What should we be doing now about people who are hungry, who are just not getting enough to eat, not only quantitywise but nutritionwise, while we are waiting for the overall game plan? And I take it from your testimony we are going to have to wait longer for more demonstration projects, and so forth, whether a year or 3 more years I don't know, but we are going to have to wait. So what do we do about people who are hungry, especially elderly people, who are in many instances confined by lack of mobility, lack of access? What are we going to do? Commissioner MARTIN. Well, it seems to me we are doing what we should be doing right now, and that is finding out whether it is possible to develop the basis for a national program that is within the reach of our resources, and that is tied in Senator EAGLETON. Is there any doubt in your mind that it is within the reach of the resources of the United States of America to feed the hungry? Is there any quarrel about that fact? Is there any question that we have adequate resources to feed hungry people? Commissioner MARTIN. There is no doubt in my mind about that, sir. Senator EAGLETON. Is there any doubt in your mind that we have hungry people, certainly in the elderly category? Commissioner MARTIN. I think that is correct, certainly. Otherwise, we would not be experimenting with these programs. Senator EAGLETON. Is there any doubt in that hunger is one of the things that is not postponable? If you are hungry, you are hungry, and you are just as hungry today as you will be 3 years from now after further demonstration projects, if you are still living. Commissioner MARTIN. S. 1163 would only provide meals for some 50,000 or 60,000 people. Senator EAGLETON. That is 50,000 or 60,000 who won't be getting them otherwise. If there is to be a fault found, and I said this to Senator Kennedy when he testified the other day on his own bill-sometimes some of his recommendations are labeled as utopian, but I said, "If there is any fault to be found with your bill, Senator, it does not go far enough." This program encompasses only five out of 21 meals a week. One hot meal 5 days a week for a limited number of people. If there is any fault to be found with the bill, it is because it is limited not because it is expansive. Wouldn't you say so? Commissioner MARTIN. I think our approach, Senator, as we tried to make clear in Mr. Kuezman's testimony, is that we think the Nation ought to be proceeding along a different line-an integrated services line. We have pending the introduction of an integrated service bill. We now have H.R. 1. Both of these bills would contribute materially to the solution of this problem. There is the revenue sharing proposal, which the Senate and House are now considering, which will also contribute to the solution of the problem. We think we can't solve the problem by a partial approach to it. We think it needs to be solved through an overall and broad-scale approach. Senator EAGLETON. Even if we had H.R. 1 today as a law, would it in and of itself respond to and alleviate the problems among the elderly? Isn't there a whole gamut of problems that the Task Force on Aging in its 1970 report, and the Panel on Aging of the 1969 White House Conference have identified to the elderly that go beyond the perimeters of H.R. 1? Commissioner MARTIN. We don't disagree with the goals to which those recommendations are directed, Senator. I personally believe that the delivery of nutritional services to the elderly in this country is an enormously important thing. But we do believe that we ought to approach it in a certain way, and that, of course, is the gist of our testimony. We think that the steps are now in the works, not only on H.R. 1, but on revenue sharing and on integrated services that will make it possible to develop a program which will treat older people as whole people and not as fragmented people, and will provide us with the wherewithal, including the money, to do this job. It is going to take a little time, but we are talking about a major national program here, and we don't think we can rush into it without knowing exactly what we are doing. Mr. KURZMAN. I should point out, too, Mr. Chairman, if I may, that the total strategy on the hunger program has been to increase the dollars, the budget outlays substantially in recent years. I think Miss Kelley can give the details on this. Miss Kelley, do you want to add the figures on that? They have been substantial as far as increases are concerned. Senator EAGLETON. If you are talking about food stamps, we already have in the record that that program is not going to be expanded. Dollars may go up, but the program is not going to go forward into new areas that are not now within the ambit of the program. You have put in figures that you are going to increase the coupon allotment from $28 for a one-person family to $32, and from $56 for a family of two to $60. That would about cover the cost of inflation. So that is going to be progress by standing still. Mr. KURZMAN. I am talking about overall figures for