Every aspect of tribal administration takes into serious consideration the total needs of the community and validation and approval of such programs by community input through government and program involvement.

One of the purposes of USET is to provide training and technical assistance to tribal administration. This training is of a special nature, taking into consideration the unique cultural, economic and educational status of each reservation community. USET administers its own Indian Community Action Program which basically provides training and technical assistance to tribal administration in corporate administration and program management. This training and technical assistance is provided by Indian expertise on the staff at USET and administered locally in most cases in terms of in-service on-thejob training. Additionally, tribal administration has made significant progress in developing local education resources for college accredited training for its own personnel. The thrust in this effort has been to train and develop Indian manpower to be of service to their own tribe in the true spirit of Indian selfdetermination.

Specific instances of tribal administration capabilities and the development of tribal enterprise is the fact that the Seminole Tribe of Florida currently maintains with successful profit, one of the largest herds of cattle in the State of Florida. The sophistication of the Cherokee tribal administration is indicative of the fact that they administer total control of their own fisheries and wildlife conservation program and have for years developed with success, individually-owned commercial business establishments. The Mississippi Band of Choctaws are currently negotiating with industries to establish a long-term industrial development program for their community consisting of production and manufacture of goods consistent with the overall Economic Development of the State of Mississippi. The Miccosukee Tribe of Florida is currently in the process of establishing a motel and recreation facilities to be owned and controlled by the tribe with additional recreation and sports facilities. Additionally, the Miccosukees have contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to fully implement their primary education system and have just recently established under their control and administration a clinic which provides for a considerable amount of health services. The Seneca Nation of New York through its tribal government and administration have successfully negotiated a land settlement claim approximating $5,000,000 (five million dollars) with which they have currently established economic and educational priorities in a long-term investment program in human and economic development. All these examples should be indicative of the fact that tribal government and administration does have the capabilities and expertise to effectively manage and administer its own food stamp program.

In conclusion, the position of USET regarding the proposed amendment S.2871 to Public Law 93-86 is as follows:

I. That USET tribes be given every opportunity to fully administer at their own discretion the food stamp program as proposed. Additionally, that 100 percent of the cost of administration be allowed to tribes so choosing to administer their own food stamp program.

II. Tribes currently involved in the commodities distribution program should be given and allowed sufficient time to develop an effective management system to either administer its own commodity program or administer the proposed food stamp program.

III. Section 17, Public Law 93-86, Food Stamp Program, allows for members of eligible households living in the State of Alaska to be permitted to purchase hunting and fishing equipment for the purpose of procuring food for the household. Request that all Federally recognized Indian tribes also be included in this provision.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Begay.

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the committee was recessed to reconvene at 9 a.m., Thursday, March 28, 1974.]

COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION AND FOOD STAMP

PROGRAMS

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1974

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

AND GENERAL LEGISLATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room 324, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. James B. Allen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Allen, McGovern, Clark, Young, and Dole. Also present: Senator Huddleston.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. ALLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA-Resumed

Senator ALLEN. The subcommittee will please come to order. There is a quorum of the subcommittee present, so we will go ahead with the hearing.

Yesterday, in order to give every witness scheduled to testify an opportunity to do so, after Secretary Yeutter had been on the stand so long it was necessary to impose that a 7-minute time limit on the witnesses for their oral presentation of their testimony, and then a 5-minute limitation on Senators' questioning. Today we are going to grant a bonus time of 3 additional minutes.

So, Mr. Smith, we are going to allow 10 minutes for your oral testimony, which can be a condensation of your statement, or it can cover matters not covered by it. And the statement, of course, will be inserted in the record as if given orally at the hearing.

So you may proceed in any way you see fit.

I want to say that we are delighted to have you come up and give us the benefit of your knowledge and expertise in this field. I know that these programs are of great benefit to the people of Alabama and our school children in Alabama. And we are interested in hearing just what the situation is in Alabama, and how this legislation will affect that situation.

STATEMENT OF T. G. SMITH, COORDINATOR, FOOD SERVICE AND LOCAL ACCOUNTING, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is T. G. Smith, Jr. I am coordinator of child nutrition programs which are administered by the State Department of Education for the State of Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, may I say that it is an honor for me to have the opportunity to testify before this committee on behalf of the boys and girls of Alabama and the Nation.

The commodity distribution program in Alabama has traditionally been one of the strongest and most important components of the child nutrition programs. This is the one program that has succeeded in working our acceptably shared Federal-State and local responsibilities.

In the time allotted to me for this testimony, I would like to point out several reasons or justifications why we think section 4(a) of Public Law 93-86 should be a permanent part of child nutrition program legislation.

