For example, in New Jersey, we made a determination of which schools would participate if sufficient funds were available. I think that was the right way to do it. I wish that all the States had been. able to do the same thing-but they were discouraged from doing itand I maintain, with a slight amount of pride, that this shows typical New Jersey initiative and I am very pleased about it. My State said it was prepared to add 137 schools to the program, and feed an additional 45,553 children daily. However, most States followed the terminology of the survey form and did not report their real needs; and I am not at all surprised at this.

I made this clear to the Department of Agriculture. I informed the Department that it was "incumbent" upon it to "take into account this deficiency"-the method in which they conducted the survey, by discouraging people in the States to respond to the actual situation rather than to depreciate the program as the Department indicated it was going to do.

As an alternative, I suggested to the Department that in lieu of accurate data-I had been told by school breakfast administrators that the expansion of the program by 30 percent seems realisticexcept in cases where States will report an even greater immediate need in their response to the USDA survey, or who specifically indicate in a survey addendum that all realistic needs are already being

met.

I received a negative response from the Department. They agreed that the data that was being collected would not be full and complete; but, they still insisted the survey was adequate.

REQUESTS PROGRAM OPEN SEASON

My suggestion at this time, Mr. Chairman, is that we have an open season on the program. That we give every school that does not now have a School Breakfast Program the chance to begin it. I do not need to emphasize-because you have done it so well, and this committee understands it, and so does the country-the breakfast program is perhaps the most effective child feeding program. By feeding the child properly in the morning he can take advantage of the education he receives and have a good start for the whole day. There is still a lot to be done to improve it. We must seriously consider a higher quality and a more nutritious breakfast for school children. However, my concern, at the moment, chiefly is that we begin the program now in as many schools as we can- -as soon as we can.

I think that the present resolution* adopted by the Senate without a dissenting vote, followed by today's hearing, should remove any doubt in the Department's mind about the need to promptly expand the School Breakfast Program. I certainly hope that as a result of your interest, and Senator Bellmon's interest, and the rest of your committee, you will provide the kind of incentive and stimulation to the Department to help them see that this program should get off the ground.

See Appendix 3, p. 237.

BUREAUCRACY NEGATES WILL OF CONGRESS

Senator CASE. This is improper. We cannot let the bureaucracy run this program contrary to the will of Congress.

Senator HART. Good. That is the way to put it. That has solid basis and justification in the political theory. Congress is not always right; but, it is never right to refuse to do what Congress directs an agency to do.

Senator CASE. The chairman expresses the matter so much better than I could. I am so glad to hear it.

Senator HART. Senator Bellmon?

Senator BELLMON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment Senator Case for his testimony, and call attention to a situation that has risen here recently. The Agriculture Committee had before it a bill requiring owners of poultry flocks to slaughter a certain percentage of their laying hens because the production of eggs is running in excess of demand and the price of eggs has been now, for more than 18 months, well below the cost of production. As a result, there is danger that a lot of poultry farmers are going to go out of business and go into bankruptcy.

*

We have the report before us now, prepared by the Food Research and Action Center, called "If We Had Ham, We Could Have Ham and Eggs . . . If We Had Eggs." Now, we have eggs in this country to such profusion that they are actually ruining or destroying the people that produce them and yet, apparently-I have not read the report, I have to admit-there are lots and lots of children who cannot have eggs because our system just has not made them available to them.

To me, this seems not to be the failure of our farmers. They are producing the eggs. In fact, they are producing them almost at a cost that puts them in the position of acting as if they are a charitable organization-for they are producing and selling them for less than they cost. Yet, we are saying our system is so bad that we will have to destroy the hens-rather than make the eggs available to the children that need them. I have a difficult time understanding why the Department would have done anything that would have reduced the demand for these products that agriculture produces so well. I have no questions, Senator. I would just like to compliment you for what you have done.

Senator CASE. Thank you.

Senator HART. Senator Bellmon's comments on the fact that there are eggs and, in the minds of producers too many of them-ties in with something that troubled me when I came down to this hearing. As you know, the Judiciary Committee is knee deep in a very exciting hearing today. I had the feeling when I left that hearing that there was a criticism in the minds of some of my colleagues of, "where are you going?" We are always going to have ITT problems or that kind of thing-unless we, as Senator Case and some of us have been urging, get private money out of public business in the political campaigns. But, periodically, there will be that kind of thing and it will always cause excitement and dismay and be disturbing.

*See Appendix 3, p. 83

The response to my suggestion by USDA was negative. While USDA agreed with me "that the data being collected will not, as you suggest, be full and complete" they still insisted the survey was adequate.

My suggestion, at this time, is that we have an open season on the breakfast program and we give every school that does not now have a breakfast program the opportunity to begin such a program now.

Nutritional specialists and educational experts have come to believe that the School Breakfast Program perhaps is our most effective child-feeding program-by feeding a child properly in the morning he can take real advantage of the education offered him.

There is still much to be done to improve this important program. Certainly we must seriously consider a higher quality more nutritious breakfast for school children.

However, my main concern at this moment is that we begin the breakfast program in as many schools as possible as soon as possible. An open season is most definitely needed to insure this goal is reached.

The passage of H.J. Res. 923 without a dissenting voice, followed by today's hearing, should remove any doubt in the Department's mind about the need to expand promptly the School Breakfast Program.

Senator HART. Your testimony reminds me that it was you who wrote the letter, at the end of the year, questioning the Department about the form of its questionnaire and the instructions.

Senator CASE. And the Senator's participation was most appreciated. This did seem, almost painfully, an effort to discourage the breakfast program-contrary to the will of Congress.

