Now, there are programs and there are programs. Some are designed to benefit the community indirectly, or deal with the subconscious. The summer feeding program deals with the immediacy and reality of the condition. Each child actually receives a meal, a nutritious meal, and consumes that meal in the location where he or she receives it. Moreover, because of the availability of this program many voluntary summer day camps, block associations, social and civic groups are able to conduct summer programs for young people who otherwise would be left with nothing productive to do all summer long.

And what are we really talking about? We are not discussing largesse from the Government for luxury purposes. We are not asking to provide these poor young people with sirloin steaks or caviar, but rather with a daily meal requirement of nutrition typical of a UŠDA type A lunch.

Let us talk for a moment about the side effects of the summer feeding program.

It relieves the feeding burdens of families hard hit by the economy; it assures poor young people of at least a nutritious meal per day; it helps community organizations operate voluntary summer educational and recreational programs for the needy; it provides employment for thousands of New Yorkers involved in the production and distribution and supervision of meals; it increases business for the small food supplier hard hit by the economy; it produces business for the farmer, dairyman and, in the process, provides employment for thousands of others involved in all aspects of food preparation from its inception. It truly has the kind of domino effect which deals with human needs and the general economy of the regions and the Nation. It is for this reason that we were amazed that this program was in jeopardy. We thought for certain that the program would be doubled and perhaps carried over beyond the summer months. But then again we are not economists, all we know is what we see, and what we see is poverty and hunger and some smiling faces when those meals arrive in huge refrigerated trucks.

The efforts of the Senate and Congress have apparently assured the continuation of the summer feeding program so that in the summer of 1975 the children will indeed be serviced again. We commend the many men and women who dedicated themselves to the struggle and saw it crowned with success.

We are extremely pleased and wholeheartedly support some of the amendments that are being added to the bill. In particular, we urge the adoption of the following amendments: (a) USDA should provide advance payment and startup costs so that those involved in the management of the program can realistically and effectively prepare and maintain a successful program; (b) reduce the rate of low income children in areas being serviced from 50 percent eligibility to 33 percent, which will enable many more children to benefit from this

program.

I would like to commend Senator McGovern and this committee for taking the leadership in this area and I am hopeful that those of us who are fortunate enough to have our steaks and not worry about where the next meal is coming from, will find the compassion and understanding to provide other Americans less fortunate than we are, with at least a humble but nutritious meal.

Finally, let us understand that America is after all one large family. Just as millions of families in America, hurt by the temporary economic setbacks, are earnestly considering their own cuts in their households and would only consider depriving their children of minimum food requirements as a last desperate move, likewise, our Nation, in its search for economy, should first deal with nonessential items. And the only time we could possibly consider depriving the poor of food is when we reach the hour of total despair. We have not reached this hour, and by the grace of God we never will. This is a great and righteous Nation; we shall again regain our strength and in fact, grow from strength to strength.

In closing, we wish to thank you again for the opportunity of testifying before your committee and to bring you the greetings from the thousands of young people we serve who thank you for helping them and for caring enough to fight for justice and righteousness. Senator McGOVERN. Thank you very much, rabbi; that was a very moving statement.

Just for your information-you may already know this-we did get an emergency bill through to extend the summer program. That is on the President's desk right now. It is just a 90-day extension, but it does take care of the summer until we can get more permanent authorization.

Is Mr. Farber going to testify?

Mr. FARBER. No, not at this time.

Senator MCGOVERN. We know that you operate one of the best programs in the Nation, rabbi, and we are very impressed with what is going on in your program. I am hopeful that this new legislation will be passed and it will enable you to do an even better job. Rabbi GORODETSKY. Thank you very much.

Senator MCGOVERN. Thank you for your patience.

We will recess now until 2 o'clock; and then we will open the hearing at that time with Mrs. Jeanne Nobel, president of the Maryland Food Committee.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. JAMES THORNTON [professional staff member, presiding]. We are now going to reconvene the hearings. We have had some difficulty in getting our Senators back here due to many other conflicting demands upon their time this afternoon, both on the floor and before other committees. In the interest of conserving your time and finishing up these hearings, we have permission to proceed.