First of all, in Alabama we have not developed extensive warehousing facilities at the State level. Our efforts have been directed toward assisting school systems acquire and improve storage at the local level. Many superintendents and food service directors have indicated to me that even though they have reasonably adequate storage facilities at the present time, they do not have the necessary staff (purchasing agents and economists) to purchase the foods that they are presently receiving as donated commodities.

There are 127 school systems in Alabama, they vary in size from 58.016 in Mobile to 322 in Florala, our smallest school system. The following is a breakdown of school systems by average daily attendance:

One school system has more than 50,000 students;

Three school systems have between 25,000 and 49,999 students; Two school systems have between 10,000 and 24,999 students; Twenty-four school systems have between 5,000 and 9,999 students; Fifty-nine have between 2,000 and 4,999; and thirty-eight school systems have fewer than 2,000 students.

And the point I am trying to make, Senator Allen, is that the majority of the school systems in the State of Alabama are quite small. If you will notice the chart, of the 127 school systems in Alabama-and incidentally, we have both city and county school systems only 6 of these school systems have more than 10,000 students. We have 83 of our school systems that have between, we will say 2,000 and up to 9,999, and we have 38 school systems that have less than 2,000 students. And we have 7 school systems which have less than a 1,000 students. Which gives us, I think, a real insight as to what some of our problems really are.

A majority of the school systems in Alabama, as indicated in the above chart, are not large enough to employ a qualified, certified food service supervisor-much less a purchasing agent who has the

necessary background and experience to write specifications and things that are necessary in that area.

The Department of Agriculture, on the other hand, has the organization, personnel, and the necessary expertise to purchase, warehouse, and distribute the quality and quantity of basic food items needed for child nutrition programs.

We have been told that the commodity distribution program has outlived its usefulness, that it is no longer applicable to our present agricultural program. This, I sincerely doubt. Restrictions have been lifted-now farmers may plant as much of any crop as they wish. Reports are that there will be approximately 4 percent more acres in production this year than in the past. There is entirely too much uncertainty in farming for the Department of Agriculture or any other department, for that matter, to keep from having surpluses. There may not be large nationwide surpluses, as in the past, but I feel sure that there will be a need for distributing and utilizing surplus foods in the years to come. I know of no better way to utilize these foods than to make them available to the boys and girls of this Nation.

The proposed 7 cents of cash in lieu of commodities will not enable schools to maintain the quality or quantity of meals that are presently being prepared and served today in the State of Alabama and the Nation. With inflation increasing at approximately 14 percent each year, the proposed cash allocation will not buy in fiscal 1975 what it has bought in fiscal 1974. The following chart is a comparative analysis of how the cash in lieu of commodities would shrink due to inflation.

Senator, as indicated in those charts, Alabama has always used more than the national average as far as commodities are concerned. We have used from 134 cents up to as much as 334 percent more than the average of the Nation as a whole. So the chart that I have inserted here tells how the level of funding would tend to deteriorate should we be pegged at 7 cents cash in lieu of commodities through fiscal 1976.

As indicated earlier, Alabama like most States has strived constantly to develop ways and means to utilize the foods made available through the commodity distribution program. The quality of these foods has always been superior. The variety on the other hand, has been a challenge.

Realizing the importance of menu variation, we have developed

training programs and inservice programs around menu planning that incorporate the use of commodities. Very few of our schools can afford "convenience foods," therefore, we prepare, from scratch, most of the foods served in the schools in Alabama-practically all of our schools bake their bread and most of them bake it daily.

The following chart shows the dollar value of donated commodities received and used in Alabama during the period of 1969-73. You will notice in this chart, Senator, that the State Department of Education in Alabama has administered the commodity distribution program to all outlets other than the indigent family program. This has been one of the strongest and best programs that we have had.

The second chart indicates the types of different commodities that have been received. We have always taken as much of those surplus removable and price-supported commodities as we possibly could. And this would indicate that we have culled very few: 1973, 74-29; 1972, 73-29; 1971, 72-39; 1970, 71-34; 1969, 70-34.

A comparison of the national average of commodities received in the State as compared to the Nation over the past 4 years indicates, as I have indicated earlier, that we in Alabama have used more by far than the national average. I indicated earlier that it varies from 134 cents per meal to as much as 334 cents per meal.

Based on the most recent available weighted values on commodities received through February 1974 for fiscal year 1974, the total value for Alabama is $5,66,144, and since approximately 92 percent of the commodities distributed in Alabama goes to public schools, we