will be receiving much less in total than last year. I recommend that USDA review their programing for fiscal year 1974 on a priority basis and take steps to make certain that the total program is not cut below the level of the last fiscal year. In addition, I believe these reduced food quantities point out the need for an escalator clause directed toward maintaining a relatively constant quantity of commodities, and I urge the committee to consider the need for such a provision. Two provisions of S. 2871 merit specific commendation. One would improve Federal assistance to the States for the administrative costs of food service programs. A second provision would help Indian tribes on reservations obtain critically needed food assistance. To encourage the States to administer the programs more efficiently, Federal reimbursement to the States for all administrative costs up to 6212 percent is provided. This will enable the States to do a better job in certifying the eligibility of recipients. The bill would also adapt the food stamp program to the Indian reservation. Under the current legislation, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to implement a food stamp program, at a State's request, in every political subdivision of the State. Because there is legal authority for holding that the reservations are not subdivisions of the State, authority is provided to the USDA under this bill to enter directly into agreements with tribal governments in the administration of the food stamp program. The Federal Government would also pay 100 percent of the administrative costs attributable to the reservations. The provisions with regard to Indian reservations and tribal governments take cognizance of the legal realities, and they offer several options in terms of establishing sound food stamp programs which are needed. Mr. Chairman, in addition to my legislative recommendation on maintaining a constant quantity of commodities for distribution, I would suggest one further provision to assist the children of "nearpoor" families. I believe the committee should consider making permanent the action taken last year to extend the income eligibility for the reduced priced lunch program to school children up to 75 percent above the poverty guideline. We have evidence that increasing numbers of young people are dropping out of the program, and it is believed that many of these fall just above the poverty income guideline. Making this provision permanent will urge more schools to take the necessary steps to initiate the reduced price program and encourage many students to remain in the lunch program who would otherwise drop out. The committee should also take note of three further problems which this bill does not presently address. First, the school breakfast and summer feeding program are scheduled to expire on June 30, 1975, and it would be advisable to give early consideration to extending the authorizations for these programs. Second, a recent survey clearly indicates the need for additional food service equipment. To address this need, I believe the authoriza tion level should be increased to $40 million, rather than permit a reversion to the permanent level of $20 million. Third, we need to monitor closely the implementation of the special milk program. Congress, last fall, changed the eligibility for participation in the special milk program as follows: Any school or nonprofit child care institution shall receive the special milk program upon their request. Children that qualify for free lunches under guidelines set forth by the Secretary shall also be eligible for free milk. To date, the USDA has not changed its regulations in any way to reflect this change in the law. I call on the Department to explain why this section has not been implemented, and to set forth a timetable to move ahead on implementation. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge that consideration of the Family Nutrition Act of 1974 be expedited and that congressional enactment of this highly important legislation be accomplished without delay. The school lunch program has already suffered because of rising prices and administration policies. An estimated half million participants have been lost from the school lunch program during the past year. We do not want to see the commodity program phased out with school lunch and the remaining feeding programs moved over to HEW. Adequate nutrition for our people and especially the children of lower income families remains a priority need, and it is a responsibility that we cannot shirk. This program is a small price to pay to ensure that we meet this responsibility. I strongly recommend favorable action on S. 2871 to extend the commodity distribution. program. [The statement of Senator Symington follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. STUART SYMINGTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mr. Chairman, the Food Program Technical Amendments, S. 2871, is crucial for the continued operation of the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs in Missouri. I urge the Subcommittee to approve this measure. Section 1 of this bill would extend the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase agricultural commodities above parity, when necessary, "to maintain the traditional level of assistance for food assistance programs." It is our understanding that the Administration has proposed replacing this authority with cash assistance for school districts to purchase their own food for reduced-price lunches and breakfasts. School food service officials in Missouri, however, have advised us that such a system as proposed by the Administration would seriously threaten their ability to maintain these programs at the present level. During the school-year 1972-73, almost $7 million worth of commodities was distributed to 2,789 Missouri schools serving 1,122,632 children, with an additional $1.7 million distributed in cash to enable districts to purchase commodities necessary to maintain nutritional standards during periods of temporary shortages. If commodities were not provided to schools participating in the programs. those in rural areas would find it difficult, if not impossible, to buy food in the quantities needed to feed all the children presently enrolled. In addition, because individual school districts have access to far more limited markets than does the Department of Agriculture, experienced observers believe the purchasing price of commodities would increase from the current equivalent of 7 cents a lunch to 10 cents or 11 cents a lunch-or about 50 per cent more than the present cost of commodity procurement. Finally, S. 2871 would have the added benefit of assuring that the mechanism for distributing commodities is kept in place—an important factor in providing speedy food assistance in the event of a natural disaster such as that which hit Missouri last spring. During the floods in 1973, 115,000 Missourians received commodities worth $178,000 as part of the disaster relief efforts. Section 1 of this bill would require no additional appropriation for food assistance and could present a significant increase in the overall cost of these important child nutrition programs. The Congress has consistently demonstrated a commitment to assuring our school children nutritional meals at a reasonable cost. Passage of this legislation will contribute to better nutrition and health for the children of Missouri and the nation. [The letter from Representative Brademas follows:] U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to encourage you to take up the bills before you on the subject of new authority for the commodity purchase program in the Department of Agriculture. I urge upon you this important initiative, for it touches the lives of some of America's most vulnerable groupschildren, the elderly, and the institutionalized. The Select Committee, which I have the honor to chair, finished work last summer on the Older Americans Comprehensive Services Amendments of 1973 (P.L. 93-29), which included authority for the Title VII