yet (k 04\

Seh 41b1SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

961

7 _f.

GOVERNMEN't

Storage KSU LIBRARIES 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 4688, H.R. 4764, H.R. 6209, H.R. 8962

BILLS TO AMEND THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT TO

PROVIDE FOR A MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE

FUNDS AVAILABLE UNDER SUCH ACT, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 31, 1961

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

•

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1961
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

ADAM C. POWELL,

CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, West Virginia

CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky

PHIL M. LANDRUM, Georgia

EDITH GREEN, Oregon

JAMES ROOSEVELT, California

HERBERT ZELENKO, New York

FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey

ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania

JOHN H. DENT. Pennsylvania

ROMAN C. PUCINSKi, Illinois

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana

ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut

JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan

RALPH J. SCOTT, North Carolina

NEAL SMITH, Iowa

CHARLES S. JOELSON, New Jersey

JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, Washington

New York, Chairman

CARROLL D. KEARNS, Pennsylvania

CLARE E. HOFFMAN, Michigan

PETER FRELINGP LYSEN, JR., New Jersey

WILLIAM H. AYRES, Ohio

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

EDGAR W. HIESTAND, California

ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota

CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York

PETER A. GARLAND, Maine

DONALD C. BRUCE, Indiana

JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio

DAVE MARTIN, Nebraska

LOUISE MAXIENNE DARGANS, Chief Clerk

RUSSELL C. DERRICKSON, Staff Director

W RAY SMITH, Education Chief

HOWARD G. GAMSER, Chief Counsel for Labor-Management

LIVINGSTON L. WINGATE, Associate Counsel for Labor-Management

TERESA CALABRESE, Administrative-Assistant to Chairman

RICHARD T. BURRESS, Minority Clerk

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, West Virginia, Chairman

FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey PETER FRELINGHUYSEN, JR., New Jersey

JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota

JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan PETER A. GARLAND, Maine

RALPH J. SCOTT, North Carolina

ROBERT E. McCoRD, Subcommittee Staff Director

II
CONTENTS

Text of bills: Page

H.R. 4688 1

H.R. 4764 2

H.R. 6209 4

H.R. 8962 4

Statement of—

Davis, Howard P., deputy director, Food Distribution Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture 7

Fuller, Dr. Edgar, executive secretary, Chief State School Officers 20

Stough, Mrs. Ada Barnett, executive director, American Parents Committee 24

Thomson, Hon. Vernon W., a Representative in Congress from the

State of Wisconsin 29

Letters, statements, supplemental material, etc.:

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

Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, statement of 7

Suggested amendment to bill 19

Table I.—Selected program statistics, fiscal years 1947 and 1961_ 10

Table II.—Average per meal rate of assistance under present

formula for apportionment and under proposed formula 11

Table III.—Payments to States under present formula for

apportionment and under proposed formula 12

Table IV.—Payments to States under present formula for

apportionment and under proposed formula during transition

period 13

Freeman, Hon. Orville L., Secretary of Agriculture, letter to Chairman Bailey, submitting a bill to amend the National School Act 5

Fuller, Dr. Edgar, executive secretary, Council of Chief State School

Officers:

Formal statement oL 20

Langkop, Earl M., legislative chairman, American Food Service

Association, statement by 22

Hochwalt, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Frederick G., director, Department of

Education, National Catholic Welfare Conference, letter to Chairman Bailey 31

Nygaard, Hon. Hjalmar C., a Representative in Congress from the

State of North Dakota, letter to Chairman Bailey 30

State of Minnesota Legislature, resolution by 31

Stough, Ada Barnett, executive director, American Parents Committee, Inc., testimony by 25
N,I
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m., in room 429,

Old House Office Building, Hon. Cleveland M. Bailey (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Bailey, Brademas, O'Hara, Quie, and

Garland.

Also present: Robert E. McCord, subcommittee staff director.

Mr. BAILEY. The subcommittee will be in order.

The subcommittee has convened today for the purpose of hearing

different proposals contained in H.R. 4688, H.R. 4764, H.R. 6209, and

with particular reference to H.R. 8962 introduced by a member of the

committee, Mr. O'Hara of Michigan.

(The bills referred to follow:)

[H.R. 4688, 87th Cong., 1st sem]

A BILL To amend the National School Lunch Act to provide for a more equitable distribution of the fund

available under such 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 4 of the National School Lunch Act

(42 U.S.C. 1753) is amended by inserting "(a)" after "SEC. 4." by striking out

"Alaska, Territory of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands" and inserting

in lieu thereof "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands".

Section 4 of the National School Lunch Act is further amended by striking out

the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences thereof and inserting in lieu

of such sentences the following new paragraphs:

"(b) Subject to the limitations imposed in subsection (d), 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 the 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; and third, apply

the figure thus obtained to the total funds to be apportioned: Provided, however,

That proportionate adjustments shall be made as necessary to provide that the

sum available to any State is not less than 5 cents times the participation rate

for such State.

"(c) For the purposes of this Act—

"(1) the participation rate of a State shall be the number of type A

lunches served by participating schools in such State in the preceding fiscal

year, as determined by the Secretary.

"(2) the assistance need rate of each State shall be determined by assign•-

ing 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 each such State bears to the average annual

per capita income of all the States, up to a maximum value of nine.

"(3) the per capita income figures used in determining the assistance need

rates under this section shall be the average of those certified by the Depart1
2 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

ment of Commerce for the latest three years for which such figures are

available.

"(4) '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.

"(d) In the event that the amount available for apportionment under this

section does not exceed an amount equal to 5 cents times the sum of the participation rates for all States, the assistance need rate for each State shall be the rate

obtained by dividing the sum of the participation rates for all States into the

amount available for apportionment under this section."

SEC. 2. Section 5 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1754) is amended

(1) by striking out "Alaska, Territory of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands" and inserting in lieu thereof "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,

and the Virgin Islands".

SEC. 3. Section 6 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755) is amended

(1) by inserting "(a)" after "SEc. 6", (2) by striking out "for his administrative

expenses" and inserting in lieu thereof "for use as provided in subsection (b)",

and (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(b) Two-sevenths of the funds made available for use as provided in this

subsection may be granted by the Secretary to State educational agencies which

request such funds for use by such agencies in meeting their administrative

expenses. The amount which may be granted a State educational agency under

this subsection may not exceed an amount which bears the same ratio to the

total funds available for distribution under this subsection as that State's apportionment under section 4 for the year bears to the total funds being apportioned.

The remainder of such funds may be used by the Secretary for his administrative

expenses."

