NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

GOVERNMENT

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 2442 and H.R. 11665

BILLS TO REVISE THE FORMULA FOR APPORTIONING

CASH ASSISTANCE FUNDS AMONG THE STA

THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT, AN

PURPOSES

JUNE 19, 1962

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING (WINCE

85640 WASHINGTON: 1962
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Louisiana, Chairman

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina

SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Florida

JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi

HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia

WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

EUGENE J. McCARTHY, Minnesota

MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, Oregon

COTYS M. MOUSER, Chief Clerk

GEORGE D. AIKEN, Vermont

MILTON R. YOUNG, North Dakota

BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, Iowa

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware

. ,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURALRESEARCH AND GENERAL LEGISLATION

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina, Chairman

JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, Iowa

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio MILTON R. YOUNG, North Dakota

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan JOHN SFIERMAN COOPER, Kentucky
CONTENTS

Statement of—

Burdick, Hon. Quentin N., a U.S. Senator from the State of North Pass

Dakota 6

Davis, Howard P., Director, Food Distribution Division, Agricultural

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 10

Shipman, Richard C., assistant director, Legislative Services, National

Farmers Union 32

Miscellaneous documents—

S. 2442 and H.R. 11665, 87th Congress 1

Report on S. 2442 by Department of Agriculture 5

Statement filed by the B on. Oren E. Long, a U.S. Senator from the

State of Hawaii 7

House Concurrent Resolution 24 of the First Legislature of the State

of Hawaii 9

Tables submitted by the Department of Agriculture 18

Amendment to section 6 proposing a new section 11 submitted by the

Department of Agriculture 22

Participation in the national school lunch program in several large

cities 25

States and territories in which the Department of Agriculture nas

direct administrative responsibility for the national school lu ach

program 26

Statement on need for extension of National School Lunch Act to

American Samoa 28

Number of private and public school children in the territories 29

Statement on teaching of English in schools in Puerto Rico 31

Statement filed by the Hon. Wayne Morse, a U.S. Senator from the

State of Oregon 33

Statement filed by Edgar Fuller, executive secretary, Council of Chief

State School Officers 33

Letter to Senator Moss from Rodney A. Ashby, State director, school

lunch program, Department of Public Instruction, State of Utah 35

In

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

AND GENERAL LEGISLATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room

324, Senate Office Building, Senator Everett B. Jordan (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Jordan (presiding), Hart, and Young of Ohio.

Senator JORDAN. I am going to call the subcommittee to order.

Senator Hart will be here in a few minutes, but I know Senator

Burdick has another place to go, so we shall proceed.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on proposed

legislation which would revise the formula for distributing cash

assistance funds to the States under the National School Lunch Act.

Proposed revisions in the allocation formula have been studied for

several years by a great many people who are interested in the administration of the school lunch program. Today we are primarily concerned with two bills, S. 2442, which was introduced by Senator Long

of Hawaii and Senator Burdick of North Dakota, and H.R. 116657

which has been approved by the House of Representatives. We have

a favorable report from the Department of Agriculture on S. 2442,

and we plan to hear testimony today from representatives of the

Department on H.R. 11665.

(The ,documents referred to are as follows:)

[S. 2442, 87th Cong., 1st sess.3

A BILL To revise the formula for apportioning cash assistance funds among the States under the National

School Lunch Act, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the National School Lunch Act of 1946, as

amended, is amended by revising section 3 to read as follows:

"(a) For each fiscal year there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of

money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as 'the Secretary') to carry out the provisions of this Act other than section 11.

"(b) For each fiscal year there is hereby authorized to be appropriated in addition to the sums authorized in subsection (a) above, out of money in the Treasury

not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary

to carry out the provisions of section 11 of this Act."

SEC. 2. Section 4 of the Act is revised to read as follows: "The sums appropriated for any fiscal year pursuant to the authorization contained in section 3(a)

of this Act, excluding the sum specified in section 5, shall be available to the

Secretary for supplying agricultural commodities and other foods for the program

in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The Secretary shall apportion

among the States during each fiscal year not less than 75 per centum of the funds

1
2 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

made available for such year for supplying agricultural commodities and other

foods under the provisions of section 3(a) of this Act. Apportionment among

the States shall be made on the basis of two factors: (1) the participation rate for

the State, and (2) the assistance need rate for the State. The amount of apportionment to any State shall be determined by the following method: First,

determine an index for the State by multiplying factors (1) and (2) ; second,

divide this index by the sum of the indexes for all the States; and third, apply

the figure thus obtained to the total funds to be apportioned. If any State

cannot utilize all funds so apportioned to it, or if additional funds are made

available under section 3(a) for apportionment among the States, the Secretary

shall make further apportionments to the remaining States in the same manner.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, for the fiscal year

ending June 30, 1962, one-half of the funds available for apportionment among

the States shall be apportioned on the basis of the factors used prior to such

fiscal year, and one-half of such funds, and any funds available for further apportionments, shall be apportioned in accordance with the foregoing provisions."

SEC. 3. Section 5 of the Act is amended by striking out the last sentence thereof.

SEC. 4. Section 10 of the Act is amended by striking out "number of children

tetween the ages of five and seventeen, inclusive, attending nonprofit private

schools within the State is of the total number of persons of those ages within

the State attending school" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "participation rate for all nonprofit private schools within the State is of the participation

rate for the State".

SEC. 5. Section 11 of the Act is redesignated as section 12 and subsection (d)

thereof is amended to read as follows:

"For the purposes of this Act—

"(1) 'State' means any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American

Samoa.

"(2) 'State educational agency' means, as the State legislature may determine, (a) the chief State school officer (such as the State superintendent of

public instruction, commissioner of education, or similar officer), or (b) a

board of education controlling the State department of education.

"(3) 'Nonprofit private school' means any private school exempt from

income tax under section 101(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

"(4) 'Nonfood assistance' means equipment used by schools in storing,

preparing, or serving food for schoolchildren.

"(5) 'Participation rate' means the number of lunches, meeting the minimum requirements of the type of lunch for which the maximum rate of

reimbursement is authorized by the Secretary, served by participating schools

in each State in the preceding fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary.

"(6) 'Assistance need rate' means that rate determined by assigning a

value of five to each of the States and by increasing the value of five for each

State having an annual per capita income less than the average annual per

capita income of all the States by the ratio that the average annual per capita

income of all the States bears to the per capita income of said State, up to

a maximum value of nine. The per capita income figures shall be the average

of those certified by the Department of Commerce for the latest three years

for which such figures are available.

"(7) 'School' means any public or nonprofit private school of high school

grade or under and, with respect to Puerto Rico, shall also include nonprofit

child-care centers certified as such by the Governor of Puerto Rico."

SEC. 6. The following language is inserted after section 10 of the Act:

"SPECIAL ASSISTANCE

"SEC. 11. The sums appropriated pursuant to section 3(b) of this Act shall be

used by the Secretary, under such terms and conditions as he deems to be in the

public interest, to provide special assistance to needy schools for the purpose of

helping them to meet the requirements established in this Act concerning the

service of lunches to children unable to pay the full cost of the lunch."

SEC. 7. These amendments shall become effective July 1, 1961.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

[H.R. 11665, 87th Cong., 2d sees.]

AN ACT To revise the formula for apportioning cash assistance funds among the States under the

National School Lunch Act, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 3 of the National School Lunch Act

is amended to read as follows:

"APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED

"SEC. 3. For each fiscal year there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out

of money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as the 'Secretary') to carry out the provisions of this Act, other than section 11."

SEC. 2. Section 4 of the National School Lunch Act is amended to read as follows:

"APPROPRIATIONS TO STATES

"SEC. 4. The sums appropriated for any fiscal year pursuant to the authorization contained in section 3 of this Act, excluding the sum specified in section 5,

shall be available to the Secretary for supplying agricultural commodities and

other foods for the program in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The

Secretary shall apportion among the States during each fiscal year not less than

75 per centum of the funds made available for such year for supplying agricultural

commodities and other foods under the provisions of section 3 of this Act. Apportionment among the States shall be made on the basis of two factors: (1) the

participation rate for the State, and (2) the assistance need rate for the State.

The amount of apportionment to any State shall be determined by the following

method: First, determine an index for the State by multiplying factors (1) and

(2) ; second, divide this index by the sum of the indices for all the States (exclusive of American Samoa for periods ending before July 1, 1967) ; and third, apply

the figure thus obtained to the total funds to be apportioned. If any State cannot utilize all funds so apportioned to it, or if additional funds are made available

under section 3 for apportionment among the States, the Secretary shall make

further apportionments to the remaining States in the same manner. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, (1) for the fiscal year beginning

July 1, 1962, one-half of any funds available for apportionment among the States

shall be apportioned in the manner used prior to such fiscal year, and one-half of

any such funds shall be apportioned in accordance with the foregoing provisions

of this section, and (2) for the five fiscal years in the period beginning July 1, 1962,

and ending June 30, 1967, the amount apportioned to American Samoa shall be

$25,000 each year, which amount shall be first deducted from the funds available

for apportionment in determining the amounts to be apportioned to the other

States."

SEC. 3. (a) Section 5 of the National School Lunch Act is amended by striking

out the last sentence thereof.

(b) Section 6 of the National School Lunch Act is amended by striking out

"and less the amount apportioned to him pursuant to sections 4, 5, and 10" and

inserting in lieu thereof the following: ", less the amount apportioned by him

pursuant to sections 4, 5, and 10, and less the amount appropriated pursuant to

section 11".

SEC. 4. Section 10 of the National School Lunch Act is amended by striking

out "the same proportion of the funds as the number of children between the

ages of 5 and 17, inclusive, attending nonprofit private schools within the State

is of the total number of persons of those ages within the State attending school"

and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "an amount which bears the same

ratio to such funds as the number of lunches, consisting of a combination of foods

and meeting the minimum requirements prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to

section 9, served in the preceding fiscal year by all nonprofit private schools

participating in the program under this Act within the State, as determined by

the Secretary, bears to the participation rate for the State".

SEC. 5. Section 11 of the National School Lunch Act is redesignated as section

12 and subsections (c) and (d) thereof are amended to read as follows:

"(c) In carrying out the provisions of this Act, neither the Secretary nor the

State shall impose any requirement with respect to teaching personnel, curriculum,

instruction, methods of instruction, and materials of instruction in any school.

"(d) For the purposes of this Act--

•
4 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

" (1) 'State' means any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American

Samoa.

"(2) 'State educational agency' means, as the State legislature may determine, (A) the chief State school officer (such as the State superintendent of

public instruction, commissioner of education, or similar officer), or (B) a

board of education controlling the State department of education.

"(3) 'Nonprofit private school' means any private school exempt from

income tax under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

"(4) 'Nonfood assistance' means equipment used by schools in storing,

preparing, or serving food for schoolchildren.

"(5) 'Participation rate' for a State means a number equal to the number

of lunches, consisting of a combination of foods and meeting the minimum

requirements prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to section 9, served in

the preceding fiscal year by schools participating in the program under this

Act in the State, as determined by the Secretary.

