Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.

Just a couple of comments. Both you and I sometimes are accused of advocating pie-in-the-sky proposals. I read on page 3 of your statement that your bill would assure one hot meal per day for elderly persons at least five times a week, each meal containing a minimum of one-third of the recommended daily dietary needs of elderly persons.

I don't think anyone could label providing one hot meal five times a week as being overly lavish. If your bill were to be faulted-and I am not faulting it, but if it were-it would be perhaps that it is too meager. There is no provision for a hot meal on Saturday or Sunday. Now if this is pie-in-the-sky, I don't know about this country of ours.

I recall at one of our recent night sessions, and you probably recall, Senator, that, after the termination of the SST and with about 30 seconds of debate, we appropriated $100-and-some-odd million to terminate the contract with Boeing. I voted for that and I think you perhaps voted for it. But the very next vote that followed that, with again about 30 seconds of debate, was on an appropriation for summer jobs for youth, and you will recall that the effect of that vote was to reduce those funds by about a half a million. These two back-to-back votes; 100plus-million to Boeing went by acclaim, and a few seconds later about a half million for summer jobs for youth was defeated by less than acclaim. It seems to me that that curious position of two votes, one following very closely in terms of minutes on the other, in a way signifies our mistaken sense of priorities in this Congress. You can translate a need as you have in your prepared statement and we all give great lip service, good speeches, people of both parties, but when it gets down to doing something about it, sometimes our support in terms of votes is not as great as our rhetoric.

I would hope that your proopsal as reflected in S. 1163, which I consider to be a significant, but certainly not all together too lavish proposal, would receive the same kind of support as the Boeing cancellation payment.

Senator KENNEDY. I appreciate those comments and identify with them.

Take the Older Americans Act, for example. Last year some, as I understand, $31 million was requested for the Older Americans Act. We spent more on the public relations work for the Defense Department, $33 million, than we spent on the Older Americans Act. The authorization this year is $105 million. Now let's look at what this administration requested. This year the administration proposed spending some $2 million less than Congress appropriated a year ago. And only after considerable pressure from the Congress did the administration come back with $2 million more in a supplemental request.

This once again demonstrates the kind of priority that is being placed upon the programs that are to help and assist and supplement our senior citizens.

There are approximately 14 different programs under legal services for the aged programs. Now in the requested budget for last year, half of those would be cut.

Those programs were developed to try and find ways of revising various administrative rulings and decisions, as well as legislation, which are discriminatory or work against the disadvantaged. They

were very modest programs. Yet these programs were being cut to the bone.

We cut back on the medical program, we cut back on programs to try and help our elderly people find their way through various bureaucratic obstacles. We cut back programs under the Older Americans Act that are providing training and help and assistance to the elderly. It is quite clear, as you pointed out, that this Nation is just not meeting its responsibilities in any significant way to the senior citizens of this country. And that is why I am so glad that you are chairman of this committee and have provided the leadership which you have in this area. There is a tremendous need for this kind of attention.

Senator EAGLETON. I would like to ask you one sort of policy question, Senator, if I could.

Last year, in testifying on Congressman Pepper's bill, Commissioner Martin said that the administration was opposed to meeting this problem through a categorical grant program and wanted instead to provide nutritional services for the elderly through " a comprehensive social services delivery network." Whatever that means, he is opposed and the administration is opposed to categorical grant programs. Would you care to comment on this?

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I welcome the opportunity to do so. This is, of course, the standard position which has been taken by this administration. And if it is followed, we will find our senior citizens further disadvantaged. We already have examples of the Administration's narrow outlook.

The clearest example is lead poisoning, where the administration took exception to legislation which was passed by the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, and passed by the House and Senate overwhelmingly. That bill, in essence, was vetoed by the administration. They have the authoirty to formulate an attack on lead poisoning but, rather than do that, they in effect pocket-vetoed the legislation and refused to submit any request for funds to the Congress.

As a result there is virtually no Federal funding going into meeting the problems of lead poisoning across this country, although it is a widely recognized need.