. SEC. 4. The first sentence of section 9 of the National School Lunch Act (42

U.S.C. 1758) is amended to read as follows: "Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program for which reimbursements are paid under

this Act shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary

for type A lunches on the basis of tested nutritional research."

SEC. 5. Section 10 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759) is

amended by striking out "number of children between 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. 6. Section 11(d) (1) of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760) is

amended by striking out "'State' includes any of the forty-eight States and the

District of Columbia, Territory of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and the Virgin

Islands", and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "'State' includes any of the

fifty States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia,

Guam, and the Virgin Islands".

SEC. 7. Section 11(c) of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760) is

amended by inserting after the words "materials of instruction" the words "on

.any State educational agency or".

SEC. 8. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect July 1, 1961.

[H.R. 4764, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the National School Lunch Act to provide for a more equitable distribution of the funds

available under such 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 4 of the National School Lunch Act

• (42 U.S.C. 1753) is amended by inserting "(a)" after "(SEc. 4." by striking out

'Alaska, Territory of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands' and inserting

in lieu thereof "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands". Section 4 of the National School Lunch Act is further amended by

striking out the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences thereof and inserting in lieu of such sentences the following new paragraphs:

‘(b) Subject to the limitations imposed in subsection (d), 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

the 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,
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 3

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

figure thus obtained to the total funds to be apportioned: Provided, however,

That proportionate adjustments shall be made as necessary to provide that the

sum available to any State is not less than 5 cents times the participation rate for

such State.

"(c) For the purposes of this Act—

"(1) the participation rate of a State shall be the number of type A

lunches served by participating schools in such State in the preceding fiscal

year, as determined by the Secretary.

"(2) the assistance need rate of each State shall be determined by assign-.

ing 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 each such State bears to the average annual

per capita income of all the States, up to a maximum value of nine.

"(3) the per capita income figures used in determining the assistance need

rates under this section shall be the average of those certified by the Department of Commerce for the latest three years for which such figures are

available.

"(4) '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.

"(d) In the event that the amount available for apportionment under this

section does not exceed an amount equal to 5 cents times the sum of the participation rates for all States, the assistance need rate for each State shall be the

rate obtained by dividing the sum of the participation rates for all States into the

amount available for apportionment under this section."

SEC. 2. Section 5 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1754) is amended

(1) by striking out "Alaska, Territory of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands" and inserting in lieu thereof "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,

and the Virgin Islands".

SEC. 3. Section 6 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755) is amended

(1) by inserting "(a)" after "SEc. 6", (2) by striking out "for his administrative

expenses" and inserting in lieu thereof 'for use as provided in subsection (b)",

and (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(b) Two-sevenths of the funds made available for use as provided in this

subsection may be granted by the Secretary to State educational agencies which

request such funds for use by such agencies in meeting their administrative expenses. The amount which may be granted a State educational agency under

this subsection may not exceed an amount which bears the same ratio to the total

funds available for distribution under this subsection as that State's apportionment under section 4 for the year bears to the total funds being apportioned. The

remainder of such funds may be used by the Secretary for his administrative

expenses."

SEC. 4. The first sentence of section 9 of the National School Lunch Act (42

U.S.C. 1758) is amended to read as follows: "Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program for which reimbursements are paid under this

Act shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary for

type A lunches on the basis of tested nutritional research."

SEC. 5. Section 10 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759) is amended

by striking out "number of children between 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. 6. Section 11(d) (1) of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760) is

amended by striking out "State' includes any of the forty-eight States and the

District of Columbia, Territory of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska and the Virgin

Islands", and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "'State' includes any of the

fifty States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia,

Guam, and the Virgin Islands".

SEC. 7. Section 11(c) of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760) is

amended by inserting after the words "materials of instruction" the words 'on

any State educational agency or".

SEC. 8. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect July 1, 1961.
4 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

[H.R. 6209, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide additional funds for carrying out the National School Lunch Act in the fiscal year 1961

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to utilize from funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the National

School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-1760) during the remainder of the fiscal year

1961. Such sums shall be in addition to any funds heretofore appropriated for carrying out such Act in the fiscal year 1961.

SEC. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Commodity Credit Corporation an amount equal to the amount utilized by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of the first section of this Act.

[H.R. 8962, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

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 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 indices 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

between 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, and Guam.

"(2) 'State educational agency' means, as the State legislature may

determine, (a) the chief State school officer (such as the State superintendent
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 5

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 school children.

"(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 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.

Mr. BAILEY. The general chairman having called a caucus in this

room at 11 o'clock, we shall be hard put for time to conclude the

hearing, so I trust all witnesses will understand that there is a time

limit.

'Without any further delay we shall hear from the first witness, Mr.

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

Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture. Mr.

Davis.

Mr. McColin. Before Mr. Davis takes the stand, Mr. Chairman,

might we have the permission of the committee to submit for the

record, preceding Mr. Davis' testimony, a letter from Secretary of

Agriculture Orville L. Freeman, addressed to you, transmitting a

draft copy of the bill which Mr. O'Hara has introduced, together

with the Department's section-by-section explanation of the bill.

Mr. BAILEY. If there is no objection, it will be accepted for inclusion

in the record.

(The documents referred to follow:)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., May 12, 1961.

Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY,

Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BAILEY: The attached bill incorporates the principles

outlined in the school lunch recommendations which were included in the President's farm message to the Congress (H. Doc. No. 109). We believe it will also

meet the objectives outlined in your letter of February 17, 1961.

The bill incorporates the factor of participation into the formula for apportioning cash assistance funds among the States and provides for a transition period

of 1 year before the new formula would become fully effective. A new section

would be added to the National School Lunch Act which would provide for an

additional appropriation of funds to provide special help to especially needy

75213-431-2
6 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

schools. Also, the bill provides that, where it is necessary to initially divide a

State's share of the total apportionment between public and private schools, the division should be based upon a participation factor. This was the method authorized in H.R. 13016, 86th Congress.

The bill provides that funds shall be apportioned among the States on the basis of the number of lunches served in each State in the preceding year, with the lower income States receiving relatively more per meal than average or aboveaverage-income States. This is accomplished by applying a value of 5 to each lunch served in average or above-average-income States and a higher value (up

to 9) in below-average-income States. At any appropriation level, therefore, the minimum rate assigned to any State would be the rate assigned to the averageincome State. The minimum rate in any year would depend upon the amount made available for apportionment to the States in that year.

The bill provides for considerable administrative flexibility in developing the

new program for especially needy schools. However, the percentage of free meals served to needy children would be one of the principal criteria for selecting the schools to receive such assistance.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that the enactment of this proposed legisla- tion would be in accord with the President's program.

Sincerely yours,

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary.

EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

This bill amends the National School Lunch Act in two principal respects: (1) It revises the method by which cash assistance funds are apportioned among the States and (2) it provides for a new appropriation authority in order to give additional assistance to especially needy schools. Most of these schools are located in economically depressed urban and rural areas.

The following is an explanation of each section of the bill:

Section 1: This section amends the appropriation authority in section 3 of the

act. It adds a new authority to provide an additional annual appropriation to be used to help especially needy schools.

Section 2: This section revises the formula prescribed in section 4 of the act for the apportionment of cash assistance funds among the States.

The act now provides that the apportionment shall be based upon the number of school-age children in each State and the State's need for assistance as measured by its per capita income. This bill recognizes that the percentage of school- children actually participating in the programs varies considerably from State to State.

The bill provides that the number of lunches meeting the minimum require- ments of what is now referred to as the "type A" lunch, served in each State during the preceding year, shall be a basis for the apportionment of funds, rather than the number of school-age children residing in each State. The milk-only

or "type C" lunch is excluded in counting the number of lunches served. Rela- tive need is taken into account by applying a value of 5 to each lunch served in those States with average or above-average per capita incomes and by increasing that value (up to a maximum of 9) for States with a per capita income below the national average.

For the fiscal year 1962, a transition period is provided. In that year, one-half of the funds made available for apportionment would be apportioned on the basis of the method now in effect and one-half of the amount would be apportioned under the new method proposed in this bill.

Section 3: This section amends section 5 of the act to provide for the same method of apportioning funds made available for nonfood (equipment) assistance

as is provided in this bill for cash food assistance. (Congress has not appropriated funds for nonfood assistance since 1946-47).

Section 4: This section revises the method outlined in section 10 of the act for dividing the State's share of the cash assistance funds between public and private schools, when such a division is necessary because State statutes prevent the State

agency from disbursing funds to private schools. The bill provides that the division shall be made on the basis of the number of type A lunches served in each type of school in the preceding year, resulting in the same average per meal rate in both public and private schools.
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 7

Section 5: This section amends section 11 of the act which is concerned with

miscellaneous requirements and definitions. Section 11 is redesignated as section 12 and the definitions are revised and enlarged to add to the clarity of the act.

Section 6: This section adds a new provision to the act. It authorizes the

Secretary of Agriculture to establish the terms and conditions under which additional assistance is to be provided to needy schools. Although the language provides considerable latitude to the Secretary in determining the schools eligible for

such assistance, it is intended that the percentage of lunches served free to needy

children should be one of the principal criteria.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD P. DAVIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD

DISTRIBUTION DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. DAVIS. I am Howard P. Davis, Deputy Director of the Food.

Distribution Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Our Division has the responsibility for administering the school

lunch program among some other food distribution programs.

Mr. Chairman

'

I have a statement which I would like to make to

the committee. I could read it or submit it in the interests of time,

whichever you would prefer.

Mr. BAILEY. I would suggest that it be offered now for inclusion in

the record in its entirety, and you take whatever time you need to

touch the high points of your proposal.

(Mr. Davis' statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HOWARD P. DAVIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DISTRIBUTION

DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

We are pleased to appear again before this subcommittee to discuss changes

in the National School Lunch .Act. The changes proposed in the bill now under

consideration meet with the approval of the Department.

At a hearing in August of last year before this subcommittee, we presented a

detailed description of the origin and progress of the national school lunch program, together with a review of the principal feature of the enabling legislation.

With that background, we feel we can begin today with a brief review of the

current status of the program. (Also, in table I, selected program statistics are

shown for 1946-47—the first year of operations under the act—and for 1960-61.)

Last year, 13.5 million children were participating in the program. This

represents about 32 percent of the children enrolled in elementary and secondary

schools. Almost 2.3 billion lunches were served to these children and 1 out of 10

of these lunches were served free or at reduced prices to children who could not

afford to pay the full price of the lunch.

The total cost of the program last year was in excess of $1 billion. The Federal

contribution—in cash and commodity food assistance—totaled $225 million. The

remainder of the cost was financed by State and local sources, including the payments children made for their lunches.

The amount of Federal cash and commodity food assistance will be larger this

year than in 1960-61. I should like to outline for you the amounts and sources

of this assistance: Fiscal year

1961-6s

Appropriation: (millions)

Cash food assistance $98. 6

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: Estimated cost 100. 0

Grand total 268. 0
S SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

With respect to the additional $10 million made available for section 6 commodity purchases, the Congress authorized that up to $2% 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."

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 especially needy schools. 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.

Federal cash assistance funds are used to help participating schools make local

purchase of food for the lunch program.

Basically, the bill before this subcommittee is a modification of the two bills—

sponsored by Chairman Bailey and Congressman Brademas—on which hearings

were held last August. Following those hearings, Chairman Bailey requested

the technical assistance of the Department in drafting a bill for the subcommittee

which would accomplish the following:

1. Base the allocation formula on the rate of participation;

2. Provide for a minimum reimbursement rate for all States;

3. Set up a "need formula";

4. Revise the method of dividing funds between public and private schools; and

5. Add a new section or title providing for an additional authorization to assist

those districts where, because of depressed economic conditions, it was necessary

to serve an unusually large number of free lunches or where the price of the lunch

is greatly reduced.

We felt the bill, as drafted for the subcommittee, was in line with the President's

school lunch recommendations contained in his farm message to the Congress.

It was subsequently submitted to the subcommittee with the approval of the

Department and with advice from the Bureau of the Budget that the proposed

legislation was in accord with the President's program. The Department did,

however, recommend that a 1-year transition period be provided in order to

assist in an orderly change between the old and new method of apportioning cash

assistance funds. This provision is included in the bill now being considered.

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 pe'r capita 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 regulation. In 1961-62,

it is estimated that the national average Federal cash assistance rate will be 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 provide

to its participating schools tends to be related more to the rate of program growth

than to need, as measured by the per capita income of a State. Thus, a higher

income State with below average participation may be able to provide its schools

with a higher average per-meal payment than can a lower income State with

above average participation. The first column of table II illustrates the effect

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

lowest, together with the probable average per-meal 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 than 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.)
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

The bill before the subcommittee would take differences in the rate of program

growth into account by introducing the factor of participation into the apportionment formula. 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 5 to each lunch served in average

or above-average income States and a higher value (up to a maximum of 9> in

below-average income States. 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 II 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 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.

WC have, as previously indicated, provided for a 1-year transition from the old

to the new apportionment formula. For the first year, 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 shall be used in the apportionment formula, using the

latest 3 years available from 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 appropriation process.