"(6) 'Assistance need rate' (A) in the case of any State having an average

annual per capita income equal to or greater than the average annual per

capita income for all the States, shall be 5; and (B) in the case of any State

having an average annual per capita income less than the average annual

per capita income for all the States, shall be the product of 5 and the quotient

obtained by dividing the average annual per capita income for all the States

by the average annual per capita income for such State, except that such

product may not exceed 9 for any such State. For the purposes of this

paragraph (i) the average annual per capita income for any State and for

all the States shall be determined by the Secretary on the basis of the average

annual per capita income for each State and for all the States for the three

most recent years for which such data are available and certified to the

Secretary by the Department of Commerce; and (ii) the average annual per

capita income for American Samoa shall be disregarded in determining the

average annual per capita income for all the States for periods ending before

July 1, 1967.

"(7) 'School' means any public or nonprofit private school of high school

grade or under and, with respect to Puerto Rico, shall also include nonprofit

child-care centers certified as such by the Governor of Puerto Rico."

SEC. 6. The National School Lunch Act is further amended by inserting

immediately after section 10 thereof the following new section:

"SPECIAL ASSISTANCE

"SEC. 11. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for

the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and such sums as may be necessary for the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and each succeeding fiscal year, to provide

additional funds to certain schools (selected on the basis of factors set forth in

subsection (b)) to assist such schools to serve free and reduced price lunches.

From the sums appropriated pursuant to this section for any fiscal year, the

Secretary shall reserve such amount as may be necessary, but not in excess of 3

per centum thereof, for apportionment to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,

and American Samoa. Such amount shall be apportioned among Puerto Rico,

the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa on the basis of (1) the relative

numbers of free and reduced price lunches served during the preceding fiscal year

by schools participating in the program under this Act in such places, (2) the

need of students in such places for free or reduced price lunches and (3) the

relative assistance need rates of such places. The remaining amount of such

sums appropriated for any fiscal year shall be apportioned among the States

(other than Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa) on the

same bases. For purposes of this section, American Samoa shall be deemed to

have an assistance need rate equal to such rate for Guam, for periods ending

before July 1, 1967.

"(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), funds apportioned to each State

under subsection (a) shall be paid to selected schools in such State to assist such

schools to serve free and reduced price lunches. Such schools and the amounts

of such funds that each shall from time to time receive shall be determined by the

State educational agency on the basis of the following factors: (1) The economic

condition of the area from which such schools draw attendance; (2) the needs of

pupils in such schools for free or reduced price lunches; (3) the percentages of free

and reduced price lunches being served in such schools to their students; (4) the

cost of lunches in such schools as compared to the average cost of school lunches
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 5

throughout the State; and (5) the need of such schools for additional assistance as

reflected by the financial position of the school lunch programs in such schools.

"(c) In the case of any State which is not permitted by law to disburse funds paid to it under this section to nonprofit private schools, the Secretary shall withhold from the funds apportioned to such State under this section an amount w hich

bears the same ratio to such funds as the number of such free and reduced price

lunches served in the preceding fiscal year by all nonprofit private schools participating in the program under this Act in the State bears to the number of such

free and reduced price lunches served during such year by all schools participating

in the program under this Act in the State. The Secretary shall select nonprofit

private schools in each such State and shall determine the amounts which shall be

paid to each such school from time to time from amounts so withheld, on the basis

of the same factors set forth in subsection (b)."

SEC.. 7. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on July 1, 1962.

Passed the House of Representatives June 6, 1962.

Attest:

RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER,

Chairman, 

Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

U.S. Senate.

DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: This is in reply to your request for a report on

S. 2442, a bill to amend the National School Lunch Act.

The Department recommends enactment of this bill.

S. 2442 provides for (1) a revision in the method of apportioning cash assistance

funds among the States and territories; (2) a revision in the method of dividing

a State's share of the cash assistance funds between public and private schools

for any State in which State law requires this Department to administer the

program in private schools; (3) adds a new section to the act authorizing a specific

appropriation to provide special assistance to especially needy schools; and (4)

extends the program to American Samoa.

With the exception of the last provision, S. 2442 is in accord with the Department's previous recommendations submitted to your committee in connection

with S. 347 and S. 1469.

We are also in accord with the provision of S. 2442, which would extend the

program to American Samoa. Such an extension was recommended by the

Study Mission to Eastern (American) Samoa, which was established pursuant to

Senate Resolution 330, 86th Congress.

We do, however, have two recommendations for revisions in the technical language of the bill. First, the effective date of the amendment needs to be changed

to make it consistent with the date of passage of the amendment.

Second, because the allotment of funds to any State or territory under S. 2442

depends upon previous participation in the program, special provision would need

to be made for American Samoa.

We recommend that the following change be made in section 2 of S. 2442:

Amend the last sentence of section 2 to read as follows:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, (1) for the fiscal

year ending June 30, 1962, one-half of the funds available for apportionment

among the States shall be apportioned on the basis of the factors used prior to

such fiscal year, and one-half of such funds, and any funds available for further

apportionments, shall be apportioned in accordance with the foregoing provisions,

and (2) for the five fiscal years beginning June 30, 1962, the amount apportioned

to American Samoa shall be $25,000 each year, which amount shall be firs

deducted from the funds available for apportionment in determining the amounts

to be apportioned to the other States."

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission

of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES S. MURPHY, Acting Secretary.

Senator JORDAN. Senator Hart, we are glad to have you here, sir.

Senator Burdick, we will be glad to hear from you at this time, sir.

85640-62--2

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., September 7, 1961.
6 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

STATEMENT OF HON. QUENTIN N. BURDICK, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

I appreciate the convenience you have provided in hearing me first.

I want to say I appear on behalf of S. 2442, which was sponsored

by Senator Oren Long and myself. I know the committee is very

busy.

In order to save time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that

my prepared statement may appear in the record.

Senator JORDAN. It is ordered.

(The prepared statement of Senator Burdick is as follows:)

THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

One of the most effective and widely accepted programs in the country is the

national school lunch program. Some 30 years ago the Federal Government

began assistance to school feeding operations primarily as a constructive outlet

for surplus foods that could not be profitably moved by farmers through the

normal channels of trade. From these tentative and experimental beginnings,

it became increasingly apparent that this approach offered a variety of benefits

to the country as a whole.

The Congress continued its assistance to this program because of its demonstrated effectiveness. In establishing the program on a permanent basis with the

passage of the National School Lunch Act in 1946, the Congress had two objectives

in mind—safeguarding the health and well-being of the Nation's children and promoting the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities. The program

has achieved both of these objectives in an admirable manner. Not only has improved nutrition resulted in students who are more alert and receptive to teaching, but the program has tended to establish a pattern of food habits that carries

through after the school years. The program serves, too, as a constantly expanding market for farmers, and it has broadened the base of that market by introducing local or regional foods to the far corners of the country.

Yes, this is a program which I wholeheartedly support. I am proud to be

identified with it. And I feel that the pending proposals before the Congress

will make it an even more effective program.

Senator Long and I believe the legislation presently under consideration will

accomplish this through a revision of the formula used for the apportionment of

funds. The formula now in effect has led to discrepancies among the States that

violate the purposes intended by the National School Lunch Act.

The formula now in effect takes into consideration (1) school age population,

and (2) per capita income of the State. No consideration is presently given to

the number of meals served in the school system of a State. If two States have

equal school age population and equal per capita income, they are allocated

equal amounts of money even though one State serves twice as many meals as

the other. This has resulted in a discrepancy in cash assistance of from 2 cents

per meal as a minimum to 9 cents per meal as a maximum.

The amendments we propose would substitute for "school age population"

in the formula the more realistic factor of the number of lunches served in the

States in the preceding year. A State's need would still be determined by equating its per capita income with that of the per capita national income. I urge its

adoption.

I am proud of the part that the communities and the children of my own State

play in the school-lunch program. Nearly one-half of our North Dakota children

enrolled in primary and secondary schools are participating in it. This compares

with the national average participation of about one-third of the children. This

past school year, 636 North Dakota schools served lunches to 77,083 children

daily. This represents over 1234 million lunches yearly. And over 13 percent

of these lunches were served free or at reduced price to children who otherwise

would not be able to receive the nutritional benefits.

This year, in North Dakota communities, the program provided a local market

for food in the amount of $2,150,000—a significant contribution to my State's

economy. The Federal Government's contribution to North Dakota was

$432,443 in cash and about $825,000 worth of donated foods.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 7

The program's contribution to the Nation as a whole is equally impressive.

As a result of a congressional appropriation of $170 million for the current fiscal

year, the program engendered a local food market in the amount of approximately

$610 million—more than three-fourths of all the food used in school lunch programs. In addition, it provided a constructive outlet for about $111 million

worth of foods acquired by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under price support

and surplus removal operations. Through this program nationally, more than

14 million children have had the opportunity of eating a nutritious lunch at school

each day—in many instances, the only adequate meal they received all day.

The entire Nation gains from this program because it helps assure a strong wellfed youth, a larger income for the farmer, a huge market for the food trades, jobs

for the lunchroom personnel, employment for related industries, constructive

outlets for abundant commodities, a well-nourished student who is more receptive

to instruction, and a healthier Nation. The program, of course, could not have

been possible were it not for the cooperation and support given to it by the Congress, by State and local governments, by local school administrators and classroom teachers, by producers and food trade groups, and by civic and social

organizations. This is truly a national program.

Senator JORDAN. I might say that Senator Long is sick and cannot

be here. I would like to say it will appear in the record immediately

after yours.

Senator BURDICK. That was my intention, to offer his statement

at this time.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the merits of the

national school lunch program. The principal change made in the

new legislation over existing legislation is the basis of allocation of

funds. The formula now in effect takes into consideration one, school

age population and two, per capita income of the State.

No consideration is presently given to the number of meals served

in the school system of a State. If two States have equal school age

population and equal per capita income, they are allocated equal

amounts of money, even though one State serves twice as many

meals as the other. This has resulted in a discrepancy of cash

assistance of from 2 cents per meal as a minimum to 9 cents per meal

as a max mum.

We feel that the formula based upon meals served instead of population is far more equitable and will give an incentive to use the program and to broaden the program.

We urge a favorable consideration of the new formula.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you very much.

Senator Hart, have you any questions?

Senator HART. Thank you, no, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you very much, Senator Burdick.

The statement of Senator Long will be inserted at this point.

STATEMENT FILED BY THE HONORABLE OREN E. LONG, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee in support of the bills you are considering to revise the National School

Lunch Act. It has been my privilege to introduce three such bills in the Senate.

These bills were: S. 3700 in the 86th Congress, and S. 371 and S. 2442 in the 87th

Congress. Since my introduction, with Senator Burdick, of S. 2442, a very similar

bill (H.R. 11665) has passed the House of Representatives.

While the bills I have introduced on this subject have varied in some details,

they have one major characteristic in common with each other and with H.R.

11665. This characteristic is a change in the formula under which Federal assistance to the school lunch program is distributed. At the present time the distribution depends upon two factors: per capita income and number of school-age

children in the several States. I certainly have no quarrel with the first of these

factors, but I consider the total number of schoolchildren to be an unrealistic
8 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

and inequitable measurement. Hence, I have advocated, and S. 2442 and H.R.

11665 both provide, that the number of meals actually served replace the number

of children as the second factor in the distribution formula.

To me, this change is only simple justice. It makes actual, rather than potential, use of the program the determining factor. This change would have, in my

opinion, at least two salutory effects: (1) It would provide a real incentive for

States to develop and enlarge their school lunch programs; and (2) it would put

an end to the discrimination that the present program has tended to impose on

those States where the school lunch program is most fully developed.

