The Indian tribal government would be authorized to enter into an agreement with the state to have the state administer the program, or delegate the administration of the program to the Secretary of the Interior, in which case the state or the Secretary would be considered a state agency for purposes of the Food Stamp Act.

The Secretary would be authorized to pay to an Indian tribal government or its agent one hundred percent of the administration costs attributable to the administration of the Food Stamp Program on any Indian reservation.

As in the case of Alaska under existing law, the bill provides that food stamps issued to Indians could, under certain circumstances, be used for the purchase of hunting and fishing equipment for the procurement of food. B. The Secretary would be authorized to pay to each state agency (other than an Indian tribal government or its agent) 62.5 percent of all administrative costs assigned to such state under the Food Stamp Act including, but not limited to, (1) the certification of households, (2) the acceptance, storage, and protection of coupons after their delivery to receiving points within the state, (3) the issuance of coupons to eligible households, (4) the outreach and fair hearing requirements of the Act, and (5) the control and accounting of coupons.

NOTE. Under existing law, the Secretary is authorized to pay 62.5 percent of the direct salary, travel, and travel-related costs (including fringe benefits) of personnel involved in (1) certification of households not receiving welfare assistance, (2) outreach, and (3) fair hearings. All other administrative costs are borne by the state and local governments.

C. The bill would add a new section 18 to the Food Stamp Act. Under such section the Secretary would be authorized to waive compliance with any of the requirements of the Act and the regulations issued thereunder in the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which the Secretary specifically determines is likely to promote raising the levels of nutritional adequacy among low-income households and alleviate hunger and malnutrition.

[S. 3235, 93d Cong. Second sess.]

A BILL To amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 to provide for the administration of food stamp programs on Indian reservations, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Indian Food Stamp Program Amendments of 1974”.

SEC. 2. (a) Subsection (h) of section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (7 U.S.C. 2012(h)) is amended by adding at the end thereof a new sentence as follows: "Such term, with respect to any Tribe, means (1) the Secretary of the Interior whenever the Secretary of the Interior has responsibility for administering a food stamp program for such Tribe under an agreement entered into under this Act, (2) the official governing body of any Tribe whenever such Tribe has responsibility for administering its own food stamp program under this Act, or (3) any State whenever such State agrees to accept responsibility for administering a food stamp program for such Tribe within such State under an agreement entered into under this Act."

(b) Section 3 of such Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(o) The term "Tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation or community, including any Alaska native village as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, for which the Federal Government provides special programs because of the tribe, band, nation, or community's identity as Indian.

"(p) The term 'Indian reservation' means any area recognized as such by the Secretary of the Interior."

SEC. 3. (a) Subsection (a) of section 4 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)) is amended by inserting "or an Indian reservation, as the case may be," immediately after "within the State".

(b) Section 4 of such Act is further amended by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively, and by adding after subsection (a) a new subsection (b) as follows:

"(b) (1) Upon request to the Secretary by the appropriate officials of any Tribe, such Tribe is authorized to administer a food stamp program

under this Act on behalf of the eligible households of such Tribe living on an Indian reservation. Such program shall be administered by the Tribe in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.

"(2) The Secretary of the Interior or any State is authorized to administer a food stamp program on behalf of any tribe residing on an Indian reservation. Any such program shall be administered in accordance with an agreement entered into between the Tribe and the Secretary of the Interior or the State within which the Indian reservation is located. Where an Indian reservation is located in more than one State an agreement with a State shall pertain only to members of the Tribe residing within the boundaries of such State.

"(3) In accordance with regulations issued under subsection (a) of this section or in accordance with an agreement entered into under subsection (b) of this section, as appropriate, a food stamp program may be administered by a Tribe or by the Secretary of the Interior or a State on behalf of part or all the members of such Tribe eligible to participate in such program."

(c) Subsection (d) of section 4 of such Act, as redesignated by subsection (a) of this section, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new sentence as follows: "No regulation which pertains only to the administration of food stamp programs on Indian reservations may be issued without prior consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and authorized representatives of the Tribes affected."

