would be 1.3 million people in Dade County operated by the metropolitan government that we have-or a city with not less than 250,000 inhabitants. Miami would be the only city out of 27 in my county that would be eligible to participate that way.

Now, that was not spelled out in the law, and the chief of the Bureau on Aging, one of the distinguished witnesses from Florida who has the prospect of appearing soon before your committee-having had a large experience, will recommend that at least in the inception of this program that these areas be made smaller and that we not insist on a State plan for the whole thing.

PROPOSALS CALL FOR MULTIPLE BUREAUCRACY

Senator KENNEDY. What sense does it make to add another bureaucracy? If it goes to the States, why not let the power of the States be able to award those funds and target them into the areas of need? What possible sense does it make to establish another whole bureaucracy so it goes to the States and then it goes to some planning council at 250,000 and then eventually it gets down to the community? I fail to understand why that makes sense administratively; and, second, it seems to me to separate the elderly themselves from participating in a more meaningful way on the local boards in the community and having direct access to the State and then having their participation of the State boards. To add this other kind of layer, it seems to me, to further remove elderly participation in the development of these programs.

Mr. PEPPER. The distinguished chairman is absolutely right. In my State, for example, in any area, it would be the State of Florida and then it would be Dade County. That would be another bureaucracy that would have to go through the same proceedings that would be required for the State level, and it seems to me, since 10 percent of the amount granted is permissible for administration and if need be the State can supplement that in the amount necessary, I see no reason why the State representatives could not go into the area and invite proposals by these various units. We have a system of senior citizen programs throughout Dade County, for example. They are ready to go. The Senior Centers which operate the program-we feed every day with hot lunches about 800 to 1,000 people-would be ready to undertake a program right away, and the State authorities could easily discover similar groups among church groups and various other groups.

LEGISLATIVE AUTHOR NOT CONSULTED

Senator PERCY. Congressman, could I ask, as the author of this legislation in the House side, were you ever consulted by the agency to help write these regulations during the process of drafting of those regulations?

Mr. PEPPER. No, other than our own inquiries and contacts. They have always been gracious in their responses, but we have had no solicitation of advice.

Senator PERCY. While they were developing these, from the time of the signing of the bill until their promulgation on June 6, were you

available to be consulted and do you have experts available that could have helped in that process?

Mr. PEPPER. We, of course, would have been delighted to participate. Senator PERCY. Would it be desirable in the future to have a liaison with the author of a piece of legislation to be certain the regulations do carry out the intent of that legislation?

Mr. PEPPER. We would be very grateful to make such observations. Senator PERCY. Thank you.

Mr. PEPPER. I am aware today that we cannot ignore the megalopolis and we, too, are aware of the financial plight of the States which restricts some States' ability to administer new programs. Nevertheless, I have grave concern that these project areas may remove direct participation of the elderly in the nutrition program and may undermine the support of volunteers in nonprofit private agencies at the local level, which was so well provided for in this program. And I am so glad to see a lot of young people in the high schools and the colleges are invited to participate as volunteers in the implementation of this program.

Therefore, the project areas were not provided for in the law and I would urge that such a structure not be mandatory but, rather, depending upon the readiness of various States, be permissive. I would urge further, particularly in the first year of the implementation of this program, that the project area concept be utilized for providing transportation, dietetic, and other supporting services, at the option and request of local sponsors of the program.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if we have to wait in my State until the State of Florida has formulated and perfected a plan and that plan is submitted for approval and the necessary time has elapsed, it will be way in the fall before we can possibly get this program implemented. Whereas, if this project area proposal were at least eliminated for the first year of the life of this program, the States could use the facilities and the agencies and the groups that are now available to implement the program within the next few months. Next month there are going to be a lot of people in this country disappointed. They thought this program was going into effect July 1. So we must not insist on the project area requirement at the expense of getting the program underway, when the States could contact a lot of these local people and get it underway in at least a large number of areas at an earlier time.

GUIDELINES INSERT "MEANS TEST"

My third comment concerns the income standard proposed in the rulemaking and I want to comment that the distinguished chairman, of course, steadfastly fought against-and so did his colleaguesfought against the provision of a means test in this legislation. But now, for all practical purposes, these guidelines provide a means test by using the definitions that relate to the general objectives of the legislation as the criteria of eligibility.

The rules provide that the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census poverty threshold be utilized for the determination of areas for priority grants. I understand this threshold for 1970 was $2,194.

for a family of two with the head of the household 65 years of age or older. I understand further this threshold is based on a family budget which provides for a food item that would assure only one-tenth of the minimum adequate diet for the average American. I would urge an effort should be made to reach all the elderly who qualify as lowincome elderly under the Bureau of Labor Statistics standard for that Bureau's "intermediate budget." This income for an elderly couple averaged $4,500 a year in the spring of 1970, and I recall was the standard that was recommended by the White House Conference on Aging for the determination of adequacy of income for older Americans.

This guideline should be utilized with priority grants going to those areas with the greatest concentration of older persons with income at the lowest levels below the Bureau of Labor Statistics intermediate budget figure.

I am aware that the $100 million will not provide enough for all people in this country 60 years of age to get at least one good nutritious meal a day and to receive the other services that are provided. However, we can discover the need for future appropriations by the Congress by the number of people who apply, and the experience that we have with this legislation. It is all right to start off with the lowest income groups, but misery and loneliness and inadequate nutrition apply to many, many more people than the people below the $2,100

a year.

