. Yes, we could have portions of it in the record, and while the whole book will not be in the record, it will be available here at the committee.

Ms. GREENWOOD. Today, I would like to testify in support of that portion of S. 850 which includes children's residential institutions in the National School Lunch Act and to suggest that they ought to be included in section 4 (a) of the Child Nutrition Act as well.

This is the first time in the history of the child nutrition legislation that sympathetic legislators have taken a first step toward assuring that the nutritional well-being of institutionalized children is as protected as that of other needy American children. May I commend the members of the subcommittee for your efforts on their behalf.

Now we need to go the additional step to see that these benefits for institutionalized children are retained in whatever final form the child nutrition legislation may take, for a number of reasons.

Currently, there are 240,000 children who live in residential childcare facilities—in orphanages, homes for the mentally and physically handicapped, and juvenile detention centers, among others. Senator, there are 25 such facilities in your State of Vermont, and 11 of those, or 44 percent, responded to our national survey.

The problems facing these institutions grow more critical each day with the rising cost of food as the most severe problem. This year the actual cost of institutional food service is on the average 24 cents more per child daily than the budgeted amount for food. In a facility for 100 children, that 24 cents means over $8,000 annually, and facilities operating on bare bones budgets can scarcely absorb such an amount. States and other funding sources hard-pressed for money have not been able or willing to legislate ample funds to meet rising food costs. For instance, the Division of Youth Services in Colorado is budgeted, by the State, at $1.56 per child for food daily. Yet $1.92 per child daily must be spent for meals. Therefore, the division which is responsible for 600 adjudicated children, must somehow absorb 36 cents per child-over $78,840 annually.

Alabama has a similar problem. The Alabama Boys Industrial School operates in the red at a rate of 54 cents per child daily, while the tricounty juvenile facility in Scottsboro, Ala., reports a $1.05 per child daily difference in funds budgeted for food and funds expended for food.

An Arizona-operated institution for the mentally retarded reported that they are budgeted $1.65 per child daily, but they spend 74 cents more per day to provide adequate nutrition.

This year in Maine for the first time the commissioner of the Maine Department of Mental Health and Correction sought supplemental funds for food. To date, they have not received it. Funding for private, nonprofit institutions is inadequate as well. Those dependent upon State cost-of-care contracts respond as did an orphanage in Georgia: "While half of our children are referred by the State, the