SEC. 4. Section 15 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (7 U.S.C. 2024) is amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection as follows:

"(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the Secretary shall pay any Tribe administering a food stamp program on any Indian reservation an amount equal to 100 per centum of all expenses incurred by such Tribe attributable to the administration of such program and shall reimburse the Department of the Interior or any State administering a food stamp program on any Indian reservation for all expenses incurred by such Department or State in accordance with any agreement entered into under section 4(b) of this Act."

SEC. 5. Section 17 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (7 U.S.C. 2026) is amended by inserting "or on any Indian reservation" immediately after "State of Alaska".

SEC. 6. Section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-86) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized until July 1, 1976, to use funds referred to under clauses (1) and (2) of the preceding sentence to continue the commodity distribution program in the case of any Indian tribe receiving commodities under such program on the date of enactment of this sentence or receiving commodities under such program at any time during the six month period immediately preceding the date of enactment of this sentence unless (A) such tribe requests discontinuance of such program prior to such date, or (B) a food stamp program is being carried out on behalf of such tribe. As used in this subsection, the term 'Indian tribe' shall have the same meaning prescribed for the term "Tribe' in section 3(0) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964."

STATEMENT OF HON. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday the Secretary of Agriculture announced a new beef purchase program in the amount of $145 million. Certainly, this is timely and appropriate action.

All of us have heard about the disastrous situation now facing the cattle industry. According to the Department of Agriculture cattle feeders are locked into a break-even point of $50 per hundredweight until August of this year. At the present time feed cattle at Omaha are selling at about $13 per hundredweight. This means that pro

32-911-74

ducers are losing $77 per head on every 1,000-pound steer marketed. Obviously, this is an impossible situation and cannot continue.

Pork producers are also locked into an impossible situation. Their costs have risen substantially, also while their market prices have also declined and are at disastrous levels. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate and eminently fair for the Secretary to begin a pork purchase program immediately.

Such a concerted action would benefit consumers as well, for unless action is taken now to save these industries, our consumers will not only face severe shortages in the future, but higher prices as well. Today, I wrote the Secretary requesting that he begin a purchase program now for pork as well as beef.

I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the Secretary be placed in the record at this point.

It is also entirely appropriate that this subcommittee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Allen, begin its hearings on S. 2871 at this time.

Among other features that bill would make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase agricultural commodities regardless of the supply situation.

It would also make mandatory that the traditional level of assistance for food assistance programs as authorized by law, including but not limited to school lunch, institutions, supplemental feeding and disaster relief be maintained in the future through such purchases.

The action of the Secretary in moving to purchase beef now for distribution under the programs authorized by law is ample evidence that there is a real and pressing need to extend and amend the existing authority which will expire July 1, 1974, only 3 months

away.

I am sure that other Senators have heard, as I have, of the pitiful conditions now existing in the school lunch program. Because of skyrocketing prices of foods, the lunches served our Nation's children have in many instances also increased in price and decreased in quality. School lunch administrators are faced with an impossible burden in meeting Class A lunch standards.

I feel quite certain that were the Secretary to utilize fully the authority he now has to purchase beef, pork, and other foods from section 32 funds, that this difficult school lunch situation would be resolved immediately.

The need for large food purchases by the Federal Government was never more adequately demonstrated than under existing market conditions.

The need to extend the authority as contained in S. 2871 is also evident.

I am hopeful that the subcommittee will move quickly on this bill so that the Secretary will be assured of continued authority to act as he did yesterday in announcing beef purchases and as I hope he will do tomorrow with regard to pork purchases.

[The letter to Secretary Butz, above referred to follows:]

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,
Washington, D.C., March 26, 1974.

Hon. EARL L. BUTZ,

Secretary,

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: As you know, livestock producers are suffering unprecedented losses because of the price-cost relationship that now exists.

Apparently, the Department of Agriculture has clearly recognized the hardship facing the cattle industry. And I am sure that the Department's announcement today to purchase $45 million of beef will be gratifying to cattle producers.