My fifth comment regarding the proposed rules concerns the limit of 20 percent imposed on any State for expenditures of a State's allotment to carry out the provisions for required supporting social services to the nutrition program. I have been keeping in close touch with the Governor of Florida and other officials in the State who express great concern about the need for adequate Federal subsidies to meet transportation costs required to implement fully the nutrition program. Until such time as Congress acts on various legislative proposals to meet the needs of the elderly for adequate transportation services, I urge that the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare have the discretion to allow for more than 20 percent when a State plan contains a justification for a greater expenditure for transportation necessary to support the program.

In the guidelines, it seems to me transportation is referred to rather incidentally. Well, you cannot have all the centers for these people located within walking distance of their residences. You are going to have to have transportation to make it a meaningful program.

Senator PERCY. Are you including in that transportation for meals on wheels, too, adequate transportation allowances to deliver hot meals or meals to shut-ins who cannot get out?

Mr. PEPPER. It does provide for the delivery of meals to those who are unable to come out to the center where the meals are to be served, and that would be through such a program.

ESTABLISHES "FEE" GUIDELINES

One other provision in the proposed rules raises serious policy issues. This is the provision that the State plan shall provide that each project shall have a project council which, among other things, will be responsible for "the establishment of suggested fee guidelines." The

law provides that "recipients of grants or contracts may charge individuals for meals furnished, taking into consideration the income. ranges of eligible individuals in local communities and other sources of income of the sponsors of the nutrition program, including volunteer and financial support." It is certainly clear that the intent of the Congress was that no means test should be utilized in any manner whatsoever, and that in appropriate cases individuals would participate in the program even when they are not able to pay anything. The provision for the establishment of fee guidelines should be eliminated. Instead, a provision should be made that the project council shall set a maximum figure which is low enough to be within the reach of most of the participants. Local sponsors should then be encouraged to solicit the additional support from any of the participants who are able to make a greater financial contribution to the program.

As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is a reference in here to the fact that information gained from people who apply for participation in the program shall be kept confidential. Now, what does that suggest except that a means test is going to be applied? How much can you afford to pay? Yet the guidelines provide that the individual, from his own conscience, shall determine how much he or she shall pay, and yet the guidelines specifically limit the eligible to the categories that are enumerated in the first section of the legislation.

So, when you take all that together, it is pretty obvious that the applicants at least are going to get the impression that a means test is applied to those who seek to take advantage of this legislation, and I think Congress-which so insistently cleared this legislation of any suggestion of a means test and intended that it not be applied-should see to it in a supervisory capacity that a means test is not actually applied.

Senator PERCY. Congressman Pepper, you know human nature quite well. We all have to in public life. I have visited maybe as many as 30 or 40 of these feeding centers, several in Illinois and some right here in Washington within a couple of miles of the Capitol. I took Dr. Arthur Fleming with me one time.

In your judgment, do you feel elderly people of means, affluent people, middle-income people, would tend to go to a center for hot meals that they pay say a quarter for-as they do here-if they had the means of eating someplace else, or do you think the tendency is for lower income elderly to go to these feeding centers?

Mr. PEPPER. In general, people who have adequate means have their own provision for their dining. They eat with their families or friends at places which they have access to.

Senator PERCY. In these experimental programs in Florida, have you had any evidence of cheating?

Mr. PEPPER. No. There are those people that would get a pleasure, a degree of comradeship and friendship, from association with other elderly people who would perhaps like to go there. That is what I am going to mention in the concluding paragraph, what we eventually hope this program is going to mean to the elderly people of this country. That is, putting into this legislation a provision for the rendition of social and recreational settings. I foresee-and we are getting

to where we do things with greater acceleration around here in the public good than we formerly did. I used to say that in Washington that the period of gestation of a good idea was about 25 years. Well, it does not take quite that long now and I think with the experience we have with this legislation we would rather speedily improve it.

HOPE FOR DIGNIFIED RETIREMENT

But, what I foresee from this is a group of centers which would be, in fact, senior citizen clubhouses. Most of those people cannot afford a private club as many of us are able to enjoy, but this would be sort of a senior citizens' club, and they would find in that club not only the friendship and the comradeship and the fellowship of others similarly related in age and experience, but they would find educational and recreational opportunities and facilities there. I could foresee motion pictures, slides, and lectures; a library of books, magazines, and newspapers; in addition to recreational and social services available to them, and I hope that you two distinguished Senators sitting here today, who have so magnificently led this program, and we will cooperate in the House, and make this the charge of the greater hope for nourishment and dignity and satisfaction that the senior citizens of this country have ever had. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Congressman Pepper. That was a splendid statement.

I think you have identified the principal areas of concern, that I share with you, about the new regulations-the new planning group of some 250,000; the failure of meeting our responsibilities under the Administration on Aging; the suggestion about how much of the funds could be made available for the use of transportation; and, how much ought to be used for the direct nutritional grants. I think this is useful and certainly the view that I share.

NO NEED FOR MEANS TEST

Coming down hard on the questions of the means tests in the last comment which you made. Do you not think it would be possible to set some kind of guideline? It could say that those in either an area or region, understanding the income structure-and it is not terribly difficult to get that information; the statistics are available. It shows that about 21 percent of the people between 50 and 55 are making $1,000 or less; and, 79 percent are making between $1,000 and $3,000. So could you not just take a region or area and say that you are going to have a certain minimum amount, maybe 50 cents or whatever, and then you would ask those that were able to pay more as a voluntary contribution be able to pay more. So you are putting some kind of initiative on the part of the people. It is certainly my impression that I share, I am sure, with Senator Percy that no one is trying to beat the system, trying to get a hot meal. It seems to me that that is certainly much more in accord with the kind of dignity that the sponsors of the legislation felt was essential in the development of it.

I am going to work with you in insuring that we are not going to provide a means test in this. I feel strongly about it. We brought that up with the administration officials when we had that hearing a week