It is obvious that incentives for development of State programs would be

stimulated by the change. At present, a State receives as much assistance for a

program in which hardly any students participate as it would if that program were

several times larger. If assistance were to depend upon the size of the program,

as the bills before you provide, then each State will have a real reason for expanding their programs to the nutritional benefit of their entire populations.

The equity argument is, I think, at least as strong. Reliance upon total number of children as a criterion has resulted in great distortion of the relative assistance received by the various States. One of the best measurements of this is the

average per meal rate of assistance, which now ranges from 8.5 cents in the District

of Columbia and 7.9 cents in Rhode Island to less than 3 cents in Iowa and Louisiana and a mere 1.9 cents in my own State of Hawaii. I submit, Mr. Chairman,

that less than 2 cents per lunch is a very small pittance with which to reward the

school system of Hawaii for having one of the most complete and successful lunch

programs in the United States.

I would like to take another minute to discuss the inclusion of American Samoa

in this program, as proposed by both S. 2442 and H.R. 11665. Two years ago

I had the privilege of being chairman of a special committee that toured the

Pacific areas and spent some time studying the problems of this remote territory.

Partly because of my lifelong involvement in public education, I was particularly

struck by the difficulties under which the schools operate in Samoa. It was

obvious that one of those difficulties was the absence of certain auxiliary programs

that are commonplace in the United States proper. Among these programs I

would assign the school lunch program preeminent importance especially in an

area where incomes are low and there is little public understanding of the impact

of nutritional deficiences on the community. I therefore feel strongly that

inclusion of American Samoa in this program would be one of the most forwardlooking steps we could take.

Finally, I would like to endorse the special assistance program incorporated in

section 6 of H.R. 11665. While I have not worked on this particular part of the

bill as much as on others, I am in complete sympathy with its objectives. There

are few experiences in a teacher's life sadder than seeing children try to learn

when they are without proper food, and perhaps none sadder than seeing those

same children try to look the other way when their more fortunate comrades are

enjoying their midday meal. Section 6 would go a long way toward correcting

this situation, and it would, I believe, have great humanitarian and educational

value. It has my wholehearted approval.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge your subcommittee to approve the

bill before you. In his agricultural message to the Congress on March 16, 1961,

President Kennedy recommended very much the same thing in these words:

"An expansion of the school lunch program, with the increase going to those

schools providing a high proportion of free lunches because of the high level of

unemployment in their localities, and with a change in the allocation formula to

include, in addition to school age population and per capita income

'

the number

of children who actually receive school lunches. In this way the best possible

nutrition will be made available to every schoolchild, regardless of the economic

condition of his family or his local school district."

S. 2442 has the full endorsement of the Department of Agriculture and of all

school lunch officials from whom I have heard on the subject, and I understand

that H.R. 11665 does also. As evidence of additional support, I would like to

introduce for the record at this time, House Concurrent Resolution No. 24 of the

First Legislature of the State of Hawaii, budget session of 1962, urging adoption

of the measure. The people and the government of my State are solidly behind

this measure, which I sincerely hope will be enacted during this session of the

Congress. Thank you.

(The resolution is as follows:)
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 9

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the National School Lunch Act, Public Law 396, 79th Congress provides for grants-in-aid and other assistance to States in the establishment, maintenance, operation and expansion of school lunch programs; and

Whereas the allocation of funds to States participating in such school lunch

program is now based upon the total enrollment of school-age children; and

Whereas the States of Hawaii and Louisiana, with 70 percent of all public school

children participating, have the highest percentage of participation, thereby receiving a lower per capita appropriation under this act in comparison to States

who receive a greater per capita appropriation as a result of a lower percentage

of participation; and

Whereas the American School Food Service convention in San Francisco in

August of 1959 made a study of the school lunch program, which showed that

States like Hawaii favor a change in policy emphasizing the percentage of participation of school children rather than the total enrollment of school-age children;

and

Whereas it would be directly beneficial to all public school children of the

State of Hawaii that the policy of the National School Lunch Act be amended accordingly; and

Whereas the Honorable Oren E. Long, -U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has introduced bill No. S. 2442 in the U.S. Senate, and bill No. H.R. 8962 has been intro- duced in the U.S. House of Representatives to resolve the problem described herein: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the First Legislature of the State of Hawaii, budget session of 1962 (the Senate concurring), That this body hereby

respectfully requests the Honorable Senators from Hawaii, Oren E. Long and Hiram L. Fong, and the Honorable Representative from Hawaii, Daniel K.

Inouye, and all the Honorable Senators and Representatives of the U.S. Senate

and the U.S. House of Representatives, respectfully, to vote in favor of either

S. 2442 or H.R. 8962; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, U.S. Office of Education, the Honorable Senators from Hawaii,

Oren E. Long and Hiram L. Fong, and the Honorable Representative from Hawaii,

Daniel K. Inouye.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 24

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF HAWAII,

March 29, 1962.

We here'3y certify that the foregoing concurrent resolution was this day adopted

by the House of Representatives of the First Legislature of the State of Hawaii,

budget session of 1962.

ELMER F. CRAVALHO,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

SHIGETO KAMEMOTO,

Clerk, House of Representatives.

THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII,

April 9, 1962.

We hereby certify that the foregoing concurrent resolution was this day adopted

by the Senate of the First Legislature of the State of Hawaii, budget session of

1962.

W. H. HILL,

President of the Senate.

Wm. H. Yim,

Clerk of the Senate.

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Howard P. Davis, Director, Food Distribution Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

We are glad to have you with us, sir.
10 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

STATEMENT OF HOWARD P. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, FOOD DISTRIBUTION DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, sir. I have with me my deputy, Samuel

C. Vanneman.

Senator JORDAN. Glad to have you with us also.

Mr. DAVIS. We are pleased to appear before this subcommittee

to discuss the provisions of H.R. 11665, which was approved by the

House of Representatives on June 5, 1962.

This bill is identical in purpose, but not in specific language, to

S. 2442, introduced on August 18, 1961, by Senator Long of Hawaii

for himself and Senator Burdick, The Department reported favorably on S. 2442 in a letter to Senator Ellender, chairman of the

Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, dated September 7, 1961.

The Department recommends enactment of H.R. 11665, but, as

discussed later in this statement, we are recommending certain changes

in section 6 of this bill. This section authorizes special assistance to

schools drawing attendance from areas in which poor economic conditions exist.

It has been quite a number of years now since the Department

has appeared before this subcommittee to discuss the school lunch

program. Therefore, I should like to begin our presentation with a

brief review of past developments and progress under the program.

Federal assistance to school lunch programs began in the mid-1930's

when foods acquired by the Department under the authority of section 32 were donated to schools for use in school lunch programs.

In 1943, when wartime demand for food had virtually eliminated

surplus-removal purchase, the Department inaugurated a new program under which section 32 funds would be used to make cash payments to schools to help them to make local purchases of food.

In the next 3 fiscal years-1944 through 1946—the authority to

operate this type of cash reimbursement program with section 32

funds was provided in the annual appropriation act for the Department of Agriculture.

The National School Lunch Act was approved by the President in

June 1946. It placed responsibility for the administration of the

program in State educational agencies.

They select schools for participation, make agreements with participating schools, pay reimbursement claims from funds advanced to

the States by the Department, and generally supervise operations in

the local schools within the policies and regulations established by

the Department of Agriculture. The act did provide, however, that

the Department of Agriculture would continue to administer the

program in private schools in those States where, by State law, the

State educational agency was prohibited from disbursing funds to

private schools.

The Department now administers the private school program in

28 States and in the territory of Guam.

Other major features of the National School Lunch Act were:

(a) A specific formula for the distribution of cash assistance funds

among the States.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 11

(b) Direction to the Secretary of Agriculture to determine nutritional standards for lunches served. The type A lunch established

to meet these standards includes a half pint of milk, a protein-rich

food, fruits and vegetables, bread and butter or fortified margarine

(c) Direction to the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a maximum

rate of cash reimbursement for each lunch served in participating

schools.

(d) A requirement that lunches be served free or at a reduced

price to children unable to pay the prevailing price.

(e) A requirement that participating schools operate their lunch

programs on a nonprofit basis,

(f) Section 6 of the act gave the Secretary of Agriculture authority

to use a portion of the appropriation for the direct purchase of foods

for distribution to participating schools.

(g) Provision was made for the continued distribution of section 32

foods to participating schools. Also, section 416 of the Agricultural

Act of 1949 provides authority to donate to school lunch programs,

food commodities acquired under price support operations.

(h) The act also provided for the matching of Federal cash grants

from sources within the State at a 3 to 1 ratio beginning in 1955,

with downward adjustments for States having a per capita income

below the national average. The value of commodities donated to

schools does not have to be matched. Also, as interpreted on the

basis of legislative history, children's payments for lunches are considered as part of the matching funds.

The act provides that at least 75 percent of the annual appropriation be provided to states in the form of cash payments. Up to

3% percent can be used by the Secretary for his administrative expenses and the remaining amount, 21% percent, may be used to make

special purchases for the program as authorized by section 6.

In actual practice, more than the minimum amount is provided

to the states in the form of cash payments. Federal administrative

expenses this year are about 1.7 percent of the appropriation and the

amount reserved for section 6 purchases has been established at

approximately 15 million dollars for a number of years.

In 1962, for example, 85.7 percent of the appropriation was used for

cash reimbursement, or $12.4 million more than required under the

minimum 75 percent requirement.

Since 1959, Congress has also authorized the transfer of additional

sums of section 32 funds to supplement the section 6 direct procurement program. The following table shows the amount of Federal

cash and commodity food assistance available to the school lunch

program for this fiscal year:

Fiscal year 1961-62

Appropriation: Millions of dollars

Cash food assistance $98. 6

Purchase of sec. 6 commodities 14. 4

Special commodity funds:

Transfer from sec. 32 45. 0

Additional sec. 6 funds 10. 0

Sec. 32 and sec. 416 donations this year: Estimated cost 111. 0

Grand total 279. 0
12 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

With respect to the additional $10 million-made available for section

6 commodity purchases, the Congress authorized that up to $2Y2

million can be used to inaugurate a program of special assistance to

needy schools which because of poor local economic conditions (1)

have not been operating a school lunch program or (2) have been

serving free or at substantially reduced prices at least 20 percent of

the lunches to children.

State and local sources, exclusive of children's payments for lunches,

have also provided increasingly greater support to the lunch program.

At the present time, over $250 million is coming into the program

from these sources. Out of a total program cost of $1.2 billion for

this year, about 24 percent comes from the Federal Government, 55

percent from children, and 21 percent from State and local sources.

This year, 14.1 million children are participating in the program.

This represents about 32.5 percent of the children enrolled in elementary and secondary schools. Almost 2.4 billion lunches were

served to these children and 1 out of 10 of these lunches was

served free or at reduced prices to children who could not afford to

pay the full price of the lunch. Table I, attached to the statement,

provides a selected program statistics for 1946-47, the first year of

operations under the act, and for 1962-62, the current year.

The bill before this subcommittee is primarily concerned with a

new formula for apportioning cash food assistance funds among the

States and territories and with the addition of a new section to the

National School Lunch Act .which would authorize a program of

special assistance for schools which draw their attendance from areas

in which poor economic conditions exist.

Also involved is a new method of dividing a State's share of the

total cash assistance funds between public and private schools in any

State where State law is such as to make it necessary for the U.S.

Department of Agriculture to administer the lunch program in private

schools.