You can think of other groups in our society, Indians or migrants, that without categorical funding have been ignored. Unfortunately and tragically there are other groups within our society that have stronger spokesmen and lobbying groups than senior citizens or Indians or migrants. I think the record certainly shows quite clearlygoing back, I would say, some 10 years that if we are really going to provide for our seenior citizens, we are going to have to write it into law. Then if the administration is going to freeze funding, we are going to know it. It isn't going to be a hazy situation, where no one knows where the responsibility lies. Let's pin the responsibility on the administration if it refuses to fund these elderly programs.

When you mentioned Commissioner Martin, he has of course faced great obstacles. The White House Conference on the Aging has been delayed. The administration has refused to take strong leadership in the development of the White House Conference on the Aging.

We will just have to stay after this and try to come up with some strong recommendations toward legislative proposals.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much, Senator.

We will permit you now to go to your other meeting.
Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much.

Senator EAGLETON. I will now call Mrs. Ella Reason, project director, Nutrition for the Elderly, Council of Elders, Roxbury, Mass.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ELLA REASON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, NUTRITION FOR THE ELDERLY, COUNCIL OF ELDERS, ROXBURY, MASS.

Mrs. REASON. Thank you, Senator Eagleton.

I have been asked to testify in behalf of Senator Kennedy's bill because the outcome of this bill will have direct influence on the coordinated nutrition project for the elderly, of the Council of Elders in Roxbury, Mass., of which I am the director.

This project is the direct outgrowth and result of the expressions and wishes of the seniors of Roxbury. They themselves saw the need for a nutrition project in their neighborhood.

This project has been in operation for the past 22 years with funds from a title IV research and demonstration grant. This grant will be terminating October of this year. For the 21/2 years that we have been operating hundreds of seniors have been fed. For most of those we serve this is the only complete meal that they will eat all day.

We operate in a poverty area and it is impossible for these people to pay the complete cost of the meals. Some can't even afford to pay the small sum of 50 cents per meal that we ask for, and they are the ones that need the meal the most.

At present we are serving meals in three centers. The seniors are glad for the opportunity to come together to eat and socialize with one another. These meals have brought about greater socialization for the seniors than heretofore had been taking place. These meals have given our seniors new hope and inspiration.

I can recall a Mrs. Blanchette, when she was referred to us by her doctor she was suffering from malnutrition and had been placed in a nursing home. We were told by her doctor if we could serve her one complete balanced meal a day she could be returned to her own home. Six months after we began serving her we received a thank you note from Mrs. Blanchette letting us know that her doctor had told her that she was no longer suffering from malnutrition. Mrs. Blanchette is now a very active group member and really enjoys herself. There are hundreds of similar cases like Mrs. Blanchette's in Roxbury. For from information gathered from a survey that was taken when persons first came into the nutrition program in Roxbury, it showed that almost 80 percent of those surveyed were poorly fed.

Just this fact alone; that is, to know that 80 percent of the elderly in Roxbury are poorly fed, is the greatest need that I could give for a continuation of the program. And not only the project in Roxbury but all of the nutrition projects that are in operation and others that need so desperately to be put into operation to take care of the large percent of elderly that are poorly fed. For my office receives calls daily asking us for meals in areas that we cannot afford to service with our limited operation.

We also deliver meals to the homes of seniors. At present we are using a station wagon for delivery but in the near future we will be

putting a fully equipped truck in service, there will be a microwave oven to reconstitute the meals right at the client's door on the truck. We were able to purchase the truck with funds donated to us from the 1970 Greater Boston Walk for Hunger Campaign. We will not get very much service from this truck if our project is forced to terminate in October. Our mobile meals are very important and serve a great purpose. With this service countless numbers of seniors are kept out of nursing homes.

We deliver one hot meal a day to seniors that are shut in and can't prepare food for themselves and have no one to prepare it for them. Seniors might find themselves unable to prepare food for themselves due to an onset of illness, or blindness or due to some crippling disease.

I recall a Mr. Perry who was a very young 65; he lost his sight due to an accident and was very depressed. He didn't even bother to dress himself any more. After a few months of receiving the home-delivered meals, Mr. Perry became interested in the other services we had to offer and in a short time he was involved in the men's group and now he is very particular about himself.

