Mr. HEKMAN. Go ahead, Jim.

Mr. SPRINGFIELD. The Special Food Service Program for children, including year-round programs in day care settings, is funded for this fiscal year from three sources: regular appropriations of $20.775 million, a special $17 million appropriation, and then there was the use of some $11 million of Section 32 money for summer feeding.

The total program level is $49 million, and that's what we programed against for this current fiscal year. We have $6 million programed for June 1972 out of the $49 million available for this fiscal year-the first month of the summer.

Senator CRANSTON. Would you relate that to the $135 million?

Mr. SPRINGFIELD. Well, we used $11.225 million of Section 32 funds for the current fiscal year as specified in the appropriation act of August 10, 1972.

Senator CRANSTON. Well, what has happened to the $135 million? Mr. SPRINGFIELD. The $135 million is basically an authorization, and as I tried to explain unsuccessfully a minute ago, to appropriate against that requires appropriation action. We in essence have appropriated against that in the 1972 appropriation bill, $11 million of Section 32 funds.

Senator CRANSTON. We really have a difference of opinion* over your ability to use funds from Section 32 as directed, and whether or not you were willing to request funds from the supplemental appropriation to pay back Section 32-again as directed.

Now, in accordance with Joint Resolution 157

Mr. SPRINGFIELD. The issue seems to me to be the appropriate program level. We obviously have concluded that the program level which is contemplated for this current fiscal year is adequate.

I assume others could claim it is not adequate. Basically, that's the issue, it seems to me.

Senator CRANSTON. The issue is that Congress feels that money is available to you now without your having to wait for it, and for further appropriation action. You apparently feel it is not.

Mr. SPRINGFIELD. That is correct.

Senator CRANSTON. We have just come to an impasse on that point. But looking at what happened this year, $640 million was transferred out of Section 32 for the food programs.

Why is only $475 contemplated for that purpose in this fiscal year, 1973, when there is generally more money flowing into that fund? Mr. SPRINGFIELD. There are two or three questions there.

To begin with, the last one first, it is true there is more money going into Section 32. When you look at this, you have to look at what is going into it, plus what was carried over from the previous year. When you do that for the 2 years, you find that the total amount in 1972 and 1973 is approximately the same. Now, the

Senator CRANSTON. That is precisely the issue of the payback money under the joint resolution. If you do that, if you request money in the supplemental appropriation--as you were directed to-you have more money in the program. Do you state that that money is not available for payback?

See Appendix 1, p. 582.

Mr. SPRINGFIELD. Not available for payback, but it requires appropriation, obviously. The payback provision in the Joint Resolution (P.L. 92-153) in our opinion is only to see use of Section 32 funds in school programs.

Senator CRANSTON. Well, Congress instructed you to request, in the second supplemental appropriation, money to pay back Section 32 funds that were used for that purpose. You failed to do that, correct?

PRESIDENT'S BUDGET DID NOT INCLUDE PAYBACK

Mr. SPRINGFIELD. The President's budget does not include that. Senator CRANSTON. Did you make any effort to get that payback? Mr. SPRINGFIELD. All I can say again is that the President's budget didn't make the request.

Senator CRANSTON. Just one other line of questioning, and I think it will be quite brief: Is it true that last year the program was an 8-week program, but this year it will be a 12-week program?

Mr. HERMAN. That is true in some communities, but in many communities it was a 12-week program.

Senator CRANSTON. Can we say that most programs last year were of 8 weeks' duration, and that this year most will last 12 weeks? Mr. HEKMAN. Mr. Dickey?

PROGRAMS AVERAGE 10 WEEKS

Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say a 10-week program, 8- to 10-week program, last year was more the rule. Now, there are several reasons for that.

Some have been alluded to here, and I don't think that a 12-week program this year is a predominant pattern. It does occur in some areas. I also see trends of the 8-week and the 10-week again.