Nutrition Programs for the Elderly to purchase commodities. I have had encouraging reports as these nutrition projects have started to function last fall, and by spring they will be serving over 200,000 meals per week to minority and lowincome senior citizens throughout America. The commodity program is an important resource for Title VII projects in a number of states, and while these projects are by no means the largest customer of the Department of Agriculture, they are nonetheless deserving of our solicitude as the Federal Government,s first effort to meet the nutritional needs of the elderly. The added purchasing power of the Federal program is a significant extension of the limited dollars available. I understand that the Administration on Aging has been collecting some data on the extent of use of commodities in the Title VII program, which might be a useful piece of data for your record. Perhaps witnesses from that agency, or from nearby state aging agencies might also be able to outline the impact of the end of the commodity program, and the need for reauthorization. I look forward to seeing the record of your important hearings. With kindest regards and best wishes, Sincerely, JOHN BRADEMAS, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Education. Senator ALLEN. Senator Huddleston? STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Senator HUDDLESTON. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee for scheduling these hearings on S. 2871. S. 2871 contains several provisions of significant interest to my State of Kentucky. One relates to the commodity donation program for schools, day care centers, and certain other institutions, and the other to reimbursement of State administrative expenses for the food stamp program. The school nutrition programs are tried and proven programs. The Federal Government first began donating commodities to school lunch programs in 1936 and 10 years later the National School Lunch Act was passed. During the many years since it was established, the lunch program has aided children throughout our land in obtaining nutritious meals and has better enabled them to participate in the educational process. There is by now an established body of literature to affirm the relationship between good nutrition and good work in school. The hungry child does not learn well. At first, he becomes irritable, restless, and unable to concentrate on his work. Over a prolonged period, he may become listless and unconcerned with his surroundings. The problem may be only a temporary one for the child who receives proper meals at home but it is a tragic one for children whose school meals are the only nutritious ones available. Now, there is a new threat to the school lunch program-that is, the future of the donation program. Under existing provisions, school districts receive cash reimbursements for lunches served, a special subsidy for lunches for needy children, and donated commodities. When the United States had an agricultural surplus, the provision of commodities was a simple matter. The donation program provided a worthy means of utilizing the commodities for the benefit of U.S. school children. As the U.S. agricultural surplus has dwindled, however, the availability of school commodities has also dwindled. In the past, several efforts to make up for this have been undertaken. Some cash payments in lieu of commodities have been made. Under an amendment to last year's Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act, the USDA was authorized to purchase nonsurplus commodities for use in the school donation and other food assistance programs. That authority, however, expires on June 30. And school districts are rightfully concerned. Last year, in my State, some 95 million school lunches were served. The average cost of the lunches to students was between 45 and 50 cents for the type "A" lunch, which meets the nutritional requirements set out by the Department of Agriculture. About one-third of the lunches served were, however, made available at free, or reduced prices to children. from needy families. To help in providing these lunches, Kentucky received over 14 million pounds in commodities for schools and 1.2 million pounds for institutions. The loss of such foods, especially if there were no reimbursement, would mean a substantial loss to the State. In fact, if commodities are completely removed from the program and there is no cash substitute, it has been estimated that the State would lose $6 million in support for the nutrition programs. The bill before us would, however, seek to prevent a loss of such commodities by extending and making permanent the authority of the USDA to purchase nonsurplus commodities for use in school lunch and institutional feeding programs-a move which would provide a new basis of stability to the programs and enable them to cope with the existing situation in which U.S. surplus commodities are in short supply and food prices are up. The bill before us also seeks to enable the States to better meet their obligations under the food stamp program. Several years ago the decision was made to phase out the commodity distribution program in which commodities were made available directly to needy persons. This program was to be replaced with the food stamp program, under which needy persons are provided coupons which they redeem at the local grocery store for foods. Under this program, people have a choice in the foods available, they have access to a greater variety of foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, and they utilize the grocery stores as other citizens do. The deadline for eliminating commodity distribution programs and substituting food stamp programs is June 30, 1974. As of that date, we will have a food stamp program operating nationally. For many of the counties which have just switched programs and for a growing number of counties where problems currently exist, the administrative burden of the program is simply unbearable. Counties cannot, with existing funds, fully guarantee that those who need the program are beneficiaries and that those who are ineligible are not getting a free ride. Food is basic. In a country as wealthy as ours, nutritional meals should be available to those who cannot, by their best efforts, obtain them. On the other hand, we cannot afford abuses in the program and we should not allow them to exist. In order for the States and localities to see that those who need the program benefit from it and that those who should not be on it are eliminated, they must have the requisite administrative funds. Under existing law, States are currently reimbursed for 62.5 percent of direct salary, travel and travel-related costs of personnel involved in certification of eligible households, outreach programs, and hearings. Issuance of coupons, maintenance of a central administrative office and other expenses are, however, borne by the States. In effect, the States are funding about 72 percent of administrative costs and the Federal Government about 28 percent. The proposed legislation would raise the Federal contribution to 62.5 percent of all administrative costs, a move which appears necessary if we are to insure that this vast program is administered in the best manner possible. Senator ALLEN. You may proceed, Mr. Secretary. STATEMENT OF HON. CLAYTON K. YEUTTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND COMMODITY PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. YEUTTER. Would you prefer I go through my entire statement, Mr. Chairman, or would you prefer that I summarize my presentation? Senator ALLEN. I believe it would be well to go through the full statement because I believe it has an important bearing on the subject. Mr. YEUTTER. I will be glad to, if you have the time. Senator ALLEN. Then if there are questions to be asked, and I am sure there will be, you can add any further comments. Mr. YEUTTER. To the other members of the subcommittee, I simply say if you would like to interrupt me with questions as I go through my statement, I would be happy to have you do so. |