If Mrs. Jeanne Nobel will please come forward, we will proceed.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JEANNE NOBLE, PRESIDENT, MARYLAND FOOD COMMITTEE, INC., BALTIMORE, MD.

Mrs. NOBLE. I am Jeanne Noble and I am president of the Maryland Food Committee, which since 1969 has worked as a citizens' committee against hunger, dedicated to seeing that the hungry in Maryland are fed. We thank you for this opportunity to speak on the proposed child nutrition legislation. As an antihunger committee, one of our concerns is to see that poor people in Maryland receive maximum benefits from the various federally funded food programs and, since we began 6

years ago, we have studied school meals, summer lunch and day care feeding programs, monitored them, and worked to increase participa

tion in them.

At the present time, the Maryland Food Committee is strongly opposed to substituting a block grant system of funding for child nutrition programs. In the future, this may be a desirable change, however, it will require several years of planning for this transition and should be designed as a way of expanding and upgrading child nutrition, while at the same time returning power to local jurisdictions. This year's administration proposals, unfortunately, seem to be aimed at reducing the coverage and effectiveness of child nutrition efforts by lowering funds available and eliminating entirely the school breakfast program, special food service for children, the WIC program and the special milk program.

We feel that this is callous economy and that it spells disaster for child nutrition among low income people, both in Maryland and in the Nation. As the other speaker this morning has said, we do have to face the fact that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, which is the recession compounded by inflation.

We feel that there is ample evidence that hunger and malnutrition in children costs this Nation far more in dollars spent for medical care and corrective institutions than in dollars spent for nutrition programs. And from our perspective, the cost in human terms of undereducated, underemployed, sick and alienated persons is a national disgrace.

The first program I would like to talk about is the school lunch program, which of course, is the largest and oldest of the programs under consideration today. It was set up first of all of course, not just to use up surplus foods, but also to improve the nutrition and health of the Nation's children. Perhaps some of Maryland's experience would be helpful.

Our paid lunches have declined 10 million over the last 6 years. We have two exhibits attached which go into the participation of paid, free, and reduced lunches over these 6 years. We feel that this decline of 10 million is disastrous in terms of nutrition, especially in the face of the findings of the 16-State nutrition survey of the prevalence of nonnutrition among all schoolchildren, especially those in high school.

Our free lunches have increased steadily. In 1969, we had a total of 3.5 million free lunches; and this year, we have 23.7. That is the total number of meals.

However, the increase in our reduced price lunches has been pathetic, and that is particularly in view of the fact that 1975 is the first year that our State has used the maximum allowable Federal income guidelines. The Maryland Food Committee estimates conservatively that a minimum of 60,000 children at present levels, are eligible to receive reduced price lunches. Only 8,300 are receiving them. There are still five counties in Maryland, including our "Hunger County," Somerset, which offer no reduced price lunch.

When we look at the statistics, we should remember two facts. Maryland has by law mandated a school lunch program in every public school where needy children are fed, but the reduced price meals are the option of the principal. Second, because of the tremendous gains

made in the total number of meals serviced, much of the equipment brought early in that period is now in need of replacement or extensive repair.

Therefore, we are recommending that this year's national school lunch legislation incorporate the following:

Income eligibility levels to 200 percent of poverty to assist the low income working, tax-paying poor, and mandatory reduced price lunches.

We think we need increased funds for nonfood assistance equipment. And then, if a 10 cent additional subsidy to paying the child's lunch can be included without jeopardizing the legislation as a whole, we are in favor of it. Many States do not have mandatory school meals law that we have, and in such States, schools where most of the children are not eligible for a free or reduced price lunch may not be able to afford a lunch program if the middle income child cannot afford it. We think that 55 cents a day is too much for a middle income family with several children to have to pay for lunch, and that 35 to 40 cents might be more reasonable.