THE APPORTIONMENT FORMULA

As previously indicated, the National School Lunch Act now

prescribes the formula under which these cash assistance funds shall

be apportioned among the States and territories. The formula

involves two factors: (1) The school-age population in each State—

a measure of the maximum potential size of the program; and (2)

the relationship of each State's per-capita income to national percapita income—a measure of the relative need of the various States

for Federal assistance.

The act provides that States shall use these funds to reimburse

participating schools on the basis of the number of lunches served.

The maximum allowable payment of 9 cents for a type A lunch has

been established by Department regulations, but, this year, the

national average Federal cash assistance rate will be approximately

4.2 cents.

Because the program has grown faster in some States than in others

in actual practice the average per-meal rates of cash assistance any

State is able to pay to its participating schools out of its share of the

available cash funds tends to be related more to the rate of program

growth than to need, as measured by the per-capita income of a

State. In other words, the States share in the cash funds on the
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 13

basis of the number of school-age children in the State, adjusted by

relative need. However, they 6disburse the funds to schools on the

basis of the number of lunches served to those children who are

actually participating in the program.

Thus, a higher income State with below average participation may

be able to reimburse its schools with a higher average per-meal payment out of its share of the funds than can a lower-income State with

above average participation. The first column of table III illustrates

the effect of the current formula. States are ranked by income, from

the highest to the lowest, together with the estimated average permeal rates of assistance that can be provided to schools by the various

States this school year.

Likewise, the act now provides that when a State's share of the

cash assistance funds must be divided between the public and private

schools, such a division be based upon the relative number of children

attending school in each type of school within the State. Here, too,

variations in the rate of school lunch growth can result in differences

within a State in the average rate of payment that can be provided

to public schools by the State and to private schools by the Department. This is a problem, of course, only in those States where it is

necessary for the Department to administer the program in private

schools.

The bill before the subcommittee would take differences in the rate

of program growth into account by substituting the factor of participation in the apportionment formula for the number of school-age

children. The cash assistance funds would be apportioned among the

States on the basis of the number of type A lunches served in each

State in the preceding year, with below-average income States receiving relatively more assistance per meal than average or above-average

income States.

In the proposed formula, the lower income States would be provided

with a larger per meal allowance by applying a value of five to each

lunch served in average or above-average income States and a higher

value, up to a maximum of nine in below-average income State.

In table II there is shown the resulting per meal payments that

would have been provided for 1962 under a total cash assistance fund

of $98.6 million, $118.6 million, and $139.9 million. Table III shows

the same data in dollar amounts.

As table III illustrates, the minimum rate assigned to any State

under the proposed formula is the rate assigned to the average-income

State. Also, the minimum rate in any year would depend upon the

amount of funds made available by the Congress for apportionment

to the States in that year. In 1961-62—referring again to table II—

the minimum rate would be 3.5 cents at $98.6 million; 4.2 cents at

$118.6 million and 5 cents at $139.9 million.

The same factor of participation—as measured by the number of

type A meals served in the preceding year—would be used to divide

funds between public and private schools within a State whenever

such a division is necessary. This would result in the same average

per meal rates of assistance for public schools and private schools, in

those States in which the program in private schools because of State

law, is directly administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

I**e have, as previously indicated, provided for a 1-year transition

from the 

. 

old to 

_ 

the new apportionment formula.. For the first year, . _

85640-,62---5
14 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

half of the cash assistance funds would be apportioned under the old

formula and half under the new method. For the second year, the

new formula would be fully effective. Table IV shows the possible

apportionments to States under the current and proposed formula

during the transition period.

One additional technical change is provided in the bill. Currently,

the income factor is measured by the per-capita income figures for the

latest year that can be certified by the Department of Commerce.

This bill provides that a 3-year moving average of per-capita income

shall be used in the apportionment formula, using the latest 3 years

available from the Department of Commerce. This change will

help eliminate abrupt year-to-year changes that now may occur in a

State's share of the available funds and, thus, help in the more orderly

development of the program.

We feel that these changes are desirable in order to correct inequities

that have developed, since 1947, in the application of the present

apportionment formula.

Currently, those States which have been most successful in extending

the program to more schools and to more children have found themselves in the position of having to spread available cash funds thinner

and thinner as the number of type A lunches steadily increased. This,

necessarily, has served to impede further development of the program.

We believe the proposed formula will provide an equitable basis for

the division of the amount of cash assistance funds that the Congress

annually will make available under the regular appropriate process.

EXTENSION TO AMERICAN SAMOA

The bill before the subcommittee would extend the school lunch

program to American Samoa. Such an extension was recommended

by the Study Mission to Eastern—American—Samoa, which was

established pursuant to Senate Resolution 330, 86th Congress. Because of the absence of a participation record, the bill provides that

$25,000 shall be reserved for use in American Samoa for each of the

first 5 fiscal years following enactment of the bill. Thereafter,

American Samoa would receive funds based upon actual participation

and relative need under the regular apportionment formula.

Almost 7,000 children are enrolled in elementary and secondary

public and private schools in American Samoa. Development of the

lunch program there may be slow and any rapid progress will probably depend upon the provision of more adequate school facilities.

Nonetheless, a beginning could be planned once Federal assistance

was available.

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE

Section 6 of H.R. 11665 would establish a new section 11 in the

National School Lunch Act.

The purpose of this section is to make special provisions for those

communities and those children that are least able to take advantage

of the school lunch program. These schools draw their attendance

from areas in which poor economic conditions exist and where a large

proportion of the children would need to receive free or substantially

reduced price meals if a school lunch program were to be operated.

Our experience has demonstrated that the 'amount, of cash as,sistance

that can no* be provided to these schools under the regular School
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 15

lunch assistance program, together with the limited amount of funds

that such communities can provide, is not sufficient to finance the

cost of serving school lunches to all of the children in the school who

need to receive lunch at no cost or at a token charge of, perhaps, a,

few pennies or 5 or 10 cents. The funds authorized to be appropriated under section 11 would be used by State educational agencies

to provide these schools .with sufficient Federal cash food assistance

to permit the needy children to have the benefits of an adequate

school lunch.

When H.R. 11665 was reported out by the House Committee on

Education and Labor, this new section 11 provided considerable ad--

ministrative authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to determine

the manner in which these funds were to be used.

However, the report accompanying the bill included guidelines for

the use of these funds which had been submitted to that committee

by the Department.

As you know, section 11 was substantially amended during the

course of House debate upon the bill to incorporate these guidelines

into the language of the bill. As passed by the House, the new section 11 contains provisions on the method to be used to apportion

funds appropriated for special assistance; outlines the factors to be

considered by State educational agencies in the selection of schools

for special assistance and in the determination of the amount of

assistance to be provided; and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture

to provide special assistance to such private schools in those States

where the program in private schools must be directly administered

by the Department of Agriculture.

The Department does not object to the inclusion of specific language

in the new section outlining the terms and conditions under which the

funds appropriated for special assistance will be apportioned to state

educational agencies and disbursed to schools.

We are, however, submitting for consideration by the subcommittee,

new language for this section which will make these guidelines more

definitive, provide clarifications we believe necessary in the language,

and permit the Department to effectively administer this added phase

of the school lunch program. Copies of the proposed new language

have been provided to the Committee with this statement.

We believe we can best present our recommendations by a subsection by subsection analysis of our recommended change.

Subsection (a) : This subsection authorizes an appropriation of

$10 million for 1963 and such sums as may be necessary in succeeding

fiscal years. This is in line with the appropriation authority provided

in the new section 11 as passed by the House.

Subsection (b) : This subsection reserves 3 percent of the funds appropriated for apportionment to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,

Guam, and American Samoa. In the House version this is the

maximum percentage that could be made available, but the Secretary

could apportion a lesser amount. Without operating experience, we

believe a specific percentage should be reserved for use in these territories.

This apportionment would be divided among these territories on

the basis of the number of free and reduced-price meals served, as

provided in H.R. 11665. However, the language clarifies the specific

manner in which this factor would be used to make such a division.
16 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

Also, because American Samoa will be participating for the first time

in 1963, a specific reserve of $5,000 is established for its use in 1963.

A new provision is included in this subsection to provide for the

return to the Department, during the course of each year, of any

unneeded funds initially apportioned to any territory, to be then paid

to other of the territories justifying the need for additional special

assistance funds.

Subsection (c): This subsection concerns the apportionment of the

remaining funds among the "States," other than Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

As passed by the House, 97 percent of the appropriation would be

apportioned among these States on the basis of three factors: (1) The

relative number of free or reduced-price lunches served in the preceding fiscal year; (2) the need of students for free and reduced-price

lunches; and (3) the assistance need rate, which is a value between

5 and 9 as used in the new formula to apportion regular cash assistance funds.

At this time, and without operating experience, the Department is

not in a position to develop a statistical measurement of the unmet

need for free or reduced-price lunches as would be required by the

second of these factors. Therefore, we are proposing an alternative

method to insure each State a share of the available funds, and, at

the same time, recognize that the unmet needs for free and reducedprice lunches may be relatively greater in some States than in others.

Subsection (c) would initially apportion not less than 50 percent of

the funds to these States on the basis of the number of free oi reducedprice lunches served in each State in the preceding fiscal year and the

assistance need rate—the first and third factors contained in the House

version of the bill.

The remaining amount would be held in reserve by the Secretary

to be apportioned in the same manner to those States justifying the

need for additional funds over and above their initial apportionment.

In this manner, assurance is provided that schools with a similar

degree of need in all States can be helped under this special assistance

program.

Also, this subsection would be, as does subsection (b), provide for

the return during the course of the year of any unneeded funds

initially apportioned to each of the States.

Senator JORDAN. May I ask a question at that point?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. That unused portion, is that reapportioned to

other States, or does it just come back to the Treasury as unused

funds?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; that would be returned for possible use in the

other States.

Senator JORDAN. Suppose the other States do not need it?

Mr. DAVIS. If it were not needed by the other States, it then would

return to the Treasury.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 17

Senator JORDAN. Of course, they could say they needed it if it is

free money.

Mr. DAVIS. Except that we would require a justification of their

need on the basis of the schools that they had which satisfied these

criteria that are contained in the section.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS. Subsection (d): This subsection is intended to provide

clear authority to the Secretary to pay to States any special assistance

funds apportioned to it. Payments would be made in the manner

authorized for the payments of regular cash assistance funds to

States—through a certification by the Secretary to the Secretary of

the Treasury.

Subsection (e): This subsection retains the five factors included in

the House version of the bill which are to be considered by State

educational agencies in selecting schools for special assistance and in

determining the amount of special assistance to be provided. However, the language we are recommending clarifies the intent of the

Department that these funds shall be used for food assistance. Also,

as is the case in the regular food assistance program, it is provided

that the Secretary will establish a maximum amount that may be paid

to any school for each type A lunch that is served to attending

children.

Subsection (f): This subsection retains the provisions in the House

version of the bill pertaining to the operation of the special assistance

program in private schools in those States in which the Department

must directly administer the private school lunch program.

Subsection (g): This subsection provides that the special assistance

program shall be administered in the same manner as the program of

regular assistance and that schools shall meet the same operating

standards.

Specifically, it will carry over to the special assistance phase,

provisions in other sections of the act such as those requiring an

agreement between the Department and State educational agencies

and between selected schools and the State educational agency; the

keeping of necessary records and their availability for audit; and the

prohibitions against imposing any requirements with respect to the

curriculum of, or the methods of instruction used by participating

schools.

