Committee Needs Legislative Authority

Senator Humphrey. Well, our pilot bill will include not only the School Lunch Program but also the School Breakfast Program and nutrition education.

You know this Select Committee has done a marvelous job of bringing to the public's attention the problems that face our people in the food areas—the lack of nutrition, or malnutrition. However, it does not have legislative authority.

We can create bills here as individuals—by the work of our staff and our members working together—but, ultimately, we must go to these legislative committees. And I want to say to everybody that the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry needs your indoctrination.

We are wedded, thus far, to what we have. We build on these little old building blocks. Over the years, it has been scattered about since the time of the depression of the 1930's. We are in the school food crisis just like we are in an energy crisis, simply because it is proliferated all over the lot. You know, all kinds of little pieces. Nobody ever really gets a handle on it.

I plead with all of you here, from your respective States, to take a look at the list of the Members from the Senate and House that are on the Committee of Agriculture and Forestry. Get them to understand what you know and need. It is going to take personal visitation, as well as your testimony.

Now Mr. Butz wants to get these programs over in Health, Education, and Welfare. It will never end up in Education; it will end up in Welfare. I agree with what you said here this morning. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I am proud of the fact that our committee has jurisdiction on nutritional feeding for schoolchildren. I think that is one of the blessings of the committee. We have had lots of other problems.

Primarily, in the past, we had to deal with this program as a way to get rid of surpluses. That is all over. I think that we must get that word out of our vocabulary. There isn't any surplus in the Treasury. There isn't any surplus gasoline. There isn't any surplus food. We are really going to have to look at a feeding program just like you do anything else—you are going to have to go out and buy and organize it.

Now your emphasis, as I gather from your testimony, is that the cash replacement for the commodity program will not really do the job as we would want it done.

My colleague from South Dakota, Senator McGovern, and myself— neither one of us received school lunches when we were going to school, as I recall—have worked very hard to get through a workable program. We had to give a little to take a little. All nice fellows helping folks; now we find that—possibly, due to interpretations of the intent of the programs—we may have harmed the smaller school districts.

Am I correct in this: That the smaller school district will find it more difficult utilizing the cash replacement for the commodities than a school area the size of New York or Detroit—some large district where they can hire much more professional people?

By this I mean that they will lose out in the purchasing power as well as not having the necessary personnel to utilize in the purchasing, grading, inspection, warehousing and so forth.

Mr. Carpenter. Yes.

For example, over the years, several school administrators or food service personnel would say, hypothetically: "I wish they would give us the cash."

Last year we had a chance to try—we had never had an opportunity to try this theory until last spring, when we received the $7 million. I was suprised to have some of the same people come back and say: "Gee, I would much rather have received the commodities."

It was because they could not take the same dollar amount and go out and buy the same quantity and quality of food.

Senator Humphrey. Now, anybody that runs even a McDonald's hamburger stand knows what you are saying is the truth. Mass purchases, I mean large purchases by one central purchasing organization bring in a reduced price. Also, it permits quality purchase, inspection, grading—all that goes with what the Federal Government does.

I don't see much allowance for the State governments to take on this responsibility of hiring investigators, inspectors, and the graders. I doubt that their present budgets would permit it.

Mr. Carpenter. That is correct, sir.

Of course, as you pointed out, we must always compare like things. If we are talking about ground beef, with 20 percent less fat, we mustn't compare it with ground beef with 50 percent fat because they aren't the same product.

Originate Complete New School Food Program

Senator Humphrey. As I see it, the answer is to get away from this jerry-built, Rube Goldberg special that we now call a School Lunch Program. All these different facets—a little money over here, a little money over there.

When we were marking up this last bill, we were trying to get in the escalator clause. I want to tell you it was like trying to patch up an old, broken down Model T and we were running short of bailing wire.

We must just keep plugging away at this. The word ought to go out that you are not going to be satisfied with anything less than a Universal School Feeding program. If you stick with it, we will make progress. The Federal Government today is appropriating—am I correct, George $6 billion?

Senator Mcgovern. Yes.

Senator Humphrey. This man, here from South Dakota, has helped get a lot of that done. It has all been for the well-being of all the American people.

However, that isn't very much, considering what is in some areas of our budget. I can tell you, right now, that we could take out of the new advanced Pentagon budget this year—without any worry to our national security—enough money to pay for your Universal School Feeding program. Also, you would have better soldiers if you needed them: and, you would have better people, healthier people.

We are going to work on it. But you people are going to have to quit being so nice about it.

This city is a marvelous city. I wish it had had more love in it, but politics doesn't work on that basis. I think when you mix love and politics, you get in trouble. I mean you work on the basis that you have a political organization here called the Congress of the United States and you have the executive branch of the Government. You need to have the public—the voters—speak up and make it an issue—like teachers made salaries an issue.

I remember when that was a disgrace. But they finally organized and they made it an issue; and, politicians didn't get elected unless they were on the right side.

We must make feeding of our children in our schools an issue—just like we once made textbooks an issue.

Compulsory Education Must Provide Food

My whole argument still holds true. You know, we have compulsory education. You have to go to school—whether you learn anything or not.