The new section of the bill would authorize a specific annual appropriation under

the act to provide special assistance to especially needy schools. This, of course,

was one of the provisions originally requested by the subcommittee. We believe,

also, that it would be a valuable addition to the enabling legislation.

We have become increasingly aware of the need to make some special provisions

for those communities and those children that are least able to take advantage

of the school lunch program. Under this bill, considerable administrative

flexibility would be provided to the Department in developing the new program.

We feel this is necessary. Also, we will gain considerable experience this year in

administering the $24 million commodity fund that has been provided by the

Congress for this purpose in the Department's 1961-62 appropriation bill.

Finally, the Department recommends a further addition to the bill in order to

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.

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
10 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

more adequate school facilities. Nonetheless, a beginning could be planned once

Federal assistance was available.

Because of the absence of a participation record, special provision would need

to be made for an allotment of funds to American Samoa under the proposed bill.

It is recommended that for each of the 5 fiscal years following the revision in the

formula, an initial reserve of up to $25,000 be established for American Samoa.

Thereafter, American Samoa would receive funds based upon actual participation.

We are prepared to submit to the subcommittee language for an appropriate

change in the language of the bill to accomplish this recommendation.

We appreciate the opportunity to make this statement and will be glad to answer

any questions you may have.

TABLE 1.-Selected program statistics, fiscal years 1947 and 1961

Fiscal year

1947

Fiscal year

1961 preliminary

1. Total school enrollment (including territories) 

2. Participation:

(a) Number of schools 

(5) Number of children 

26,

4,

606,077

34,144

545, 129

42, 204,978

63,961

13,453, 410

(c) Number of children as a percent of total enrollment 17 31.9

3. Local food purchases by schools $128,648,278 $575,000,000

4. Total cost of program:

A. Federal contribution:

(a) Cash payments to States 

(5) Sec. 6 procurement 

(c) Surplus commodities 

(d) Administration 

1 59,

5,

2,

2,

896, 235

735,269

312, 479

075, 000

93,

59,

71,

1,

746,304

634, 000

700, 000

766, 000

Total, Federal 70,018, 983 226,846, 304

B. State contributions:

(a) Children's payments 

(b) State and local government 

(c) Other local 

112,

20,

17,

540,000

616, 000

532,000

610,

110,

140,

000, 000

000, 000

000,000

Total, State 150,688, 000 860,000, 000

C. Grand total, cost of program 1 220,706, 983 1, 086,846,304

1 Does not include $9,702,990 for equipment.
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 11

TABLE II.-Average per meal rate of assistance under present formula for apportionment and under proposed formula

[Cents]

State 1

With a cash assistance fund of-a

$98,600,000 $118,600,000 $139,900,000

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

Califonnia 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 Dakota 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. C

South Carolina 3.9 5. 7 6.9 8. 1

Arkansas 4. 5 5. 8 7.0 8.3

Mississiopi 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.

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.

fr

OCT :3 19 61

1:01*
12 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

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

under proposed formula

[Thousands of dollars]

State 1

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 of898,600,000 $118,600,000 $139,900,000

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

5,834 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 2,505

734 714 859 1,013

313 269 323 381

1,910 2,349 2,825 3,331

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

406 291 350 412

807 822 989 1,660

1,567 2,078 2,499 12,94

72 54 65 76

2,671 3,605 4,336 5,115

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 3,770

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

465 460 553 652

697 659 792 934

426 372 447 521

430 559 672 792

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

2,501 4,491 5,402 6,371

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

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

2,686 3,044 3,661 4,315

2,342 2,966 3,567 4,200

2,779 3,241 3,898 4,595

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

1,582 2,053 2,469 2,011

2,403 2,966 3,568 4, 200

38 64 77 91

3,690 2,657 3, 196 3, 77(

98,600 08,600 118,600 139,00(

1 States ranked in order from highest to lowest per capita income average for latest 3 years: 1958, 1959, 1960.
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 13

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

proposed formula during transition period'

[Thousands of dollars]

State 2

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-

$98,600,000 $118,600,000 $139,900,000

Present

method

Proposed

method

Proposed

method

Proposed

method

159 172 208 245

215 152 183 216

926 879 1,058 1,248

106 91 110 130

5, 8.34 5, 952 7, 160 8, 445

6, 143 5, 259 6, 326 7, 462

92 76 91 107

2,325 1, 767 2, 125 2,507

3, 977 3, 528 4,244 5,006

2,079 2,007 2,414 2,848

1,455 1,339 1,610 1.899

4, 569 4, 154 4, 996 5, 894

3, 858 3, 140 3, 778 4, 456

1,392 1,361 1,637 1,931

873 900 1,082 1,277

5,257 4.507 5,421 6,395

893 916 1,101 1,299

175 183 220 260

2,049 2,212 2,661 3,139

395 288 346 408

2, 402 2, 349 2, 825 3, 332

354 516 620 732

2,063 1,914 2,303 271€

734 724 871 1,027

313 291 350 412

1,910 2, 129 2,561 3,021

1,161 1,173 1,411 1,661

406 348 419 494

807 815 980 1, 15E

1, 567 1,822 2, 192 2.581

72 63 76 9C

2,671 3,138 3,774 4,451

5,820 4,949 5,952 7,021

604 627 754 88c

580 556 669 78c.

237 205 246 29(

2,460 2,562 3,081 3,631

1,406 1,427 1,717 2,021

465 462 556 65(

697 678 815 962

426 399 480 56(

430 494 895 701

1,366 1,301 1,565 1,841

2, 501 3, 496 4, 205 4, 96(

2, 988 3, 736 4, 494 5, 301

3, 598 4, 481 5,390 6,351

2,686 2,865 3,446 4,061

2,342 2,654 3,192 3, 76(

2,779 3,010 3,621 4,271

2,270 2,806 3,376 3,981

1,582 1,818 2,186 2,571

2, 4C3 2,685 3,229 3, 801

38 51 61 72

3,690 3,173 3,817 4,501

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

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

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

75213-61--3
14 SCHOOL 'LUNCH. PROGRAM;

Mr. DAVIS. Essentially, this bill is of course designed to provide

a more equitable apportionment of the school lunch funds among the

States. To do that, we feel we have outgrown the previous legislation which provided for that apportionment on the basis of child

population plus relative per capita income of the States. At this

point it would be much more equitable to apportion the money among

the States, as provided in the bill, on the basis of actual participation

in the program plus the relative need of the State.

By apportioning it on the basis of the actual participation in the

prograni, we feel that we are giving recognition to those areas that

have made greater progress in extending the school lunch to more

children rather than, under the old formula, penalizing them by

forcing them to divide their money among more children.