Senator CRANSTON. If it was generally 8 weeks last year and we are seeking to move toward 12 weeks this year, that would require a 30-50-percent increase to stay where we were last year in terms of the amount of food to be made available, and the number of children to be covered. What you have asked for is a 25-percent increase. There is a question there of whether that is adequate to keep pace.

Second, I understand there are going to be larger programs in some States and communities this year, and they will endeavor to serve more children?

Mr. HEKMAN. That is correct.

Senator CRANSTON. That would require more money if the same amount of food is to be made available to each child. Some programs started small and will be expanded this year, is that right?

Mr. HEKMAN. Some, as I indicated earlier, are going to hold last year's level.

Senator CRANSTON. Some will be expanded-this year they will open with the number of children being served at the end of the program last year?

Mr. HEKMAN. Last year's total funding?

Mr. DAVIS. I think, Mr. Chairman, that undoubtedly there will be more meals served to more children over a longer period of time this summer than there was last summer. There are a number of programs that would have liked to have run for 8 weeks that ran for 6 weeks.

Our best judgment is that, except in exceptional cases, the local communities would not plan for as long as a 12-week program. I think a 10-week program would be more the rule.

Now, it is true that many programs that ran for 7 or 8 weeks last summer might well run for 10 weeks this summer. This is part of our estimate for a 25-percent increase in expenditure for this year over last year.

Senator CRANSTON. But there is a third element involved. Senator Kennedy, who could not be here this morning, asked that we ask one question for him. That is: "Whether or not, in your estimate, funds will be available for expanding summer feeding programs to include cities that did not operate a program last year, such as Boston?" Mr. HEKMAN. That is covered in priority No. 2, in priorities we have set up.

$25.5 MILLION TO PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE

Senator CRANSTON. I find it hard to understand how, with the $25.5 million you have budgeted you will be able to cover programs which run longer, serve more children and include new cities that were not covered last year.

I find it hard to see how the $25.5 million, even if it represents a 25-percent increase over the last year, is going to enable you to keep

pace.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, all of the programs are not going to increase over last summer. Many of the communities found that they over extended themselves last summer in the number of sites and the kind of sites they had.

We have some indication that some communities are going to have a smaller, more manageable program this year than they had last year, and all of the programs didn't run for only 6 or 7 weeks.

There were many, many programs, around the country, where they had sufficient funds to fund the program they wanted, to start it when they wanted, and carry it as long as they wanted.

So this isn't a universal sort of thing. There is a balancing element. Mr. HEKMAN. We have done-I think, Mr. Chairman, we tried to take those factors into consideration in setting this budget. Again, we are working very closely with the States now, and we will have a better idea of the program level when we get these reports-we'll have a better idea of what the States feel they need after May 1.

Senator CRANSTON. You will have your figure by May 1?
Mr. HEKMAN. Early in May, I should say, as I did earlier.
Senator CRANSTON. Programs start when, June 12?

Mr. HEKMAN. That varies.

Mr. DICKEY. It varies.

Mr. HERMAN. Some start when school ends and stop early. Some start a little later and go nearer the end of the summer.

Mr. DAVIS. The bulk probably start around the middle of June.

PROBLEMS OF TIMING

Senator CRANSTON. You have two difficult time problems. One is this problem of giving adequate notice of the availability of funds.

Apparently much of the confusion that occurred last year resulted from your failure to give the cities enough notice to allow for proper planning.

Secondly, Congress has the problem of not being advised in time to increase appropriations for the program. We seem to be confronting some of these same problems again. We are going to try to resolve after this hearing whether or not you do have authority to spend Section 32 funds without appropriation action. We differ on that.

The Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee completes its hearing next week. That is next Friday. You won't have your survey results until the following Monday. You want to analyze it by early May. How we come to grips with the appropriations on that schedule, I don't know.

I simply urge you do all you can to analyze the material becoming available to you on the 17th, as rapidly as possible, and to advise us immediately so that an effort can be made to increase the appropriations.