Also, schools receiving special assistance would be required to meet

the standards of operation established in section 9 of this act. These

concern such matters as the nutritional quality of the lunches served,

the nonprofit basis of lunchroom operations, the determination by

local school authorities of those children unable to pay the full price

of the lunch, and the prohibition against the physical segregation or

other discrimination against children receiving a free or reduced-price

lunch.

We appreciate the opportunity to make this statement and we will

be glad to answer any questions you may have.

(The attachments to the prepared statement of Howard P. Davis

are as follows:)
18 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

TABLE I.-Selected program statistics, fiscal years 1947 and 1962

Fiscal year

1947

Fiscal year

1962

preliminary

1. Total school enrollment (including territories) 

2. Participation:

(a) Number of schools 

(b) Number of children 

26, 606, 077

34, 144

4, 545, 129

43, 415, 735

64,447

14,090, 148

(c) Number of children as a percent of total enrollment 17 32. 5

3. Local food purchases by schools $128, 648,278 $610. 000,000

4. Total cost of program:

A. Federal contributions:

(a) Cash payments to States 1 $59, 896,235 $98, 600,000

(6) Sec. 6 procurement 5, 735, 269 69, 434, 000

(c) Surplus commodities 2, 312, 479 111, 000, 000

(d) Administration 2, 075, 000 1, 966, 000

Total Federal contribution 70,018, 983 281, 000, 000

B. State contributions:

(a) Children's payments 112, 540,000 650, 000, 000

(b) State and local government 20, 616,000 100, 000, 000

(c) Other local 17, 532,000 150, 000, 000

Total State contribution 150, 688, 000 900, 000, 000

C. Grand total cost of program 1 220, 706, 983 1, 181, 000, 000

1 Does not include $9,702,990 for equipment.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 19

TABLE IL-Average per meal rate of assistance under present formula for

apportionment and under proposed formula

[Cents]

State 1

With a cash assistance fund of- 2

$98.6 million $118.6 million $139.9 million

Present

method

Proposed

method

Proposed

method

Proposed

method

Delaware 3. 0 3. 5 4. 2 5.0

District of Columbia 8. 5 3. 5 4. 2 5.0

Connecticut 3. 9 3. 5 4. 2 5.0

Nevada 4.9 3. 5 4.2 5.0

New York 3. 4 3. 5 4. 2 5.0

California 5.0 3. 5 4. 2 5.0

Alaska 5.4 3. 5 4.2 5.0

New Jersey 6. 8 3. 5 4. 2 5.0

Illinois 4.6 3.5 4.2 5.0

Massachusetts 3.8 3. 5 4.2 5.0

Maryland 4.2 3. 5 4.2 5.0

Ohio 4.3 3.5 4.2 5.0

Michigan 5.6 3.5 4.2 5.0

Washington 3. 7 3. 5 4.2 5.0

Colorado 3.3 3. 5 4. 2 5.0

Pennsylvania 4. 9 3. 5 4. 2 5. 0

Oregon 3.4 3.5 4.2 5.0

Wyoming 3. 3 3. 5 4.2 5.0

Missouri 3.0 3. 5 4. 2 5.0

Rhode Island 7. 9 3.6 4. 3 5. 1

Indiana 3. 8 3. 6 4. 3 5. 1

Hawaii 1.9 3.7 4.4 5.2

Wisconsin 4. 3 3. 7 4. 4 5.2

Nebraska 3.9 3. 7 4. 5 5.3

New Hampshire 4.4 3. 8 4. 6 5. 4

Minnesota 3. 1 3. 8 4. 6 5.3

Kansas 3. 7 3.8 4. 6 5.4

Montana 5. 3 3. 8 4. 6 5. 4

Arizona 3. 9 3. 9 4. 7 5. 6

Iowa 2. 9 3, 9 4. 7 5. 6

Guam 5.4 4.0 4.8 5.7

Florida 3.0 4.0 4. 8 5. 7

Texas 5. 8 4.0 4. 8 5. 7

Utah 3. 8 4. 1 4. 9 5. 8

Maine 4.6 4.2 5.1 6.0

Vermont 5. 9 4. 2 5. 1 6. 0

Virginia 3. 9 4. 2 5. 1 6.0

Oklahoma 4. 1 4.2 5. 1 6.0

Idaho 4.3 4.2 5.1 6.0

New Mexico 4. 6 4. 3 5.2 6. 1

South Dakota 5. 1 4. 4 5. 3 6.3

North Kakota 3,4 4, 4 5.3 6.3

West Virginia 5. 2 4. 7 5. 6 6. 6

Louisiana 2.6 4.7 5.7 6.7

Georgia 3. 3 4. 9 5. 9 7.0

North Carolina 3. 4 5. 1 6. 1 7.2

Tennessee 4. 5 5. 1 6. 1 7,2

Kentucky 4. 0 5. 1 6. 1 7.2

Alabama 4. 6 5. 4 6. 4 7.6

South Carolina 3. 9 5. 7 6. 9 8. 1

Arkansas 4. 5 5. 8 7.0 8.3

Mississippi 5.2 6.3 7.6 9.0

Virgin Islands 3.7 6. 3 7. 6 9.0

Puerto Rico 8. 1 6.3 7. 6 9.0

U.S. total 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.9

1 States ranked in order from highest to lowest per capita income average for latest 3 years, 1958, 1959, 1960.

2 Based on estimated meals in fiscal year 1962.
20 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

TABLE M.-Payments to States under present formula for apportionment and

under proposed formula

[Thousand dollars]

State'

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Connecticut 

Nevada 

New York 

California 

Alaska 

New Jersey 

Illinois 

Massachusetts 

Maryland 

Ohio 

Michigan 

Washington 

Colorado 

Pennsylvania 

Oregon 

Wyoming 

Missouri 

Rhode Island 

Indiana 

Hawaii 

Wisconsin 

Nebraska 

New Hampshire 

Minnesota 

Kansas 

Montana 

Arizona 

Iowa 

Guam 

Florida 

Texas 

Utah 

Maine 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Oklahoma 

Idaho 

New Mexico 

South Dakota 

North Dakota 

West Virginia 

Louisiana 

Georgia 

North Carolina 

Tennessee 

Kentucky 

Alabama 

South Carolina 

Arkansas 

Mississippi 

Virgin Islands 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. total

With a cash assistance fund of-

$98.6 million $118.6 million $139.9 million

Present

method

Proposed

method

Proposed

method

Proposed

method

159 186 224 264

215 89 108 126

926 833 1,002 1,182

106 76 92 108

1,834 6,070 7,302 8,614

6, 143 4,376 5,263 6,209

92 60 72 84

2,325 1,209 1,454 1,716

3,977 3,079 3, 704 4,369

2,079 1,935 2,327 2,745

1,455 1,222 1,470 1,734

4, 569 3, 738 4, 496 5, 304

3,858 2,423 2,915 3,438

1,392 1,330 1,600 1,887

873 926 1,114 1,314

5,257 3,757 4,519 5,332

893 938 1,128 1,331

175 191 230 270

2,049 2, 376 2, 858 3, 372

395 180 217 256

2,402 2, 295 2, 760 3, 256

354 677 815 961

2,063 1,765 2,124 2,509

734 714 859 1,013

313 269 323 381

1,910 2,349 2,825 3,333

1,161 1,185 1,426 1,681

406 291 350 412

807 822 989 1, 166

1,567 2,078 2,499 2,949

72 54 65 7E

2,671 3,605 4,336 5,111

5,820 4,077 4, 904 5, 785

604 650 782 922

580 532 640 755

237 172 207 243

2,460 2,663 3,203 3,771

1,406 1,448 1,742 2,051

465 460 553 652

697 659 792 939

426 372 447 52/

430 559 672 792

1,366 1,236 1,487 1,754

2, 501 4, 491 5,402 6, 373

2,988 4,485 5, 394 6, 364

3,598 5,364 6,452 7,611

2,686 3,044 3.661 4,311

2,342 2, 966 3, 567 4, 201

2,779 3,241 3,898 4, 591

2,270 3,343 4,021 4,741

1,582 2,053 2,469 2,911

2,403 2,966 3, 568 4, 201

38 64 77 91

3,690 2,657 3, 196 3, 771

98, 600 98,600 118,600 139, 90(

1 States ranked in order from highest to lowest per capita income average for latest 3 years, 1958, 1959, and

1960.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 21

TABLE IV.-Payments to States under present formula for apportionment and under proposed formula during transition period 1

[Thousand dollars]

S tatQlWith a cash assistance fund of-

$98.6 million $118.6 million $139.9 million

Present

method

Proposed

method

Proposed

method

Proposed

method

Delaware_ 159 172 208 245 District of Columbia 215 152 183 216 Connecticut 926 879 1,058 1,248 Nevada 106 91 110 130 New York _ 5,834 5,952 7, 160 8,445 California 6, 143 5,259 6,326 7, 462 Alaska 92 76 91 107 New Jersey_ 2,325 1, 767 2, 125 2, 507 Illinois 3, 977 3, 528 4, 244 5,006 Massachusetts 2, 079 2, 007 2, 414 2, 848 Maryland 1, 455 1,339 1, 610 1,899 Ohio 4, 569 4, 154 4,996 5, 894 Michigan 3,858 3, 140 3, 778 4, 456 Washington 1,392 1,361 1,637 1,931 Colorado 873 900 1,082 1, 277 Pennsylvania 5, 257 4, 507 5,421 6,395 Oregon 893 916 1, 101 1,299 Wyoming 175 183 220 260 Missouri 2,049 2,212 2, 661 3, 139 Rhode Island 395 288 346 408 Indiana 2, 402 2,349 2,825 3,332 HawaiL 354 516 620 732 Wisconsin 2,063 1,914 2,303 2, 716 Nebraska 734 724 871 1, 207 New Hampshire 313 291 350 412 Minnesota 1, 910 2, 129 2, 561 3, 021 Kansas 1, 161 1, 173 1,411 1, 665 Montana 406 348 419 491 Arizona 807 815 980 1, 156 Iowa 

Guam 1, 567 1,822 2, 192 2, 585

72 63 76 90 Florida 2, 671 3, 138 3, 774 4, 452 Texas 5,820 4,949 5,952 7,021 Utah 604 627 754 889 Maine 580 556 669 789 Vermont 237 205 246 290 Virginia 2, 460 2, 562 3, 081 3, 635 Oklahoma 1,406 1,427 1, 717 2, 025 Idaho 

New 

465 462 556 656 Mexico 697 678 815 962 South Dakota 426 399 480 566 North Dakota 430 494 595 701 West Virginia 1,366 1,301 1, 565 1,846 Louisiana 2, 501 3, 496 4,205 4, 960 Georgia 2, 988 3, 736 4,494 5,301 North Carolina_ 3, 598 4,481 5, 390 6,358 Tennessee 2, 686 2, 865 3, 446 4, 065 Kentucky 2, 342 2, 654 3, 192 3, 766 Alabama 2, 779 3, 010 3, 621 4, 271 South Carolina 2,270 2,806 3,376 3,982 Arkansas 1, 582 1,818 2, 186 2, 579 Mississippi 2,403 2,685 3,229 3,809 Virgin Islands_ 38 51 61 72 Puerto Rico 3,690 3, 173 3,817 4, 503

U.S. total 98, 600 98,600 118,600 139, 900

I Represents an apportionment of funds, M under the present formula and M under the proposed formula.