The new bill would provide the money on the basis of the number

of children among whom the money would be divided in reimbursement payments for lunches.

Essentially, that is what this bill does.

In order to minimize the impact of certain changes this bill will

bring about in the amount of money the several States will get the

first year, we would like to provide an interim arrangement whereby

the new formula would be applied toward half the total available

funds, and the old formula to the other half.

The other basic feature of the bill would make provision for use of

part of the appropriation for special assistance to especially needy

schools throughout the country. In working with the formula, trying to develop the new formula, we found that, regardless of the

method we used for apportioning the money, there still remained the

problem of some very needy school that would not receive enough to

provide free meals or reduced-cost meals to all the children who

needed it. The bill provides for some special assistance funds out

of the annual apropriations.

The formula is so designed that for those States at or above the

average per capita income for the Nation, there will be a certain minimum amount of money based on participation, and those States

which are under the national average will get varying amounts based

on the need of the State.

I believe that is about all I would need to say at this point, Mr.

Chairman. I would be glad to answer any questions the committee

might have.

Mr. BAILEY. I would suggest that the witness review briefly the

status of the School Lunch Act at the present time. I notice you deal

with it on the first page of your formal presentation. Give us a little

résumé of that.

Mr. DAVIS. Our estimates for the current fiscal year are that the

average payment per meal will probably run about 4.2 cents. This is

based upon an increased appropriation this year which will provide

cash assistance, to be apportioned among the States, of $98.6 million.

In addition to that, the current appropriation will provide for $14.4

million for special purchases as provided in the act. In addition, the

Congress added to the original appropriation $10 million additional

for food purchases under section 6 of the act. Further, they provided

for $45 million to be transferred from section 32, also for direct purchases of food to be distributed to the States.
SCHOOL LTJNCIT -PROG,RAM 15

This, of course, is all in addition to the commodities which will be

made available to the schools as a result of surplus removal purchases

and our price-support program. Our present estimate is that this

quantity will represent a cost of about $100 million, or in total the

Federal assistance will run to $268 million. We estimate approximately 13 million children will participate this year, and this represents, I believe, somewhat more than 31 percent of the school

enrollment.

Mr. BAILEY. I note the comments on page 2 of your presentation

with respect to the additional $10 million made available for section 6

commodity purposes. Is the $2 million in addition to the $14.4

million or is that included in the $14.4 million in your breakdown?

Mr. bAvis. No, sir; that is included in the $10 million additional

which I mentioned, which was made available for direct purchases

this year. There was quite a bit of legislative history to that $10

million. As I recall, in the House appropriations bill, I believe they

added $10 million in cash to be used for special assistance. When

the Senate reported the bill out, they deleted the $10 million. In

conference they put the $10 million back in, but made the $10 million

available not as cash but for the purpose of purchasing food nationally

and shipping it out to the schools, with the further provision that up

to $2% million of that $10 million could be used to make purchases

to be used for special assistance for especially needy schools.

Mr. BAILEY. Will you go into that somewhat in detail, stating the

purpose of that program.

Mr. DAVIS. We have not yet worked out all of the program details,

just how the $2% million will be expended. However, we had a group

of representative State directors, both our direct distribution program.

and our school lunch program, in Washington last week to give us

their best suggestions on how we might go about using this $2% million

worth of commodities to aid these particularly needy schools. As a

result of that, they recommended that perhaps our first priority or

our first aim should be in the nature of special purchases which would

enable schools which do not now have a school lunch program to

initiate one.

Mr. BAILEY. May I interrupt to inquire how many of the States

do not have a program?

Mr. DAVIS. All of the States have the school lunch program.

Actually, the school lunch program is available in schools which

represent about two-thirds of the Nation's enrollment. About half

of those two-thirds actually participate in the program, on the average. Of course, many of those children participate part of the time

during the year. All of the States have the national school lunch

program, including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. They

all have tried to provide, to the extent they were able, for free lunches

for those children who could not afford them. However, as you well

know, in certain sections of certain States there are areas which are in

extremely difficult economic condition, and their requirement for free

meals is so great that some schools just cannot afford a program at all.

Mr. BAILEY. I think that is the situation in my State particularly.

Mr. DAVIS. In many areas; yes, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. There are too many free meals involved.

Mr. DAVIS. We requested cash to attempt to meet this problem

over and above the regular school lunch program. With the corn-
16 8CHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

modities we will try to carry out the same aim. This probably will

take the nature of, let us say, special purchases which would enable a,

school with no equipment to serve at least a bag lunch, always remembering that we would try in all instances to enable the school to

serve a lunch which would meet the same nutrition requirements as

the regular lunch, but it might be served in a little different form.

Through the assistance we might give with those special purchases, it

would be possible; whereas it might not be possible with the commodities we already have available.

Mr. BAILEY. Have you some questions, Mr. Brademas?

Mr. BRADEMAS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Quie.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Davis, will you tell me what section 416 donations

are? I have forgotten.

Mr. DAVIS. Section 416 is a section of the Agricultural Act of 1949

which has since been incorporated in Public Law 480 in title III and

further amended many times. It is the authority under which the

Commodity Credit Corporation, when the inventory stocks which it

has acquired under the price support program cannot be sold back

into the market without disrupting the market, may donate the

commodities, first to schools, institutions, and needy families in this

country, and then- this is also the authority under which we donate

through the U.S. voluntary agencies to needy persons overseas.

Mr. QUIE. This is the same program by which we donate to welfare

agencies?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. QUIE. It goes first to school lunches, and then to welfare

agencies in this country?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; that is correct. Of course, the commodities

donated under this authority are just those for which there is a price

support program, such as dairy products. We acquire flour, cornmeal,

rice, and a number of other commodities under this section 416

authority. For the perishable groups, those not under price support,

if the market conditions warrant, we use section 32 money for surplus

removal purchases. Commodities so acquired are also distributed to

the schools, and then in some instances to needy families in this

country.

Mr. QUIE. What commodities will be available under title III of

Public Law 480 in this coming school year, do you think?

Mr. DAVIS. Butter, cheese, nonfat dry milk, rice, flour, cornmeal.

Mr. QUIE. Will there be enough of all these commodities to fulfill

all the needs of our school lunch donations and welfare programs in

this country and enough for overseas as well, of all of these six commodities?

Mr. DAVIS. We will have enough of all of them for our domestic

program. Only a few of them will be available for oversea donation—

flour, cornmeal, some rice (we are not sure how much at this point),

and nonfat dry milk. As far as we know at this time, no butter and

no cheese.

Mr. QUIE. In the fiscal year 1961-62, you have an estimated cost

of $100 million for sections 32 and 416 donations. How much of this

is section 416 donations?