the food stamp program and other feeding programs. They have all increased substantially in recent years. My own impression is that the total has risen about three times over a period of 2 or 3 years. Senator EAGLETON. Do you want to give us some figures, Miss Kelley, on the food stamp program as to what the budget for the current fiscal year is, what the recommendation is for the next fiscal year, and how many new jurisdictions will be brought in under the food stamp program for the next fiscal year? Miss KELLEY. Yes. The budget for the food stamp program has increased from about $250 million in 1968 to somewhat over $1.6 billion this year, and a budget request of $2 billion for next year. At this present time, about two-thirds of the counties in the country are serving needy families under the food stamp program. Those are mostly larger areas. I would think that would cover about 80 percent of the population. Senator EAGLETON. Such cities as Kansas City, Dallas, and Miami, Fla., are not under the food stamp program, and under the budget will not be able to come under it. Miss KELLEY. For the next fiscal year, this is correct. Now, on the other hand, in the one-third of the counties, needy families are being served by the commodity distribution program, which likewise has been substantially Senator EAGLETON. Is there any doubt in your mind that the food stamp program is infintely preferable from everyone's point of view to the commodity program, from the standpoint of efficiency, from the standpoint of a balanced nutritional diet? Is there any question in your mind? Miss KELLEY. There are some who prefer the commodity programs. That is because the commodities represent a package of foods that are free to the participant, and they are free to the participant who is marginally eligible, as well as free to the participant who is at the poorest income, level. There are some people who prefer commodities, because of this aspect, where as for food stamps benefits decrease as income increases. Senator EAGLETON. Are these administrative people or are these recipients? Miss KELLEY. Recipients, as well as administrators. There is one particular exception to the idea that commodities may be somewhat preferable to the food stamp program. Senator EAGLETON. Would you say this is an isolated preference? Miss KELLEY. I would think that some of the people who feel this are in fact the elderly. Mr. KURZMAN. Again, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that the administration's approach here is to develop sufficient income among the needy so that neither of these programs will be the mainstay as it now is, for feeding of the poor, elderly or otherwise. The strategy is to put sufficient dollars in their pockets so that they can make those choices themselves. That is why we keep advocating H.R. 1, which is the central thrust of our strategy, Mr. Chairman. Senator EAGLETON. Let me ask Miss Kelley. It is our information that proposed new food stamp regulations by the Department of Agriculture would make ineligible for food stamps most of the aged, blind, and disabled in some 21 States. Miss KELLEY. I am not certain about the 21 States, but in our proposed regulations, in establishing the new uniform eligibility standards that the act calls for, these standards would be somewhat below the standards in some States. I am not sure of 21 States. But basically you are correct, there would be some ineligibility under proposed regulations. Senator EAGLETON. Have they been published in the Federal Register as proposed regulations? Miss KELLEY. Yes. They were subject to public comment, and the public comments are in and are now being reviewed. This is one of the significant aspects of the comments. Senator EAGLETON. Does it concern you or alarm you that, in the quest for uniformity, and that is one of the major magic words of our age, in a substantial number of States, perhaps 21, your proposed regulations would make ineligible for food stamps most of the aged, blind, and disabled. Is that causing you some internal anguish in the Department of Agriculture? Might that cause you to redraft the regulations? Miss KELLEY. I might say that under the bill as passed, the concept was that any household that could not obtain an economy-priced diet with 30 percent of its income should receive food assistance. In our regulations, for the one- and two-person households, we provided as an alternative method the poverty level, since the 30-percent principle would set their eligibility below the poverty levels. So the proposed regulations either made eligible all families below the poverty level, or all families who could not receive an economy cost diet with 30 percent of income. This was the basis of the proposed regulation. The eligibility standards for a one-person household will be $160, and a two-person household $210 which is the poverty level for these household sizes. Both of those, of course, are somewhat above the income levels contemplated in H.R. 1 for adult category. Senator EAGLETON. Is it true, Mr. Kurzman, that the