When we have the draft, you have to go when your number is called. When we drafted the fellow that was the son of the banker—if that occasionally did happen—and he was the richest man in town, we didn't say: "Now, look, your old man is rich. You bring your own gun, your own lunch, and your own bullets. After all, we have to provide bullets and guns and lunches for the poor children." You couldn't have much of an army, if you did that.

I think the same thing goes in school programs: We need to make converts from the same people who want strong soldiers, brilliant theorists, researchers. All this comes from sound nutrition and sound bodies and minds!

Oh! I want to mention one thing.

On these vending machines that we have in the schools. You have expressed yourself, and your testimony has been heard.1 We have legislation to repeal that.

[Applause.]

We are joined on that, aren't we, George?

Senator Case, Senator McGovern, myself and others—I know somebody sold it to us on the basis we were going to get apples.

That is right. One of my fellow Minnesotans said we were going to get apples. If you would hold it to apples, oranges, peaches, pears, and even a few prunes, I wouldn't complain. But I think it got a little out of hand, didn't it?

Dr. Perryman. We believe that is a definite factor.

Senator Humphrey. It is also a definite factor insofar as being able to have any kind of control over the nutritional value of the luncheon that is being served.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mcgovern. Thank you very much.

Senator Humphrey is a great interrogator. I often think, though, he's even a better witness.

Senator Humphrey. That is why I didn't take up the law.

Senator Mcgovern. The final two witnesses, I am pleased to introduce, are from my State. Mr. Don Barnhart, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Martin Sorensen, the State Director of Child Nutrition and Food Distribution Programs.

I appreciate you gentlemen waiting patiently through the forenoon and the noon hour. We will be glad to have your statements.

Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Barnhart, if you wish, you can summarize, or just hit the highlights, and put the full statement in the record. But we will leave that up to you. You proceed in any way you see fit.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN SORENSEN, STATE DIRECTOR OF CHILD NUTRITION AND FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS, SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. Sorensen. Mr. Chairman, I shall briefly summarize my remarks and provide my full statement for the record.1

Don Barnhart and I are career educators. I came into the food service business 3% years ago, and it has been an awakening to me— the need for proper nutrition of children—that I had not seen for 20-some years as a school superintendent.

By the way, I became a superintendent in 1946 with the introduction of the School Lunch Act and have been involved ever since.

Many of the things I have in my statement have already been covered, so I will not touch on them again. But, in response to Senator Humphrey's question about vending machines, I can say that this became a very strong issue at our State board of education open hearing last October. We had dozens of people there; many students who were in favor of putting in vending machines.

Keep "junk" Vending Machines Out

In the final analysis, even though the State board removed the restrictions, we now have pop vending machines in only a very few schools. Our school superintendents have kept them out of all but about 10 schools.

We are very dedicated to child feeding programs in our State. Nutrition education is very important.

At the October meeting the State board took action to require that some form of nutrition education be provided to children. We are going forward with that, and we are utilizing industry. I am not going to hesitate to say that the South Dakota Dairy Council and the National Dairy Council, through their providing of moneys and materials, have enabled us to reach 800 or 900 teachers during the past 6 months.

I think, for many States, that might be one way to go.

If you do not have money at the local level for nutrition education, get those industries which are interested in proper nutrition into the game. They certainly will Cooperate with you.

Savings On Meals By Minimal Wages

We have a lot of discussion about cost of meals. I think that one thing that has not even been touched on as to why the cost of meals is kept down is the fact that we have tens of thousands—and I am sure many of them are in this room—school food service workers. They continue to get $1.60, or slightly more than minimum wage, for the fine work they are doing. I think that should be brought out.

It is tragic that $1.60 remains the minimum, and these people are working shorter hours and much harder. But that is where much of the savings cost on the price of meals is coming from this year.

We were very unhappy, last December, when my commodity supervisor and my assistant director went to Dallas, Tex. There they were informed that the commodity program would be phased out by July 1 of 1974.

Of course, since that time there have been some changes. We are grateful that there is at least a year's continuation. I don't think we need to cover all of the points again about how very important commodities are to our program.

I do want to say that we are intensively training our people to do a lot of baking, and utilizing every type of commodity that has been donated.

Contrary to what Secretary Butz said on TV a few days ago, about beans and peanut butter, these continue to be true staples of our School Lunch Program.

So we hope that this committee will continue its fine work. That if there is cash in place of commodities, that it will be guaranteed. This question was posed to Mr. Hekman at Dallas, January 29: "Why wasn't the commodity program tied to the escalator clause?" He told us to wait until the budget came out. Of course, when we saw the budget it wasn't there. So we didn't get a very direct answer at that time.

Finally, if States are going to do their own buying of commodities our State cannot afford to do it.

Don Barnhart and I were superintendents in the western part of our State and tried to form a cooperative for just that purpose. But, we did not have the machinery for buying for schools, and it had to collapse. The USDA does have the expertise, and the machinery; and, we think it should continue.

Now, I am very pleased to introduce Don Barnhart, our State Superintendent, a career educator, and a man who is certainly dedicated to children and their nutritional needs. He also has a very important message pertaining to our Indian people in South Dakota.

So, Don, I hope that you can convince the committee.