Mr. DAVIS. I believe possibly one-third. I would want to check

that. I do not have that breakdown with me. Part of this depends
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 17

on whether or not we use section 32 money to purchase from Commodity Credit for the purpose of donating. There is a fiscal paperwork technicality to that. So we may draw more on section 416 funds

and less on section 32, depending on the availability of the section 32

money.

Let me say in the past we have used section 32 money to purch ase

a commodity from the Commodity Credit Corporation and then

donate it. In the final analysis, the Commodity Credit Corporation

is made whole. The expenditure is from section 32.

Mr. QUIE. On page 2, you show transfer from section 32. Is that

the transaction?

Mr. DAVIS. This is in addition; the funds, which this year amount

to $45 million, which were authorized to be transferred from section

32 to the school lunch appropriation for the purposes of section 6 of

the School Lunch Act, which means that rather than being available

only for commodities which are in marketing difficulty, which are

surplus, we can use this $45 million the same way we use the school

lunch appropriation; in other words, to buy foods which the schools

want and we feel the program needs—with one extra admonition

from Congress in the legislative history of this transfer, that insofar

as possible we would use it for those commodities which are perhaps

on the borderline of being in surplus, all other things being equal.

Mr. QUIE. What is the limiting factor on your transfer of section

32 funds? Is it the authorization of $45 million?

Mr. DAVIS. It is in the Agriculture appropriation language. In

addition to the $125 million appropriation, there is also authorized

to be transferred from section 32 $45 million to be used for the purposes of section 6 of the National School Lunch Act.

Mr. QUIE. This is in the appropriation bill, is that right?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; in the Agriculture Appropriation Act.

Mr. QUIE. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Garland.

Mr. GARLAND. I have no questions. I offer my apologies for coming in late this morning. I was tied up in the office.

Mr. BAILEY. Have you any brief questions you might ask at this

time, Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. I will not take any further time. I want to thank

Mr. Davis for his testimony.

Under this new allocation formula would we expect, and the new

special assistance provisions to particularly needy schools and communities, there would be a request for a somewhat larger appropriation in the next budget request that we receive?

Mr. DAVIS. Of course, the Department is currently in the process

of developing its 1963 budget for presentation to the Budget Bureau

and the President. The President has made it quite clear that he

regards the school lunch program as important, that he would like

us to exert every effort we could to reach all of the children who need a

lunch, and I am sure all of these things will be taken into consideration when the budget estimates are submitted, along with all of the

other many urgent needs for the Department.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I have great confidence in

these proposals and in the progress which has been made under the

school lunch program. I hope the adoption of this legislation will

help the Department to further improve the program. I am looking
18 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

forward to making this of more advantage to more children in the

future.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. I notice at the top of page 4 you state:

• We felt the bill, as drafted for the subcommittee, was in line with the President's school lunch recommendations contained in his farm message to the Congress. It was subsequently submitted to the subcommittee with the approval

of the Department and with advice from the Bureau of the Budget that the proposed le &islation was in accordance with the President's program. The Department did, however, recommend that a 1-year transition period be provided in

order to assist in an orderly change between the old and new method of apportioning cash assistance funds.

What do you mean by "a 1-year transition period"?

Mr. DAVIS. First of all, the bill as drafted will provide, we feel, a

more equitable distribution of funds regardless of the level of the

appropriation. However, there will obviously be some rather sharp

adjustments for some States. At the current level of the appropriation this would mean a fair reduction in the amount of money some

States would get in order to give additional money to States with

higher participation and greater need.

In order to cushion the shock of some of these possible reductions

we felt it would be adv;sable to take it in one step and apply the

formula for only half of the funds for the first year in order to make

these reductions in funds a little less the first year to enable the States

to adjust their budgets to give them time perhaps to go back to their

legislatures or their local government bodies, so it is merely a device

to make the transition less sharp and to give the States a little more

time to adjust to whatever reduction they might find is necessary.

Mr. BAILEY. Would you stay in the committee room for a while if

it is not an inconvenience? We may have further questions.

Mr. QUIE. Do you project any substantial increase in the number

of schools which will participate in the school lunch program or has

this been a pretty steady increase each year?

Mr. DAVIS. A rather steady increase over the past 4 or 5 years, I

would say, somewhere between 6 and 8 percent increase each year.

That is against an increase in school population of around 3 or 4 percent each year. That increase would have a bearing on the increase

of the participation in the school lunch program as well. It has been

running around 6 to 8 percent, and at this time I believe we would

project for 1963 perhaps a 6-percent increase again.

Mr. QUIE. What would you project 5 years from now? You state

this represents 32 percent of the children enrolled now. What would

you think would be the number receiving school lunches 5 years from

now?

Mr. DAVIS. Looking back over the 15-year history of the program

under this act it would appear to us that probably it would continue

to. run somewhere close to one-third of the total population.

There are many factors that affect participation. It may possibly

increase much faster in the next 5 years than it has in the last 5 years.

Partially that would depend on a matter which I imagine this committee has been concerned with, and that is the building of more

consolidated schools and a fewer number of one-room schools. There

has been a marked trend in that direction for some time. This would

tend to put more of the children in schools which might have facilities
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 19

for preparing and serving lunches, so that the proportion might very

well go up somewhat.

Mr. QUIE. That is all I have.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Davis, the proposed new allocation formula

would not affect the method of distribution of commodities under

section 32 or section 416, would it?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. I perhaps should have mentioned that we do

distribute those on the basis of participation already.

Mr. O'HARA. Without regard to any income weighting?

Mr. DAVIS. That has been on the basis of participation. We have,

however, been encouraging the States within the State to distribute

their commodities somewhat on the basis of need and to give more of

some of these section 6 commodities particularly to schools which

have greater need.

On the section 32 and 416 commodities for the most part they can

get as large a quantity of those commodities as they can use now.

However, under section 6 where we are definitely limited we have been

urging them to give needy schools more of those.

Mr. BAILEY. I am sure the members of the subcommittee appreciate your coming here and giving us a forthright and factual statement

of what is proposed in amending the present hot lunch program for

schools.

As consideration proceeds we shall expect to keep in clo§e touch with

the Department. We trust you will be available to come back and

give us any additional information we might need.

Mr. DAVIS. I would be most happy to, Mr. Chairman. I might

say we have been very gratified with the interest of this committee

and their assistance in this matter. I think we will come up with

something which will be quite an improvement.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you. I hope your aspirations come about.

Mr. DAVIS. There is one matter I neglected to mention. It is in

the statement I submitted in the beginning.

However, the Department would like very much to go on record as

being in favor of including American Samoa in this legislation.