administration has announced plans to phase out OEO's emergency food and medical program under which local community action agencies have been able to develop projects to alleviate the nutritional problems of the elderly? Mr. KURZMAN. I have no information on that, Mr. Chairman. Senator EAGLETON. Do we have anybody from OEO? Mr. KURZMAN. We do not, Mr. Chairman. We can get any information you require, however. Senator EAGLETON. You are aware of OEO's emergency food program? Mr. KURZMAN. Yes, indeed. Senator EAGLETON. Is it your position that it is a worthy program that you would like to see continued, or are you ambivalent about it? Mr. KURZMAN. I am not in a position to testify on behalf of the administration on that point, Mr. Chairman. Senator EAGLETON. The budget request from the administration with respect to that program was that no new funds were requested, for fiscal 1972, so I take it that is a short hand way of saying they don't want the program to be continued. Mr. KURZMAN. I think an appropriate way to inquire into that, Mr. Chairman, would be to ask OEO as you have asked HEW and Agriculture to come forward. Senator EAGLETON. It does relate to the problem in many significant respects. It is geared to the distribution of food to the elderly, and therefore it relates to the problems before us with respect to the Kennedy bill and today's hearings. Mr. KURZMAN. As we have testified OEO is cooperating affirmatively with SRS on this model system approach to providing all social services to the aged. So they are very definitely in the nutrition field. Senator EAGLETON. I have one final question, and then, Senator Percy, we are zeroing in on Senator Kennedy's bill which is S. 1163, and when we finish with that area, we well get into the gerontology bill. I will yield to you on the nutritional aspect after one more question. Mr. Kurzman and Commissioner Martin, either one or both of you, in light of the fact that we have 21 demonstration programs that have been going for 3 years, in light of the fact that you intend to continue those programs for an additional year at a cost of $1.7 million— and you will inform us as to where that $1.7 million will be taken from; something is going to suffer, although I consider these to be commendable and worthy programs and in light of the fact that President Nixon in May of 1969 said, "the time has come to put an end to hunger in America itself for all time”—that was May of 1969, over 2 years ago when do you think you can recommend to Congress and to this committee the overall integrated interrelated program that you talk about in your prepared statement? years Is it a matter of a few months away, or is it a matter of a few away, or when do you think it might be that we can start giving more than lip service to what President Nixon said in May of 1969, to end hunger in America itself for all time? Commissioner MARTIN. I don't think we can give you a date, Senator. I think the best we can do is to say that we hope the knowledge that we are seeking will be available to us sooner rather than later, and that a year from now we will be able to come back with a much more knowledgeable understanding of the problems that we have been talking about, and that we are researching. We would like to see an integrated program involving, or including nutrition services for all older people who desire them. I am not able to say at this time when it will be. Senator EAGLETON. The best you can put it, to use your words, is "sooner, rather than later." "Sooner" can't be defined in terms of months or years? Commissioner MARTIN. I would say "soonest." I believe in the importance of adequate nutrition for older people. I have said in the past in testimony in other places that I think that older people are as much entitled to adequate nutrition in this country as children, and I believe that. We are seeking answers that will enable us to make recommendations, ultimately, for a national program. But we want to know what we are talking about when we make recommendations of that kind. Senator EAGLETON. As a general objective, would it be your judgment that we would be asking too much to seek a situation wherein the needy elderly were provided with one hot meal 5 days a week? As an objective is that a commendable and realistic objective? Commissioner MARTIN. I think that is a commendable and realistic objective. It is the basis on which the 21 programs have been conducted. Senator EAGLETON. Senator Percy. Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your invitation to participate this morning, as I am not a member of this particular committee. I would like very much, because I have to leave, to combine the two sections, nutrition as well as S. 1163. Senator EAGLETON. Well, S. 1163 is nutrition. S. 887 is one of the other bills. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES H. PERCY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Senator PERCY. I will not go into S. 887, but I would like to say, in response to your own question, "When should we close this hunger gap, |