1 States ranked in order from highest to lowest per capita income average for latest 3 years, 1958, 1959, and 1960.
22 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE FOR SECTIQN 6 OF H.R. 11665 ESTABLISHING A

NEW SECTION 11 OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT

SEC. 11. (a) .There is hereby authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and such sums as may be necessary for each

succeeding fiscal year to provide special assistance to schools drawing attendance

from areas in which poor economic conditions exist, for the purpose of helping

such schools to meet the requirement of section 9 of this Act concerning the service

of lunches to children unable to pay the full cost of such lunches.

(b) Of the sums appropriated pursuant to this section for any fiscal year,

3 percentum shall be available for apportionment to Puerto Rico, the Virgin

Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. From the funds so available the Secretary

shall apportion to each such State an amount which bears the same ratio to the

total of such funds as the number of free or reduced-price lunches served in accordance with section 9 of this Act in such State in the preceding fiscal year bears to

the total number of such free or reduced-price lunches served in all such States in

the preceding fiscal year: Provided, That for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963,

$5,000 shall be apportioned to American Samoa, which amount shall be first

deducted from the total amount available for apportionment under this subsection.

If any such State cannot utilize for the purposes of this section all of the funds

apportioned to it, the Secretary shall make further apportionment on the same

basis as the initial apportionment to any such States which justify the need for

additional funds for such purposes.

(c) Of the remaining sums appropriated pursuant to this section for any fiscal

year, not less than 50 per centum shall be apportioned among States, other than

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, on the basis of the

following factors for each State: (1) the number of free or reduced-price lunches

served in accordance with section 9 of this Act in the preceding fiscal year, and

(2) the assistance need rate. These factors shall be applied in the following

manner: First, determine an index for each State by multiplying factors (1) and

(2); second, divide this index by the sum of the indexes for all such States; and,

third, apply the figure thus obtained to the total funds to be apportioned. Any

funds so initially apportioned which cannot be utilized for the purposes of this

section by the State to which apportioned, together with any other funds available

for apportionment pursuant to this subsection (c), may be further apportioned by

the Secretary on the same basis as the initial apportionment to such States which

justify the need for additional funds.

(d) Payment of the funds apportioned to any State under this section shall be

made as provided in the last sentence of section 7 of the Act.

(e) Funds paid to any State during any fiscal year pursuant to this section shall

be disbursed to selected schools in such State to assist such schools in the purchase

of agricultural commodities and other foods. The selection of schools and the

amounts of funds that each shall from time to time receive (within maximum per

lunch amounts established by the Secretary) shall be determined by the State

educational agency on the basis of the following factors: (1) The economic condition of the area from which such schools draw attendance; (2) the needs of pupils

in such schools for free or reduced-price lunches; (3) the percentages of free and

reduced-price lunches being served in such schools to their pupils; (4) the prevailing price of lunches in such schools as compared with the average prevailing price

of lunches served in the State under this Act; and (5) the need of such schools

for additional assistance as reflected by the financial position of the school lunch

programs in such schools.

(f) If in any State the State educational agency is not permitted by law to disburse funds paid to it under this Act to nonprofit private schools in the State, the

Secretary shall withhold from the funds apportioned to such State under subsections (b) or (c) of this section an amount 'which bears the same ratio to such funds

as the number of free and reduced-price lunches served in accordance with section 9

of this Act in the preceding fiscal year by all nonprofit private schools participating

in the program under this Act in such State bears to the number of such free and

reduced-price lunches served during such year by all schools participating in the

program under this Act in such State. The Secretary shall disburse the funds so

withheld directly to the nonprofit private schools ithin such State for the same

purposes and subject to the same conditions as are applicable to a State educational

agency disbursing funds under this section.

(g) In carrying out this section, the terms and conditions governing the operation of the school lunch program set forth in other sections of this Act shall be

applicable to the extent they are not inconsistent with the express requirements of

this section.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 23

Senator JORDAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator Hart?

Senator HART. Mr. Davis, concern has been expressed to me that

somehow or other, in the older areas of large urban centers, specifically in those places in the big city where the needs presumably of

the children in attendance are greatest, the school building is oldest

and lacks the facilities which enable the school district to make use of

these foods. They are old buildings, they do not have cafeterias,

some have no assembly halls, certainly no kitchens.

Have you any suggestions as to how the Department could help

develop participation in these areas?

Is there any pilot project that you have on your shelf that you

might be able to suggest?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, we have been quite concerned over this problem

for a number of years, and you are quite right, this condition does

exist in many of our large cities, particularly in the northeastern part

of the country. There are any number of cities where they have

these old buildings that were built on a neighborhood basis for the

children to go home for lunch. This was before the advent of the

large numbers of working mothers, and the building is so old that

they are attempting to get new buildings and they do not want to

put any substantial improvements in those buildings, such as kitchens,

even if they had the room for them.

We have in process at this time a rather substantial study of this

problem, particularly from the standpoint of central food preparation.

There are a number of cities who have solved this problem by preparing

foods centrally and then sending it out to the schools. The children,

in turn, can either eat in some special room that has been provided,

or even at their desks.

We have a rather specific study that will be completed within the

next month or two in Newark, Ohio. We also have studied the possibility, the problems and the advantages, of this sort of centralized

food preparation in a number of other cities—Oakland, Calif., in

Newark, as I mentioned. We have taken a long look at the way they

handle this very problem in New York City, where they serve some

well over 100,000 lunches a day by this centralized preparation and

then sending it out to these older schools. We also, under the program

that I mentioned in my statement that the Congress provided for

this current year, have been attempting to encourage the establishment of lunch programs in some of these areas through additional

commodity assistance.

For example, in your State, I think that in this pilot operation,

with this $2.5 million limitation that we have, we have some 14 schools

with an enrollment participation of slightly under 3,000 children.

Now, these are located, many of them, in large cities. There are six

of these schools in Detroit, for example. There they faced all of these

same problems, but with some ingenuity by the community and with

this special assistance that we were able to give them so that they

could serve the necessary free meals, they have had quite a successful

program this current year.

We feel, and we have so told the Appropriations Subcommittees

that we could do this same job on a larger scale much better with cash

assistance. It is much more flexible; they can provide better and

more varied meals. But we have found that it is possible—I think
24 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

Detroit is an outstanding example, and certainly the District of

Columbia has shown that it is possible in these cities, with these old

schools, with central preparation, with community support, that they

can, if they want to, establish school-lunch programs. This special

assistance, of course, would be particularly helpful in some of the

large cities, where whether they have been designated for area redevelopment, or whether they have extreme unemployment generally,

they still have these small pockets, these undeveloped neighborhoods,

these very low economic situations that would be able to take advantage of this special assistance. We could help those schools materially.

Senator HART. This special assistance, I take it, comes after a

request has been received from them, from the school district to you;

is that the normal course?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, actually, under the program this year, I believe

the State education officials and our Federal officials actually went

out to areas that they knew and explained the assistance that was

available and did make sure that they knew about it. Of course, the

school made up its own mind and applied.

Senator HART. The reason I pursue this, it is my information that

only about 10 percent of the school population in Detroit participates

in this Federal program, and tragically, of course, it is in the areas

where the need is most acute that there is lack of participation.

Does the Department have and would it be able to give the committee data showing the present participation in the so-called central

sections of these metropolitan centers of the country?

Is there any data that you have on that?

Mr. DAVIS. Ordinarily, of course, we deal entirely through the

State educational agency, so we do not get reports that would give us

that on the face of it. However, we do make a careful administrative

analysis of the operations in each State each year. We could get you

this information on a representative number of large cities. We do

not have it in any tabulation at this point, but we would be very happy

to get it for you.

Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I think it

would be very helpful to some of us to have this kind of information

for the file if not for the record.

Senator JORDAN. It it is possible, Mr. Davis, to furnish that

information, we would appreciate it and we will insert it in the record

at the conclusion of your remarks so that it will be available, not only

to the subcommittee but to the full committee.

Mr. DAVIS. We will be very happy to.

(The information is as follows:)
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 25

Participation in the national school lunch program by children in schools located in

a sample of large U.S. cities

Average daily Number of

attendance in children par- Percent of total

City elementary and ticipating in attendance parsecondary

schools

the national

school lunch

program

ticipating 1

Miami 166,935 102,718 61. 5

Philadelphia 241, 966 11, 585 4. 7

Boston 132,135 14,896 11.2

Detroit 288, 113 28, 766 9. 9

Chicago 299, 552 49,611 16. 5

Cleveland 139,959 (2) (2)

San Francisco 86,253 14,802 17. 1

Portland_ 68,849 15,665 22.7

1 A large portion of the participation in most of the large cities is in the junior and senior high schools

which, because they serve wide areas, are usually equipped with food service facilities. The relatively low

participation percentages for certain cities reflect the lack of food preparation facilities in the elementary

schools which generally serve neighborhood areas.

2 34 out of the 130 elementary schools in Cleveland have lunch programs but none of these schools participate in the national school lunch program. Therefore, information on participation is not available.

Senator HART. Under section 11, as you propose it now, do I

understand that you will continue to attempt to develop special

technical assistance aimed at this kind of problem?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; very definitely. We feel that the two elements

of the new bill would, on the one hand, insure the general run of

children who can afford to make the normal payment equal treatment

in all States, with perhaps a little additional help in the very needy

States. But beyond that, recognizing that even in those States, with

a relatively high per capita income, there are these special problems,

these pockets of very extreme economic need, and we would hope that

with—armed with this special cash assistance to assist these schools,

then the other element that we would be able to contribute would be

perhaps the impetus but more important, technical assistance in

making known to the schools or pointing out to these schools possible

ways in which they could establish a program, sharing with them the

experience of other similar communities that have perhaps put in this

centralized preparation system. And we feel, if I could digress just

one moment, that as we go along, the Federal contribution to this

program in the area of technical assistance to the States and to local

communities in regard to management, equipment, various buying

practices—the vast realm of technical assistance—is equally important

with the cash assistance that we will be able to provide for the total

program.

This we have been able to do on an increasing scale over the years,

still within, we are rather proud to say, a relatively small administrative cost.

Senator HART. Well, any study or recommendation that the Department can make to improve the utilization in these high-population

urban centers certainly would be helpful.

Mr. DAVIS. We certainly have a problem there that is equal to the

one-room school problem.

Senator HART. There are more bodies involved, though, That is

the additional trouble.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
26 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

Senator HART. On a technical point, ours is a State which does not

permit the distribution to the private schools, and I have been asked

to clarify whether it is your understanding that under the new section

11, the Secretary, in making the direct grant to the private school, can

include schools which do not have a record of previous participation.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. And we are speaking now, I take it, of just this.

special assistance feature.

Senator HART. Which I take it is the only one that you are involved

with?

Mr. DAVIS. No; we administer the regular program. We have

over the years. It is provided in the original legislation. We have

administered the program in 28 States in the private schools directly.

Now, we would propose to do the same thing in this bill; it would

provide that we do the same thing in regard to the special assistance.

Those schools which have never been able to have a lunch program,

we feel, represent the first priority; really, the sort of schools that we

would hope would take advantage of it.

Now, that is providing those schools meet these criteria as contained

in the act.

Senator JORDAN. In other words, the private schools to receive

direct assistance from the Federal Government would have to meet

the same standards as the public school?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Senator HART. And the fact that they have not heretofore participated would not render them ineligible?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. In fact, that is one of the things this bill is

aimed toward.

Senator JORDAN. The public schools not now availing themselves

of this can come under the program if they meet the standard and the

same thing applies to the private schools. It would come directly

under the Secretary of Agriculture in the States that prohibit it.