I believe the bill as it is written at the moment does not include that.

Mr. BAILEY. Would you mind preparing the necessary legislation

to include them?

Mr. DAVIS. I shall do that.

Mr. BAILEY. Very well. Submit it to us. After the hearings we

will no doubt have a clean bill which we will be able to use.

(The information referred to follows:)

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO BILL

1. The definition of "State" in section 5 of the bill should be amended to read

as follows:

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

Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa."

2. The last sentence of section 2 of the bill should be amended to read as follows:

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

year beginning 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 first

deducted from the funds available for apportionment in determining the amounts

to be apportioned to the other States."
20 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

Mr. BAILEY. The next witness is Dr. Edgar Fuller, executive

secretary, Chief State School Cfficers.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Dr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I

believe in the interest of saving time, with your permission I will file

a very short statement which I have here, and a statement from the

American School Food Service Association, which that association

has asked me to file. It is a brief statement representing the recent

vote of the association which has 25,000 members in all of the States.

It also includes a State director of the school lunch administration

who works with the State directors of all the States as well as with

the 25,000 members of the American School Food Service Association.

There is a short statement here they have asked me to file in their

behalf.

Mr. BAILEY. If there is no objection we shall accept the statement

and include it in the official record.

We shall also include your formal statement. You may proceed

to comment on your statement.

(The statements referred to follow:)

FORMAL STATEMENT OF DR. EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL

OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Edgar Fuller, executive

secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers, an independent educational

organization with an office of three persons here in Washington. Members of

the council are the State superintendents and State commissioners of all the

States and the chief school officers of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,

Canal Zone, and the Virgin Islands. They are the State administrators of the

national school lunch program in all States for the public schools, and also for

private elementary and secondary schools in 26 of the 55 jurisdictions. We

appreciate the opportunity to appear here today.

Mr. Chairman, the council supports the general position of the Department of

Agriculture on this legislation. This was not true in the hearings held August

23-24, 1960, and we are greatly pleased about the developments since then. I

have only a few comments and one addition to H.R. 8962 to suggest.

I have been requested to present a statement for the record that supports the

legislation on behalf of the American School Food Service Association, the 25,000-

member professional organization of school lunch personnel throughout the United

States. Its officers regret their inability to be here. Mr. Chairman, we would

appreciate it if this statement could follow ours in the record of the hearings.

FEDERAL FUNDS FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman, we respectfully suggest that a new section 4 be added to the

administration's bill, as follows, and that the present sections 4 through 8 be

renumbered 5 through 9:

"SEc. 4. Section 6 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755) is

amended (1) by inserting `(a)' after 'Sec. 6', (2) by striking out 'for his administrative expenses' and inserting in lieu thereof 'for use as provided in subsection

(b)', and (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(b) Two-sevenths of the funds made available for use as provided in this

subsection may be granted by the Secretary to State educational agencies which

request such funds for use by such agencies in meeting their administrative expenses. The amount which may be granted a State educational agency under

this subsection may not exceed an amount which bears the same ratio to the total

funds available for distribution under this subsection as that State's apportionment under section 4 for the year bears to the total funds being apportioned:

Provided, however, That no State shall receive an amount smaller than $5,000 or
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 21

larger than $50,000 in any fiscal year. The remainder of such funds may be used

by the Secretary for his administrative expenses.' "

There are no adequate statistics for all States to show how much is spent from

State funds for State administration of the National School Lunch Act. It is

certain that many of the State educational agencies are understaffed and that

lunch program efficiency suffers as a result.

The present act provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may withhold 334

percent of the appropriation for Federal administration. This remains the same

under H.R. 8962. We propose that two-sevenths of the Secretary's allotment

of funds for administration, which is roughly equivalent to 1 percent of the cash

grants to each State, be allocated to State departments of education for State

administrative costs, upon application by the States and approval by the Secretary. The remaining five-sevenths, which is equal to about 23 percent of the

total grants to the States, would provide more for Federal administration than

has ever been used for that purpose.

We propose a minimum of $5,000 and a maximum of $50,000 annually for each

State. The total Federal funds required to finance this section would be about

$1,250,000 if all States and territories apply for the funds. The lower amount is

a minimum for effective assistance in any jurisdiction, however small, and the

maximum of $50,000 annually is a reasonable amount of assistance for the largest

States. The total Federal funds required would be less with these upper and

lower limits in effect than would otherwise be required under the proposed new

section 4.

Lack of State administrative funds stands first among the reasons why some

States have never fully assumed their responsibilities as intended by the act and

by the 1947 agreement between the chief State school officers and the Secretary

of Agriculture.

Consider, for instance, the problem of auditing. Both State and Federal

policies call for the States to assume primary responsibility for auditing, but less

than half the States have done so since 1947. One reason is that some legislatures

and State fiscal officers find it easier to allow the Federal Government to perform

this function than to budget State funds for their lunch divisions. Thus the

agreement to transfer full administrative responsibilities to the States, reached

in order to minimize any possibilities of undesirable Federal controls over school

lunch programs, are nullified by the inability or failure of the States to assume

their full responsibilities.

Another problem concerns administrative reviews of local lunchrooms by the

States. In many States this necessary service is scarcely adequate to support

full State responsibility to the Federal Government. The Department of Agriculture requests that administrative reviews be conducted by the State in 30

percent of its local lunch programs annually, but "performance surveys" conducted by mail by the State department of education may be substituted for 50

percent of these administrative reviews. This is another situation that, in many

instances, calls for more effective State administration. The new emergency

section 11 of the bill will also place heavy additional responsibilities upon the

State administrators of t e school lunch and food distribution programs.

One may wonder why many State departments of education are so hard pressed

financially that they are unable to do what their own policies indicate. The fact

is that it is difficult for many departments to employ appropriate personnel to

meet their rapidly increasing obligations. In competition for personnel with the

school lunch divisions in State departments of education are a number of federally subsidized State programs such as vocational rehabilitation, vocational education and several branches of the National Defense Education Act. Federal

funds build up the staffs of State departments of education in these areas, but not

in the school lunch divisions.

Thus the school lunch division competes for the State tax dollar under great

handicaps. The States have to pay the entire cost for additional school lunch

personnel, while Federal matching funds ease the way for their competitors.

Surveys of State staffing indicate that these Federal matching funds have tremendous influence in the staffing of State departments of education.

A large majority of chief State school officers believe, Mr. Chairman, that such

an amount to insure more State autonomy and efficiency in administration would

benefit the lunch program more than a similar amount used otherwise. We ask

for your special consideration of the State departments of education and their

serious need in many instances for assistance in order to improve State administration of the national school lunch program.