Senator HART. Now, you, for New Jersey-and I suspect largely because you moved into it-nonetheless, did report a substantial number of schools that desired to have the program.

Senator CASE. An additional 137 schools and 45,000 youngsters. I am terribly proud of this-if the Senator will permit a certain amount of chauvinism here, I think I can brag about my State's perspicacity.

Senator HART. I have as much difficulty with that word as I have in understanding why the Department could not understand what Congress meant by our resolution.

Senator CASE. You and I used a simpler language than that when we talked to the Department. We can say it very plainly, and I know you will.

Senator HART. Here we have a good example of the feeling that is widespread and, it is said, largely affects young people; namely, that you cannot make the system run even if you try. That frustration is not a monopoly of the young. They probably think that somebody in the Senate has some levers and muscle, and can at least influence some action.

As always, your testimony is not shrill and it is not complaining. But, do you not share with me the feeling that in this situation we have an example where the Senate thought it had managed to influence a course of action-yet we still have the problem?

Senator CASE. Yes, that is true. I restrain my desire to be quite shrill just because I think that it would not be appropriate in this committee and before this chairman, whom I know can accomplish what people with a lot of voices do not accomplish.

Senator HART. That better describes you. But, it is an experience like this that tempts one to get shrill and sort of perform.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

When we set out to prepare this study in July 1971, we essentially had four objectives:

1. To evaluate the nutritional and educational consequences of the breakfast program;

2. To quantify the demand for an expanded program as expressed by school administrators, teachers, parents and pupils;

3. To catalogue the impediments that presently prevent local school administrators from implementing the program; and

4. To tender appropriate administrative, legislative and fiscal recommendations so that the program could be expanded and improved.

In my testimony to you today, I would like to limit my comments to two aspects of our study.

1. I would like to set forth the true need and demand for the School Breakfast Program, as expressed by program administrators throughout the country; and,

2. I will delineate the most important administrative and legislative recommendations that we have concluded are necessary for program expansion and improvement.

The importance of documenting the demand for an expanded breakfast program is obvious. Currently the program is very small in size and scope; in comparison to the lunch program, the breakfast program is barely significant. This is because:

• More than 12 times as many schools participate in the lunch program than in the breakfast program. Whereas, in fiscal year year 1971, 79,800 schools participated in the lunch program, only 6,537 schools participated in the breakfast program. This is from a total of 100,997 schools in the country.

Approximately 26 times as many children receive a school lunch than receive a school breakfast. While 24.5 million children participated in the lunch program during fiscal year 1971, only 940,000 children received school breakfasts. This 940,000 total is very meager when compared to the 1970 census figures showing there are almost 52 million school-age children in the country. Almost 3.7 billion lunches were served during fiscal year 1971 while only 123 million breakfasts were provided. Of these meals, 977.4 million were free or reduced-price lunches, while less than 10 percent of that number, 93.7 million, were free or reducedprice breakfasts.

Although the U.S. census figures estimate that there are 14 million children whose families are classified as poor-$3900 in annual income for a family of four--on near-poor $4825 in annual income for a family of four-only 520,000 of those children received breakfasts for free or at reduced rates in fiscal 1971. Finally, and I believe this really places the School Breakfast Program in true perspective, currently, the entire national expenditure for the breakfast program-$28 million-is significantly less than half-$64 million-the expenditure level of the School Lunch Program for New York City alone.

CURE A REAL PROBLEM TO MANY

It is a little harsh to say it, but there is not any cure for, at least, the appearance of impropriety-given the kind of system we have. But, there is a cure for hungry children in our public schools and in all our schools. I am glad you reminded me that there are eggs that can be fed to these children, if we can harness ourselves. This is a curable problem. It would perhaps be closer to the solution if the same energy and attention-including both the media and ourselveswere expended to get the eggs to the schools to feed the hungry American children that goes into the problem of "who shot John" upstairs and, you know, "John never was shot." I guess I am not making very much sense and yet

Senator ČASE. It makes sense to me, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HART. A person could only be one place at a time. This is the place to be this morning.

Senator CASE. I do not think you need any excuse to give to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee or anybody else upstairs— for your presence here. I appreciate your coming down and yours, too, Senator Bellmon.

Actually, of course, we always have conflicts. I just left the Foreign Relations Committee to come here-and I must go back. However, I do want to thank you so much for allowing me to tell my little piece of the story.

Senator HART. Thank you. We may have several questions to address to you in writing, as we do not want to keep you from the Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator CASE. If you do, please do so.

Senator HART. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Bellmon comments on this book, "If We Had Ham, We Could Have Ham and Eggs... If We Had Eggs." It was prepared by the Food Research and Action Center and it is our good fortune that our next witnesses will speak of this subject from a background that includes the production of this very book. We welcome them. As I understand it, the three of you will testify as a team. First, the Director of the Food Research and Action Center, Ronald F. Pollack, and I believe he is accompanied by Mark Irvings and Suzanne Vaupel.

STATEMENT OF RONALD F. POLLACK, DIRECTOR, FOOD RESEARCH AND ACTION CENTER, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. POLLACK. Chairman Hart, Senator Bellmon:

Once again I am pleased to be before the committee on a matter of great importance to poor families throughout the country. As you may be aware, the Food Research and Action Center recently completed an 8-month study of the National School Breakfast Program. With me, on my left, is Miss Suzanne Vaupel, and on my right, Mr. Mark Irvings the two coordinators of that study.

The findings in our study are contained in a 145-page report entitled "If We Had Ham, We Could Have Ham and Eggs... If We Had Eggs A Study of the National School Breakfast Program." This report was circulated to you and every member of Congress by Senator McGovern, approximately 3 weeks ago.