Do you have a list of such States?

Mr. DAVIS. We can provide a list. I do not have one with me.

Senator JORDAN. I would like to have that if you would supply it

for the record.

Mr. DAVIS. There are 28 such States and Guam.

(The information is as follows:)

STATES AND TERRITORIES IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HAS

DIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH

PROGRAM IN NONPROFIT PRIVATE (INCLUDING PAROCHIAL) SCHOOLS

Alabama Maine Pennsylvania

Arizona Maryland South Carolina

Arkansas Michigan Tennessee

Colorado Minnesota Texas

Delaware Montana Utah

Florida Nebraska Virginia

Guam Nevada Washington

Hawaii New Jersey West Virginia

Idaho North Dakota Wisconsin

Iowa Ohio

Senator HART. I know I am delaying this, but there is one last

thing I did not anticipate.

A Michigan colleague of mine in the House, Mr. O'Hara, offered

the amendment over there, which I take it, on your study, you now

recommend be, in effect, eliminated; and in its stead, provision be
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 27

made for 50 percent. This was the amendment that required the

need of students in such places for the reduced lunch. You are suggesting that that be stricken?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; but only on the basis that we recognize this

as an extremely important factor. We feel that we can accomplish

that factor much better with this provision for reserving 50 percent

in order to meet the need which we are not able to calculate ahead of

time.

In other words, if we were to use it as the element of need for free

or reduced-price lunches, as contained in the House version, we would

have to arrive at some quantitative measure in order to use that

apportionment formula.

Factors 1 and 3 are both specific factors that we can get figures on

and measure quantitatively. Now, we cannot measure, we do not

know the potential need for free or reduced-price lunches until we

have some experience.

It is entirely possible that as we go down the road and gain experience, we will be able to get some sort of quantitative measure for this.

As a matter of fact, as the program goes into operation in these

schools, the first factor, the number of free meals, will automatically

reflect this need.

But until we have some experience, we have at this moment no

way of calculating that potential, and we fell that it is quite important

that that be a factor in the use of these funds. We can do it much

better by letting the states go ahead and find the need and determine

the need, and then, as they report that to us, we can use the second 50

percent to help them meet that need.

Senator HART. I think I should indicate that I will study your

answer, your memorandum, and consult with Mr. O'Hara and see

what his reaction is.

Mr. DAVIS. We are entirely in agreement with his aim.

Senator HART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Senator Hart.

Senator YOUNG?

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. I am a supporter of this program, but I

want to ask about this proposed extension to American Samoa. I

fail to find any justification for that. You say it was recommended

by a study mission to eastern Samoa. Now, was this extension,

which will cost a proposed $125,000 of taxpayers' money, recommended by some bright boy in the Department who just came across

the idea that American Samoa was omitted and it would be a good

idea for someone feeding at the public trough here in the United

States to go far away to a lush country like Samoa and supervise

spending $125,000 over a period of 5 years to provide a lunch program

for 7,000 children there?

I feel that you should furnish this subcommittee with some evidence

that there is need for this. I have not been to Samoa, but I have

been in the Virgin Islands. I have been there a good many times.

It does not seem to me there is destitution prevalent down there that

I could observe. From all I have read and heard about American

Samoa, I am very doubtful if any children there are suffering from

malnutrition.

I think that the subcommittee is entitled to some evidence on that

subject.
28 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

Mr. DAVIS. I believe, sir, that there were extensive hearings on the

proposed new status for American Samoa, that has been put into

legislation as a result of this study committee that was authorized

by the Senate.

Now, it is my understanding that our only aim here was to bring

this particular piece of legislation, since it was coming in at this time,

into harmony with the legislation that was passed that included the

total status and Federal benefits that were being extended to American

Samoa in similar manner to the other territories.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. Perhaps it was a mistake to include

Guam in this. Perhaps there is not any destitution or malnutrition

there. If that is so, I suppose it occurred to someone that American

Samoa was the only little territory left out, so now, let's fill that in

and spend $125,000. I think we are entitled to some evidence on

the need for it.

Mr. DAVIS. I wonder if we might, Senator Young, insert or present

for the committee the pertinent portions of that report which apply

to the school lunch program?

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. I think this subcommittee should have

some evidence, because I personally would not feel justified in supporting this expansion without seeing some evidence, and I would

feel justified in offering an amendment to strike it out. I would like

to know why it is necessary for Guam and American Samoa. What

suffering and malnutrition exist there? You do not have to convince

me about parts of West Virginia and certain other sections of our

country. I am glad to say there are few in Ohio. But I am going

to clamp down on this if the idea is to just give someone a chance to

supervise over and enjoy himself in a so-called hardship post, which

is not a hardship post at all.

I think all the members of this subcommittee are entitled to have

some information on that.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, I have anything else.

Senator HART. I would be interested to see the information. But

it is not my notion that this is aimed at those who are suffering from

malnutrition.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. I understand the purpose of this. But

regarding American Samoa, is there a necessity for extending the

program to that far-off place? If none whatever, I think we would

be justified in striking it out. On the other hand, there may be a

justification for it. I would like to know, that is all.

(The information is as follows:)

INFORMATION AS TO THE NEED To EXTEND THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH

PROGRAM TO AMERICAN SAMOA

(Following excerpt is from page 104 of the report of the study mission to Eastern

(American) Samoa, by Senators Oren Long of Hawaii and Ernest Gruening of

Alaska (sec. VII, Federal Supplements to Education))

"In the field of nutrition, it is essential for an organized school lunch program

to be in effect in the entire public school system. Many children come to school

with little or nothing to eat. The subsistence economy under which most of the

children live will not permit them to get the proper nourishment during the school

day.

"American Samoa has recently been receiving available surplus foods from the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, and some efforts have been made to use these in

school lunches. The surplus foods supplied, however, have had to be limited

to nonperishable items because of the lack of refrigerated shipping space from
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 29

the mainland to American Samoa. These foods although welcome, have added to a diet that is already heavy in starches. The mere supplying of surplus foods does not permit the operation of a needed systematized school lunch program such

as is provided for by the National School Lunch Act. American Samoa is not

now eligible for participation under this act since the act does not apply to the territory. Legislation should be enacted to extend it to American Samoa in order that the nutritional and educational benefits of this law may become avail- able to the children of this territory."

NOTE.-Legislation to extend the application of certain laws has been passed by the House (H.R. 10062) and the Senate (S. 2440). Both bills provide for in- clusion of American Samoa under the National School Lunch Act.

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Davis, at that point, do you know whether

Samoa has public schools or are they all private schools?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; they have both.

Senator JORDAN. They have both?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. You do not know what percentage?

Mr. DAVIS. NO, I do not.

Senator JORDAN. Along with the information Senator Young asked

for, could you give us some estimate of that, and also in the Virgin

Islands and these other territories that are being brought in under this program or are now participating in this program?

Mr. DAVIS. You would like the participation figures for the terri- tories, the potential and public and private schools in Samoa?

Senator JORDAN. Yes; and these other territories that are now receiving assistance or coming in under this act.

Mr. DAVIS. Private and public, yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Senator Young, I just asked for the number, if possible, to get the information on how many—for instance, in American Samoa, how many public schools are there and how many

private schools. Some of these territories have practically no public

schools at all.

Senator YOUNG. That is right. I wondered about that.

Senator HART. I have heard it suggested that American Samoa is

one of our poorest advertisements; while we lash other world powers

about their obligations, we have done a wretched job with Samoa.

I would like to see something to evaluate this problem.

(The information is as follows:)

Number of children enrolled in public and nonprofit private schools (elementary and

secondary) in the territories

Public Private Total

Puerto Rico Guam Virgin Islands American Samoa 

581,204 14, 148 7,349

5,303

48,310 2,230 2,320 1,460

629, 514 16, 378 9, 669 6,763

Senator JORDAN. There is something else. Turn to page 14 on your

remarks there. Next to the last paragraph,

* * * the keeping of necessary records and their availability for audit; and the prohibition against imposing any requirements with respect to the curriculum of,

or the methods of instruction used by participating schools.

Is there anything in this bill that gives the Secretary of Agriculture

any right to say what they teach and what they do not teach?
30 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; in the original act and by amending section 11

to insure that that provision applies here also, the Secretary and the

Department of Agriculture were specifically prohibited from any

regulation or any attempted direction, any interference of any sort

with curriculum, what was to be taught, how, or anything in regard

to the educational phase of the school.

Senator JORDAN. That is in this bill?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. It was not—there is some question in the

House version of this section 11 as to whether these other provisions

of the act would apply to section 11. That is one reason why we felt

that it was important to expressly say in this section 11 that all the

other provisions of the act, as far as they were applicable, would also

apply to this section 11. This is one of them.

Senator JORDAN. Now, a little bit further down, right at the bottom,

* * * the determination by local school authorities of those children unable to

pay the full price of the lunch, and the prohibition against the physical segregation or other discrimination against children receiving a free or reduced-price

lunch.

Just what does that mean right there?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, sir, examples of what might be considered such

discrimination would be having these children eat in a separate

portion of the lunchroom, or perhaps giving them a different menu, a

lower-cost menu, or giving them a different colored ticket whenever

one—in many schools, they buy their lunch tickets for a whole week

at one time to reduce the money-handling problem. They could not

give the children receiving free lunches a red ticket while the rest of

the tickets were blue—anything that would distinguish that child

as being a recipient of a free• or a reduced price lunch is expressly

prohibited. We would want this to apply here also. Even though

half of the children might pay 10 cents for the lunch and the rest free,

and that 10 cents, a very nominal charge, we would still not want

them to discriminate between the two groups.

Senator JORDAN. That is solely for the purpose of not discriminating

between those who get free lunches and those who pay for their

lunches.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. It is not for segregation as to race or color and

so forth?

Mr. DAVIS. That is right.

Senator JORDAN. I think that is right.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. Another question has occurred to me.

Okinawa is governed entirely by our country. They have far more

children there in their public and private schools. How does it come

that that has been overlooked?

Mr. DAVIS. It has not been overlooked, sir. Under section 416 of

the Agricultural Act of 1949, which provides for donating foods to

schools in this country and to needy persons in this country, also

applies to those nations outside the territories, so that Okinawa is

receiving surplus foods under section 416 for help with their schools.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. I am not referring to that. This national school lunch program is in effect in various of the States, Puerto

Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam, and now American Samoa is added.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 31

1 do not see Okinawa anywhere. What explanation is there for that,

or is that next on the agenda to be added?

Mr. DAVIS. I believe, Senator, that Okinawa doesn't enjoy the

same legal status as the other territories in relation to Federal benefits.

Frankly, I am not well informed on this but that is my understanding.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. It is the most expensive real estate in

the entire world from the standpoint of fortifications and it is entirely

run by the U.S. Government. It is a very important outpost of our

country. That cannot be said about American Samoa. I am not

looking for places to spend more taxpayers' money, but someone is

evidently worrying about American Samoa, and I just wondered

about Okinawa. I am not asking for a report on that, but I feel this

subcommittee should have information on American Samoa, on the

public and private schools and their situation there.

Senator JORDAN. There is one other question I would like to ask,

Senator Young and Senator Hart. I understand—I am not positive

about this, but from information that I got when I was in Puerto

Rico, the public schools in Puerto Rico do not teach English in their

schools, which I think is a shame, because an American possession,

one of our territories, they do not even consider themselves Americans, they say they are Puerto Ricans, they cannot even speak English, many of them. I am opposed to putting school aid of any

description into a school that belongs to the United States and will

not teach English. ou know they have the problem of voting in

New York right now with the Puerto Ricans.