He and others like him are very grateful that we have this type of program for them. But I ask what will happen to them and what will happen to others like them if no provision is made on a nationwide basis for a food service program for them?

This country is too rich to let its elderly starve to death. Yet this is what we are doing when we don't provide means for adequate nutrition for them. We have spent moneys for medical research to find ways of combating illnesses and prolonging life; yet we will not provide money for a nationwide nutrition project.

The seniors ask is it worth having a longer life in order to slowly starve to death. They ask why prolong our life, why keep us alive to slowly die of starvation?

I hope you will pass Senator Kennedy's bill so that the slow death of starvation of the seniors will be brought to a halt.

Thank you.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Mrs. Reason.

How big is Roxbury?

Mrs. REASON. Well, I don't know the population. We have over 7,000 seniors there.

Senator EAGLETON. But there are 7,000 seniors there?

Mrs. REASON. Right.

Senator EAGLETON. How many people are you serving by your program at the present time?

Mrs. REASON. We serve from 80 to 100 a day, and this fluctuates.
Senator EAGLETON. Eighty to one hundred people a day?

Mrs. REASON. Right. There have been days when we have served 400 meals.

Senator EAGLETON. Off the top of your head would you have any recollection of figures that would indicate how many people in Roxbury, in the 7,000 elderly group, are at or below the so-called poverty level?

Mrs. REASON. Off the top of my head I would say 99 percent of them. Senator EAGLETON. Is Roxbury predominantly black?

Mrs. REASON. Yes, sir; it is.

Senator EAGLETON. It is adjacent to Boston?

Mrs. REASON. It is a part of Boston.

Senator EAGLETON. It is a section of Boston?

Mrs. REASON. Right.

Senator EAGLETON. Are there other programs with respect to food now in operation in the Roxbury area other than yours?

Mrs. REASON. Yes, they do have—well, out of Roxbury-really, one school in Jamaica Plain. But one of the main problems is that none of the programs in Roxbury have a mobile unit, and we have found that the mobile part of our program is really one of the most important parts because it provides food for those that really can't get out and prepare food for themselves.

Senator EAGLETON. For those, say, who are poor but are capable of some limited degree of mobility, walking a block or two or three, a reasonable walking distance, what kinds of food programs are available for the elderly who are ambulatory?

Mrs. REASON. For the most part it is our program, and this is about it. There are two school programs that are run also.

Senator EAGLETON. And you operate these two programs in schools? Mrs. REASON. No, not in schools. They are run by the school lunch program.

Senator EAGLETON. Where do you operate these programs? Do you have any kind of a church, church basement, or what?

Mrs. REASON. No, we have our centers

Senator EAGLETON. Where elderly people can get a hot meal?
Mrs. REASON. Right.

Senator EAGLETON. How many people do you serve in a given day? Mrs. REASON. One might serve 10 where another might serve 40. Senator EAGLETON. Are those figures separate beyond that 80 to 100 that you have testified to

Mrs. REASON. No, that was the average

Senator EAGLETON. That is everything that is served at a center or delivered to a home?

Mrs. REASON. Yes.

Senator EAGLETON. In a typical day, how many would you deliver to a home?

Mr. REASON. We average about 60, and this, too, at times we have averaged up to 100 home delivered meals.

Senator EAGLETON. Home delivery?

Mrs. REASON. Right.

Senator EAGLETON. You don't have this truck yet?

Mrs. REASON. No, we don't. We are using a station wagon.

Senator EAGLETON. When you get this truck that is going to have

a microwave oven, will you be able to deliver more?

Mrs. REASON. We hope to split the route and we will deliver one hot meal for a noonday meal and one for a dinner meal to a different group to people. So we hope to serve at least 250 to 300 people.

Senator EAGLETON. So, then, when you have this truck you hope to get up to 300 meals a day?

Mrs. REASON. Home delivered.

you would

Senator EAGLETON. For the elderly-and you say there are 7,000 in the Roxbury area-the overwhelming percentage of those deem to be in the poverty category?