In short, we have two problems. One is estimating the number of children who will be participating. The other is our ability to appropriate enough money to meet that need. We need to balance those two points at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. HEKMAN. We will be happy to cooperate with the committee. Mr. DAVIS. This is the reason we set the deadline date for the applications originally April 1. I think the local people were quite right in saying that they just couldn't meet that deadline if they were going to do the proper planning.

Senator CRANSTON. When were the final recommendations published? Mr. DAVIS. They were published March 25.

Senator CRANSTON. March 25-then they had 7 days.

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. They had their handbooks early in February which gave all the rules of the game. The final regulations-the changes that really affected the program planning-were rather minor.

Senator CRANSTON. We are going to hear from Boston and other cities now as to how they have seen the timetable that we are operating on. It's almost as difficult as Amtrak.

Thank you very much for being with us. I hope we haven't upset your schedule.

Mr. HEKMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator CRANSTON. For the next panel, since we are pressed for time, please let Mr. Nugent proceed first if that is satisfactory.

Please identify yourselves.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. NUGENT, ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR OF DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. NUGENT. I am prepared to start.

I am Bill Nugent, assistant to Mayor Roman S. Gribbs of Detroit. He was unable to come this year and regrets his inability to be here. Our concern, as city officials, is to reach all the people who need food-to win notification of funding levels and the provision of funds early enough to prepare, and to run the program efficiently, so each child might receive his due, and so the public, the administration, and

the Congress will see the money well spent and continue to support this program.

To reach all the children may require some additional congressional action. As has been brought out this morning, the law requires that participants in this program participate in day care, day camping, recreation, and settlement-house activities.

While this is useful to us in increasing voluntary staffing of recreation programs for poor youth, it leaves us no adequate response to the mother of a poor child who asks why her youngsters must go without food because recreation, day care, and settlement-house activities are unavailable.

MEETS SPIRIT OF THE LAW

This may be one of the problems regarding the New York situation. Mr. Rorex of the USDA indicated to me, last year, that New York City had simply opened feeding stations. I feel, however, they were providing food to poor youngsters in the spirit of the law-meeting Congress' intent.

Our effort to reach all children in need is closely linked to funding levels. We fed 27,000 in 1970. This year we hope to reach 81,000.

We have 125,000 youngsters in the city of Detroit who will meet these guidelines and need the food.

The Department of Agriculture cast doubt on the League of Cities Conference of Mayors' surveys. They said the cities asked $33.5 million for this program last year but spent only $20 million, thereby belying the need for the program. The USDA says this means the cities' needs were not as high as claimed.

You are aware of the problems of funding. In early June 1971, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Lyng, indicated only $7 mil lion was needed.

Two weeks later, the cities conducted a survey and found $33.5 million was needed. It wasn't until July 8 that Mr. Shultz wrote Senator Clifford Case that the President wanted all these programs funded. That is July 8. We were already a month through the summer.

As a result, there just wasn't time. Obviously, a month of the program time had already gone by. That would take care of at least a third of the $33.5 million required.

The only reason we, in Detroit, managed to reach 56,000 youngsters last year was because of our hope Congress would correct the USDA's mismanagement of the program-the Detroit Common Council advanced $100,000.

We started with 4,800 daily, and increased that modestly over the first 2 weeks. When the USDA notified us we would receive the full $1.3 million requested, we expanded to the full 56,000.

Meanwhile, Kansas City closed its program after 10 days when the USDA told them they would receive only $23,000-an amount the city had already spent.

I am not being critical of Kansas City. Their wariness was justified. Then when the USDA notified Kansas City, 2 weeks later, the full $270,000 would be available, it was too late for the city to restore its full program. It was too late for Kansas City to rehire its workers, to reinstate its contracts, and to reestablish contacts with thousands of disillusioned poor children who had been promised a meal.