I would like to have a little information on that, and you can get

that, I am certain. I think if they are going to receive aid from the

United States, they ought to be able to speak English and say "I

would like to have a little bread" instead of calling it something other

than bread.

Senator HART. We have to watch that Federal control of the curriculum, now.

Senator JORDAN. We can get them to start teaching English in

the schools.

(The information is as follows:)

Most schools begin teaching English in the first grade, when the study of it is

optional.

Starting in the middle grades (about the seventh), the study of English is compulsory for a minimum of 5 years.

(Source: Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.)

Senator JORDAN. Are there any other questions?

Senator HART. No.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. No.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. If you will

supply this information for the record, we will appreciate it very much.

We thank you very much for your fine testimony.

Mr. Richard C. Shipman, assistant director, Legislative Services,

National Farmers Union.

Mr. Shipman, we are glad to have you with us and we will be glad

to hear from you.
32 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. SHIPMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Mr. SHIPMAN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator JORDAN. Do you have a copy of your prepared statement?

Mr. SHIPMAN. Yes.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. I have read it; it is a good statement, and

I am happy to say it is very brief.

MT. SHIPMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Richard

Shipman. I am assistant director of Legislative Services of National

Farmers Union. I appear here this morning as a representative of

James G. Patton, president of National Farmers Union, and speak in

behalf of 250,000 farm families who are members of our organization.

National Farmers Union wishes to express strong support for the

new methods of apportioning money to the States and the provisions

for special assistance to needy schools as contained in H.R. 11665

and S. 2442, amending the National School Lunch Act.

We also wish at this time to express our appreciation for the work

and wisdom of this committee in caring for the nutritional needs of

the Nation's children as evidenced by the success and growth of the

school lunch program. We in Farmers Union share this concern for

the future citizens of our country and have supported Federal policies

and programs designed to provide opportunity for the fullest attainment of the aspirations and needs of all.

Consistent with this principle, we believe the school lunch program

should, as rapidly as possible, be expanded and offered to every school

in the country and administered with equity to all areas with special

emphasis on need. We believe S. 2442 and H.R. 11665 are the first

step in that direction.

We believe the new formula will tend to encourage wider and more

equitable participation whereas the old formula tended to discourage

States from adding new schools to the programs.

The many depressed economic areas throughout the Nation have

been the subject of much congressional study and many efforts are

being made to alleviate the situation and eliminate the causes of the

poverty which exists there.

We favor the widest possible use of the school lunch program to see

that the diet of the children in all economically poor areas are kept at

a high level.

We believe it is necessary that the Secretary of Agriculture and the

States administer this new special-assistance feature of the school

lunch program in the same manner that has proved so successful

during the past 15 years.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, may we say we feel a real urgency in

seeing to it that in this land of plenty, every schoolchild should have

a good lunch and we believe that S. 2442 and H.R. 11665 will provide

the means for a more adequate program.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you very much. That is a fine statement,

and as Senator Young indicated, it is brief.

Senator Young, do you have a comment, sir?

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. I have no questions at all. I wish to compliment the witness on the fine statement he has made to our subcommittee. A statement like that really helps us.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 33

Senator JORDAN. Senator Hart?

Senator HART. Senator Young has put it very well.

Thank you.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate very

muchjyour appearing with that fine statement.

Senator Morse had intended to be here and file a statement, but

he could not be here. He is going to submit one and it will be incorporated in the record.

I would like to announce at the time that the record will be left

open for other statements to be filed at a later date.

Dr. Edgar Fuller, executive secretary of the Council of Chief State

School Officers could not be here to testify this morning and he will

file a statement.

Is there any other person to testify this morning?

(No response.)

Senator JORDAN. Gentlemen, I believe that concludes the testimony

this morning. I appreciate your being here and we will act on the

bill as soon as we can arrange it.

(Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject

to the call of the Chair.)

(Statements filed for the record are as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY HON. WAYNE MORSE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I come before you to urge that

favorable consideration be given H.R. 11665 and S. 2442. I have received word

from school authorities all over my State, including the Ashland public schools,

the Portland public schools, the Parkrose public schools, the Bandon public

schools, my own home town of Eugene, Oreg., the Milton-Freewater public school

system, the Redmond, Oreg., public school system, and the Crook County School

District, all of which supported the reallocation provided for in legislation.

Nor has this support from my State been confined to public school officials.

Many citizens from all parts of my State, as individuals and as members of farm

organizations have likewise strongly urged passage of this legislation.

Senator Dwight Hopkins of the Oregon State Legislature from Imbler, Oreg.,

for example, has urged that favorable consideration be given to this important

change in our school lunch program.

No opposition to the bills has been received by my office. In view of this unanimity of support, it is my hope that the committee will report a measure favorably.

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 18, 1962.

H011. EVERETT B. JORDAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Education,

Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Washington, D.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: It is a great pleasure for

me to support H.R. 11665 on behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The members of the council are the State superintendents and State commissioners

of education of the 50 States and the chief school officers of Puerto Rico, Virgin

Islands, Canal Zone, Guam, and American Samoa. They are the legal officers

of the States and territories for public elementary and secondary education and

will be responsible for State-level administration of this legislation.

The council has been a major proponent of this legislation since its inception.

Its purposes are within the general policies of the council, which has passed

specific resolutions during recent years in favor of supporting the National School

Lunch Act reforms provided in the House approved H.R. 11665. In this activity,

much of the work has been done by the directors of the State school lunch programs in the respective State departments of education. The development of

the legislation has also been in close cooperation with the American School Food

Service Association, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, the American

Parents Committee and other groups interested in this excellent program.
34 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS

It is our understanding that this legislation, in its present form, is as nearlynoncontroversial as legislation is likely to be. We have no doubt of its necessity

or about its beneficial operation either in regard to the school children who will

be served or in regard to agricultural communities that will supply the foodsrequired. There is an especial need for the bill at the present time in those

areas of the country where technological change and economic difficulties threaten

to deprive many children of the nourishment necessary for effective study.

We therefore appreciate the opportunity to support this legislation. We hope

it will be passed promptly by the Senate without complications that could delay

its final enactment into law, and that the new provisions will be implemented

with the additional funds required effective July 1, 1962. I am attaching for

inclusion in the record a copy of the resolutions passed without dissenting voteby the Council of Chief State School Officers at its annual business meetings in

recent years.

Sincerely,

EDGAR FULLER,

Executive Secretary, Council of Chief State School Officers.

RESOLUTIONS, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHOOL LUNCH LEGISLATION AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES ON JUNE 6, 1962

ADOPTED AT BOSTON, MASS., NOVEMBER 13, 1959

Improvement of school lunch finance and administration

The council commends the U.S. Department of Agriculture for its arrangements

with representatives of the States for discussions of the Federal-State administration of the national school lunch program and possible amendments to the

laws under which it operates. We are gratified that a study group composed of

State directors of school lunch programs and the executive secretary of the council

have been invited to cooperate with the Department of Agriculture in developing

suggestions for legislative and administrative improvements. The council urges

that the recommendations of the study group be presented to the national school

lunch advisers group for discussion as soon as feasible, and that the Department

of Agriculture and the administration consider a program of statutory revision

to be presented to the Congress in 1960.

Changes in Federal reimbursements

The council favors revision of the National School Lunch Act so that the

Federal cash reimbursement for type A lunches shall hereafter be identical for

public and nonpublic schools in each State. It also believes that Federal funds

should be distributed on a revised formula that takes into account pupil participation in the lunch program in relation to total enrollment in each State.

The council urges that cash reimbursements under the National School Lunch

Act be adjusted to provide payments of not less than 5 cents for each type A

meal, graduated upward to a maximum of 9 cents for each type A meal in States

with low per capita incomes. These reimbursements are necessary to maintain

and improve the national school lunch program under modern conditions, and

to meet Federal nutritional standards and free meal requirements under the law.

Federal funds for State administration

The council requests that the Department of Agriculture give consideration to

the possibility of providing funds to State departments of education on a matching

basis for school lunch administrative purposes. These funds would enable many

States to assume additional responsibilities in the field of auditing and the making

of administrative reviews of local lunch programs, and would thus expedite

further implementation of the council's agreement of 1947 with the Department

of Agriculture which called for a gradual increase in State responsibility for

effective local administration of the national school lunch program.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH FUNDS 35

ADOPTED IN SANTA FE, N. MEX., NOVEMBER 18, 1960

Amendments to National School Lunch Act

The council commends the Subcommittee on General Education of the U.S..

House of Representatives for the introduction of legislation to improve the.

National School Lunch Act and for the hearings on this legislation in August,.

1960. It reaffirms its support of legislation in accord with the principles of H.R.

13016 of 1960 and calls for enactment of similar legislation by the 87th Congress,.

together with authorization of appropriations adequate to place the program int

full effect beginning July 1, 1961.

ADOPTED IN BALTIMORE, MD., NOVEMBER 10, 1961

Federal financing of current and future programs

The council calls on Congress and the administration to provide adequate funds.

to the States for current programs in education and related fields, including

transfer funds for the purchase of agricultural commodities for school lunch

programs, school milk programs, vocational education, vocational rehabilitation

and assistance for construction, maintenance and operation of the public schools.

in federally impacted areas.

The council favors Federal funds for State administration of all Federal aid.

programs for education.

Amendments to Nationl School Lunch Act

The council commends its executive secretary for his outstanding contribution, in securing consideration of certain changes in the National School Lunch Act.,

It reaffirms its support of legislation in accord with the principles of H.R. 13016

of 1960 and calls for enactment of similar legislation by the Congress, together

with authorization of appropriations adequate to place the program in full.

effect beginning July 1, 1962.

H011. FRANK E. Moss,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR Moss: Thank you very much for your letter of May 25, also

the report and copy of H.R. 11665.

As to Utah, this is very significant legislation. As you know, we have a tend—

ency to do things in a big way in Utah, and because the money is at present

allocated on the basis of enrollment, and our participation is very high, we receive

much less per meal than a good many States. Depending on the total amount

appropriated this will be a great help to us. Some States, as you probably

realize, will lose, and that is the reason for the proposed transition period wherein

the Department is recommending for the first year, one-half of the appropriation

be apportioned on the old formula and the other half on the new formula, and the

second year the total appropriation w ill be apportioned on the new formula basis..

This will give the States which now receive a large amount per meal because of

few meals an opportunity to adjust to the new formula. I understand the President has suggested that during this transition period, and to assist the States

which will naturally lose some money per meal, that $20 million be added to the

present appropriation. Roughly speaking, under the present program we receive

approximately $604,000, or 3.8 cents per meal. Under the proposal, if $128.6

million were distributed we would receive $848,000 or 5.3 cents per meal.

During the transition period at $128.6 million total appropriation we would

receive $818,000 or 5.1 cents per meal, but later when the transition is completed

e would receive $922,000 or 5.8 cents per meal.

These figures are tentative but in general describe the situation and, as you can

see, we would benefit a great deal from this change in the law which we believe

is a step in the right direction.

I appreciate greatly your inquiry, and if at any time I can furnish information

which will help you in your important work please feel free to call upon me._

Again may I say I have alw ays appreciated the communications from your office,.

Sincerely yours,

RODNEY A. ASHBY,

,State Director School Lunch Program,

Department of Public Instruction, State of Utah.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, June I, 1962.