But, Mr. Secretary, the hog producers of this Nation are also suffering the same type cost-price squeeze as the cattle industry. They, too, are in the same feed market, and other costs have also increased materially while their prices have declined.

Therefore, I would feel it eminently fair and altogether appropriate that the Department begin purchases of pork as well. This action would also be in the best interest of consumers. I am informed that under existing circumstances, pork producers can no longer continue in business. If we are to assure the consumers of this Nation with a future supply of pork, action must be taken now before the entire industry disintegrates.

Further, our hard-pressed schools can certainly use additional meats in their nutritional programs for our children.

The whole of one Nation will benefit from immediate action by the Department of Agriculture to purchase large quantities of pork for our school lunch program and other commodity distribution programs.

With every good wish, I am

Sincerely,

HERMAN E. TALMADGE,

Chairman.

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

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my full support to S. 2871, The Family Nutrition Act of 1974, a bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964. I believe this bill, which I have joined in sponsoring, can help address urgent problems in maintaining our nutrition programs.

S. 2871 would extend, on a permanent basis, the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to purchase commodities on the open market when not in surplus. Failure to extend this authoritywhich is scheduled to expire on June 30, 1974-would pose serious problems for programs which rely on USDA commodities, such as the school lunch program, institutions, supplemental feeding for women and children, and domestic disaster relief.

This proposed bill will directly address a crucial need of our schools, institutions, mothers and children, and Indian reservations. Phasing out the commodity programs, as desired by the administration, would place a major hardship on those least able to afford it and would represent only a marginal saving to the Federal Government.

The cost to the schools and institutions in picking up these programs would be far greater than that presently borne by the Federal Government under existing statutory law, because of the ability of the USDA to buy in quantity.

It also makes little sense to provide funds to an organization such as the Red Cross to procure and keep commodities on hand for disasters. The USDA has greater purchasing power and should continue to make its commodities available when an emergency strikes.

The administration's opposition to continuing the commodity purchases has been stated numerous times. Secretary Butz has indicated that, in his view, these programs should be transferred to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Yeutter, in a January 25, 1974, memo, recommended sharp reductions and "hopefully a phaseout" of all Government purchases.

The Yeutter memo suggests that a USDA preliminary evaluation indicates that benefits to producers from our surplus removal efforts have not been great. There is no hint in the memo, however, as to what would happen to the people under this program. The only concern is how to get out of the commodity purchase and distribution business.

This attitude reflects a near_obsession on the part of the administration with turning the Department of Agriculture into an organization concerned only with commercial agriculture. The same attitude is reflected elsewhere in the USDA's determination to fight the establishment of a Government held grain reserve program which would help meet food commodity assistance requirements.

In spite of this attitude and the preference expressed in the Yeutter memorandum to provide funds in lieu of actual commodities, the USDA indicated on February 15, as required by law, that in the current fiscal year it would provide agricultural commodities and other foods exclusively to the States for school service programs.

I suggest that we should not assume that the February 15 announcement represents a change of mind on the part of the Department of Agriculture. Congress must state clearly and without qualification that this is an important program which should not be allowed to die because surplus commodities are no longer available.

The need for a firm congressional stand on this issue becomes all the more essential when we confront facts of declining levels of commodities distributed to the States-the clearest indicator of the actual policy being followed by the Department of Agriculture.

In fiscal 1973, the Department provided $70.8 million in cash and $201 million in commodities to the States. The expectation by the USDA for this fiscal year is that 95 percent of the programed $313. million will be provided entirely in commodities.

However, Minnesota provides a case in point where this expectation is in direct conflict with the record of quantity levels of commodities received.

In fiscal 1972, Minnesota received 27.8 million pounds of commodities worth $7.6 million, and in fiscal year 1973, the commodities received totaled an estimated 20.5 million pounds worth $5.5 million plus $1.7 million provided in cash as a substitute for commodities. In fiscal year 1974, my State expects to receive 20.2 million pounds of food but no cash.

Because of inflation and the policies of the administration, we