than being forced by an inadequate financial aid policy to go to the chief of schools so they can get an education and also live.

As it is, the private schools are almost precluded from a veteran in the northeast or the midwest from attending.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Ms. Kemp, I gather you feel the employees of HEW are hindered from really fulfilling their full potential becauce of their low status in that huge Department.

Ms. KEMP. Yes; I do, because when we try to negotiate or discuss some of these issues with the Assistant Secretary, or with the Commissioner, no one has the final say. It always has to go, if there is something that might be done, it always has to go on to another level before anything can be determined.

Sometimes it gets lost. We feel that if there was one focal point for us to discuss our labor management relations, someone who could then take it up to the Secretary of Education, if there is such to be, things can go much quicker in terms of whether it is working conditions or ability to do one's work.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Do you think the Department of Education would raise the morale of the employees of the Education Division of HEW?

Ms. KEMP. Senator, as you know, the AFL-CIO has taken a different stand on this issue. Because I and our local officials represent the employees of the Education Division, I think I reflect their almost unanimous viewpoint, that they have got to get out from under. Chairman RIBICOFF. You probably know more about the feelings of the employees of your union at HEW than the headquarters of AFL-CIO.

Critics of the separate Department of Education say moving education from HEW will sever many links with health and welfare.

Rufus Miles, in testimony last October, told the committee, education programs were much more in need of coordination than the coordination of education programs with those of health and welfare. Do you share Mr. Miles' view?

Ms. KEMP. Yes; I do. We do coordinate on a personal kind of a basis with vocational rehabilitation, with early childhood, et cetera. But this is never done in a very coordinated formalized kind of a structure. It is done because individuals in the Education Division see a need for doing that.

We have trouble, as you know, you mentioned the Youth Unemployment Act, with the former Manpower programs, and so on. I happen to work in vocational and adult education. We have had a devil of a time trying to really work together with Manpower, with the Department of Labor, with CETA, because they have a tremendous amount of money for education.

We are overlapping. We are duplicating and yet our Commissioner of Education is only on the Commissioner's level, whereas the Secretary of Labor or the Assistant Secretary of Labor is at a higher status.

It has been very difficult for us to really do the kind of cooperation, coordination for youth unemployment that I think might better be done having a department status.

29-828 - 78 - pt. 2 - 7

Chairman RIBICOFF. So if you have a department that had many education programs now scattered throughout the government, you feel it would do a much more effective and efficient job of coordinating education programs throughout the Nation?

Ms. KEMP. I didn't really want to get into the transfer of all of the agencies. Obviously, one would hope if we could only have a handle on the total educational programs, we might be able to get some coherent kind of a rational picture so that when one is trying to develop goals and policies and objectives to recommend to both you and to the President, that there would be some sense to it.

I know there are a lot of political ramifications on a subject of this matter, but I would say in terms of youth unemployment, manpower, there has been a difference of philosophy that we feel that a person who is educated can do a better job on the job and for his or her own career.

The Labor Department's philosophy is to get the person trained so that they can get on the job. It is a philosophy that one has to determine which is really much more productive for a human being. Chairman RIBICOFF. Senator Humphrey?

Senator HUMPHREY. Not at this point.

Chairman RIBICOFF. I want to thank you very much for your contribution. We appreciate your giving us the benefit of your experience and your knowledge.

Our next panel consists of representatives of the school food service profession.

We welcome this panel and I will trust you will confine your oral presentation to not more than 10 minutes. Your entire statement will go in the record. We will start with Ms. Gravenmier, please.

TESTIMONY OF GARY HOTCHKIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION; FAITH GRAVENMIER, CHAIRWOMAN, AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE; DOROTHY VAN EGMOND, DIRECTOR, FOOD SERVICE DIVISION, FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FAIRFAX, VA; DOROTHY L. FINCH, SUPERVISOR OF FOOD SERVICES, GRANDVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT, GRANDVIEW, WASHINGTON; AND HELEN B. McGEE, NUTRITION COORDINATOR, OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Ms. GRAVENMIER. Thank you, Senator Ribicoff.

Before I make the statement for our association, I would like to introduce to you Mr. Gary Hotchkin, executive director, American School Food Service Association. He has a brief introduction. Chairman RIBICOFF. Mr. Hotchkin?

Mr. HOTCHKIN. Mr. Chairman, I am Gary Hotchkin, executive director of the American School Food Service Association. The ASFSA appreciates the opportunity to testify today on the proposal to establish a Cabinet-level Department of Education, and on the possible inclusion of school nutrition programs in that new Department.

The ASFSA recently testified before the Nutrition Subcommittee of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and was asked by Chairman McGovern for its position on a transfer of school nutrition programs.

ASFSA's president, Mrs. Gene White, will respond by having Faith Gravenmier read her report on the position as it is in retaining nutrition programs in the Department of Agriculture. We did not elaborate in detail at that time.

Mrs. White's statement today, to be presented by ASFSA Legislative Committee Chairman, Mrs. Faith Gravenmier, will explain our position in detail, the reasons why we think the programs are best left in USDA, and what we would hope to see should the programs be transferred to a new Department of Education.

Ms. GRAVEN MIER. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to appear as a witness today, representing the 70,000 members of the American School Food Service Association.

The ASFSA is the largest national association representing people who direct, manage, and work in school nutrition programs at the State and local level.

ASFSA is deeply committed to the principle that proper nutrition is a key component of the educational process and one that deserves. the highest priority within that process. For that reason, of course, ASFSA is vitally concerned with the discussion taking place now regarding the creation of a new Department of Education at the Federal level.

Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that ASFSA members are aware of your personal commitment to education and your long support for a Cabinet-level Education Department. ASFSA commends you for your advocacy of a greater emphasis on education as a national priority at the Federal level. We are also aware of your personal interest in and longstanding support for child nutrition programs and of your close collaboration with Senator McGovern, who, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs and now Chairman of the standing Subcommittee on Nutrition of the Agriculture Committee, and our beloved Senator Humphrey of the Agriculture Committee, has led the way in expanding the Nation's child nutrition programs.

ASFSA, of course, strongly favors the creation of a Department of Education. There is no question in our minds that such a department is necessary and can serve as a beacon of leadership for the Nation's educational community. These are days when there are serious questions and criticisms of the effectiveness of our Nation's schools. There are serious questions regarding the effectiveness of programs designed to provide equal opportunities for all children, children who are disadvantaged, from disadvantaged families, children who are handicapped, as well as those who are gifted. If we are going to actually make the educational system fully available to and effective for all the Nation's children, education must have a greater emphasis and more resources available at all levels of gov

ernment.

My testimony today is, however, directed toward one specific aspect of the discussion of the creation of a Department of Educa

tion. That aspect is the proposed inclusion within that Department of school nutrition programs.

While there is certainly logic for including School Nutrition programs in a Department dealing with schools, I think I must strongly state that the ASFSA members have a number of serious concerns regarding a transfer of school nutrition programs of this type.

To some degree, these concerns arise from a fear of the unknown. At this time, we simply do not feel that we know enough about the details of a new Education Department to be entirely comfortable in supporting the inclusion of our programs within that Department. We do know that it is often easy to be lost in the shuffle of the Federal bureaucracy, rather than to receive the attention that one feels their programs deserve.

The very history of school nutrition programs within the Department of Agriculture is illustrative of this point. We have indeed had a long and uphill battle to achieve a position of status within the USDA. The school nutrition programs were the latest and the smallest to be added on to the mission of the Department of Agriculture. And over the years, they have not always received the attention and support that were their due. This was particularly true in recent years even under the stewardship of a Secretary of Agriculture who was quite outspoken regarding his feelings that school nutrition programs were social service or welfare programs that belonged in another department. Every member of the American School Food Service Association objected strenuously to this narrow view of child nutrition programs because we all believe that we are involved in nutrition and health activities, not welfare programs.

Therefore, we fought this negative attitude under a past administration and with the strong support of the Congress and, particularly, of Senator Humphrey, Senator McGovern, Senator Talmadge, and Senator Dole, and others in the Senate, were successful in preserving and expanding the scope and status of child nutrition within the Department of Agriculture. In addition, we now have leadership within the Department of Agriculture, which agrees in principle that school nutrition programs are a vital part of USDA's overall mission and that child nutrition is a vital part of the Nation's nutrition and health effort. Secretary Bergland has personally committed himself to our school nutrition programs, as has Assistant Secretary Carol Foreman.

In addition to this commitment at the highest levels of the Department of Agriculture, there are a number of structural considerations or reasons for maintaining child nutrition in USDA. Successful school nutrition programs result in a unique blending of food, nutrition, and education. USDA is, of course, the preeminent food agency of the Federal Government and was recently designated as the lead agency for nutrition of the Federal Government. Historically, school nutrition programs were an outgrowth of the availability through USDA of food commodities. Commodities, surplus and nonsurplus, were and still are an important component of school nutrition programs. Maintaining the school nutrition programs in USDA does retain a close link to this commodity component.

Quality is now one of the primary concerns in school nutrition programs. The maintenance of quality requires expertise in the area of food grading and purchasing. USDA is now the central specification-writing and purchasing agent for the Federal Government.

USDA is also the lead agency in the area of food economics and human nutrition research. Both of these areas of expertise are vital in developing guidelines for such important matters as meal patterns, which are designated to serve the nutritional needs of the youngsters in the school.

Let me also say at this point, in terms of the known and unknown, that within the Senate at least, as long as the programs remain within USDA, we know the degree of concern and quality of leadership the programs receive. The Senate Agriculture Committee and its Subcommittee on Nutrition are deeply involved in these programs and are knowledgeable about them. We are deeply grateful for, in most cases, the support that we have received and, quite frankly, for the cordial relationships that we have established. We would very much like to see that relationship continue.

Apart from these positive reasons, however, for keeping the school nutrition programs at the Department of Agriculture, we see certain dangers in placing them in a new Department of Education. Perhaps our feelings in this regard are somewhat exaggerated, but nevertheless, they are very real to us. While I may be treading the diplomatic line with many of my colleagues in the education establishment, I feel that I must be totally candid at this time. The prevailing attitude within the educational community toward school nutrition programs, as opposed to other education programs, has not been entirely enthusiastic. School nutrition programs are often the lowest priority on the educator's list. School nutrition programs are often seen as auxiliary rather than central to the education process. They are frequently given neither the attention nor the resources that they deserve.

There are other considerations-financial considerations. As we are all acutely aware, many schools and school districts are hard pressed financially. School business officials are constantly searching for additional sources of revenue. There is an unfortunate trend afoot leading some administrators to look at school nutrition programs or school feeding programs as a revenue source. This attitude leads to contracting out school feeding programs to profitmaking firms and may lead to the invasion of vending machines selling nonnutritious foods competitive with the school feed nutrition programs. We believe that both of these activities undermine the central objective of child nutrition, which is the health and well-being of all children. USDA, incidentally, is moving aggressively against these practices.

Dollars are not short, of course, only at the State and local levels. The Federal education dollar is also in short supply. At this time, child nutrition programs have assured and separate sources of funding within the USDA. The heart of this funding is support for millions of children from working families, without whose participation there would be no program for children from poor families. The American School Food Service Association was appalled when the previous administration proposed a so-called bloc grant funding of