In the matter of commodities, we suggest some thought be given to providing cash in lieu of commodities to schools which have no kitchens, and have a high percentage of low income children, and must rely on catered meals to serve those children.

Exhibit I also give some Maryland statistics on the breakfast program. There are 10 counties out of 24 in Maryland without the breakfast program. Participation in the free breakfast programs at 9,500 a day in 1975 should be compared with the 131,000 free lunches served per day. The same children are eligible for each, but the school administrators can decide whether or not to implement the breakfast program. The proposed legislation extends the life of this valuable program and requires USDA to formulate plans for its expansion. Our experience in the Maryland Food Committee's experience in Baltimore City with the school breakfast program might be helpful.

We found that most parents did not know of the possibility of such a program, and when working mothers or low-income mothers found out about it they were eager to work with school principals to get the program going. In 6 months of parent participation, 20 schools were added to the program.

However, a breakfast program frequently requires additional equipment for refrigeration and storage of food. The energy crisis has reduced the frequency of milk and grocery deliveries. Moreover, because a breakfast program requires schools to open earlier, additional moneys are needed for aides to serve and supervise the program. Providing funds for salaries for aides would be in line with the congressional effort to provide jobs in a period of national economic slump.

We are recommending, therefore, that the breakfast program be continued indefinitely; insist that it be publicized to all parents each year; provide additional funds for equipment; and allow the cost of supervising aides to be counted as a cost of serving the meal.

The WIC program. You have had many people speak about the WIC program this morning, so I would like to just kind of summarize some of our testimony. I understand that the complete testimony will be included.

I would like to say that we in Maryland, the Maryland Food Committee had several pilot programs going for infant formula long before WIC was legislated. In fact, it was some of the findings of Dr. David Paige, a member of our board of directors, that provided the base data for the legislation. We found certain things in our experience that are valuable.

Where the iron fortified feeding programs are established, iron deficiency anemia among low income infants is markedly reduced. Before the Model Cities program was established, the incidence was nearly 54 percent, while afterwards it had decreased to 3 percent.

We feel that supplemental feeding is most important to the older infant and young toddler, 6 months to 2 years of age. These children, once they are on table food and have to compete with older siblings for the frequently inadequate family food, show signs of malnutrition unless their diet is supplemented.

Also we found that nutrition education would seem to be an invaluable aspect of these programs and should be provided. Young mothers need help in choosing foods wisely for these children, particularly when they are on a tight food budget.

Pregnant and lactating women in low income families obviously need supplemental nutrition, and we are concerned that Maryland has not submitted more requests for programs that include mothers.

Finally, one of the factors which delays implementing the WIC program is the present inadequate funding of administrative costs. We were able to get going a little faster in Maryland because of our long experience; nevertheless, it has been a handicap. We were happy to note in S. 850 the percentage of funds for administration is sharply increased and that administrative costs could include nutrition education.

The Maryland Food Committee has always thought of the WIC program as an experimental program. We believe it should be continued until a final report is given on its effectiveness, at least until 1978. But we believe there is another more urgent consideration at the moment.

By the end of this year, the only Federal funding available in Maryland for this type of supplemental food program will be WIC, and if we are to continue to serve the 8,000 infants presently receiving the supplemental foods and to finish enrolling the additional 8,000 authorized and serve them for 1 year, we must receive $4.9 million in fiscal year 1976. Therefore, we strongly urge that that program be funded nationally for at least $200 million in fiscal year 1976, preferably more, and since such funding must be available without delay, that funding continue to come from funds appropriated by section 32 of the act of August 24, 1937.

Also appended to this testimony is a letter from the Maryland State Department of Health WIC coordinator. She details some of the WIC experience that we have had in the State, and she also strongly urges continued funding.

However, we are not at this time recommending that WIC be made a permanent program. We believe that inadequate food income is basic to the malnutrition among pregnant women, infants and toddlers. Before WIC is made a permanent food supplement program, we think some thought should be given to whether drastic improvements in the