We thank you very much for the opportunity to present this statement.
22 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

STATEMENT BY MR. EARL M. LANGKOP, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN

SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION

On behalf of the 25,000 members of the American School Food Service Association in all States of the Union, I wish to express appreciation for this opportunity

of bringing to you the views of our membership concerning needed revisions in the

National School Lunch Act.

It was the privilege of my predecessor, Mr. Charles W. Lilley, to present to this

committee the views of our association on this subject just over 1 year ago. I

would again refer to the statement presented by Mr. Lilley on August 17 and 18,

1960.

Our statement at that time strongly endorsed the proposed change in the

formula for distribution of school lunch funds to the States, based upon participation rather than upon school age population. Our thinking regarding this proposed change remains the same as expressed 1 year ago.

We have stated previously—and would reemphasize—that the present legislation places a premium upon inactivity. Those States having the lowest participation and doing the least effective work in bringing the advantages of the National School Lunch Act to their children benefit accordingly and receive highest

per meal reimbursement. States doing the most effective and energetic job of

bringing the advantages of the National School Lunch Act to their children are

penalized, therefore, and clearly work under a severe handicap. Under the present

formula, low participation States receive as much as 7 to 9 cents per type "A"

meal while high participation States receive as little as 2 cents per type •`A"

meal. Such a distribution pattern is clearly unfair, undemocratic and contrary

to the will of Congress in initially passing the National School Lunch Act.

In line with our understanding of the provisions of the O'Hara bill and even

though we are disappointed that two important items in the original bill have

been removed in the administration sponsored bill, American School Food Service

Association would favor its passgae as a first step toward correcting our present

financial situation. We believe that the provisions of the bill for the transition

from the present form of distributing funds to the States in the first year are very

commendable and we feel that a 2 year period for such transition should be adequate. We have faith that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will recommend

that the Congress will provide adequate funds for the full implementation of the

act.

The Legislative Committee of the American School Food Service Association

again wishes to go on record as urging the adoption of an amendment to the

National School Lunch Act which would provide for allocation of funds to the

States keyed to participation rather than school age population.

Dr. FULLER. I should like also to have permission to file further

statements before the records of the hearings are closed. There may

be one or two others.

Mr. BAILEY. I am sure there would be no objection to your filing

later statements.

The record will remain open until the 15th of September. If you

have additional statements to file by then they may be included in the

record.

Please proceed.

Dr. FULLER. We. support the bill that Mr. O'Hara has introduced

and we agree with the testimony which has been presented by the

Department of Agriculture in regard to it.

We appreciate Mr. O'Hara's introduction of the bill because he is a

Representative from one of the States which would least benefit from

it. This is a mark of statesmanship which we ought not to overlook.

The only thing we would suggest informally, and it is included in

the formal statement, is that as we said in the hearings last August in.

connection with Mr. Brademas' bill 13016, we believe that approximately 1 percent of the cash appropriations to the States should be

used for State administration of the school lunch. We have additional reasons for it this year. The chief State school officers, with

almost no exception, are anxious about this.
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 23

The additional reason is that under the special distribution program

of the administration as stated in section 11 of the bill before the

committee, Mr. O'Hara's bill, it will throw additional administrative

responsibilities on the State departments of education in the administration of the school lunch.

The N percent allowed to the Secretary for administration has

never been used in its entirety. I believe the amount used most

years has been around 2 percent rather than N.

What we are asking is that 1 percent of these funds that are allowed

to the Secretary be made available to the State departments on application by the State departments and approval by the Secretary,

making it entirely optional whether a State uses these funds or not.

I have explained in the formal statement a situation in which the

State departments find themselves in regard to this matter. I shall

not repeat those reasons here.

With that one exception we support the bill as it is. We support

the testimony of the Department of Agriculture fully, and we believe

this is good legislation which is equitable to all States and it will

correct inequities of serious character which have grown up since 1946

in regard to a considerable number of States.

Mr. BAILEY. That proviso is not in the present legislation proposed

by Mr. O'Hara?

Dr. FULLER. That proviso was in the bill last year—H.R. 10016, 

I believe it was. It is not in this bill. We would like to have the

same thing put back into this bill.

We believe there are additional reasons for doing that this year, on

account of this emergency feeding program.

Mr. BAILEY. I had a long-distance telephone call from my State

superintendent of public instruction, this morning. He suggested

that the matter be brought to the attention of the subcommittee while

we were considering this legislation, so I am glad you brought it up.

Since you have the proposal in your formal presentation, do you

Want to take a moment or two to discuss it?

Dr. FULLER. Well, it would be in this bill, as we have it before us

now, a new section 4, renumbering the subsequent sections, and it

would provide in much the same way as was provided in the Brademas

bill of last August. I shall_read it and correct the record:

Two-sevenths of the funds made available for use as provided in this subsection

may be granted by the Secretary to State educational agencies which request such

funds for use by such agencies in meeting their administrative expenses. The

amount which may be granted a State educational agency under this subsection

may not exceed an amount which bears the same ratio to the total funds available

for distribution under this subsection as that State's apportionment under section

4 for the year bears to the total funds being apportioned.

I believe section 4 would have to be renumbered there.

Provided, however, That no State shall receive an amount smaller than $5,000

or larger than $50,000 in any fiscal year. The remainder of such funds may be

used by the Secretary for his administrative expenses.

That would leave 2 percent for the Secretary's expenses, which

is an amount he has never yet used entirely, and 1 percent for allocation to the State departments on application by the States and

approval by the Secretary.

The total amount would be about $1.2 million a year. The benefit

to the school lunch program, which is a program of more than $1 billion
24 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

a year, would far exceed the amount of money necessary in order to

provide those benefits.

Mr. BAILEY. The administrative costs are actually very low for a

program that large.

Dr. FULLER. In some States this would double the amount available

for the responsible administration of the State lunch programs in the

States. Even in the smallest jurisdiction the $5,000 minimum would.

in some cases double the amount now available.

I have made an effort in the formal statement, which is short and

covers only this point, to show why it is that the States have difficulty.

For instance, in Indiana I think Representative Brademas understands

the situation in Indianapolis. He commented on this in hearings

last August. I deplore this situation, Mr. Brademas, as much as

you do. I have been to Indianapolis and other places.

Mr. BAILEY. Have you further comments at this time?

Dr. FULLER. No, I have not.

Mr. BAILEY. Questions?

(No response.)

Dr. FULLER. It is a distinct pleasure for me, since I have been on

sick leave, to come in with the full support of the Department of

Agriculture on this bill without having to go through the sort of critical cross-questioning I have from time to time undergone in this

room.

Mr. BAILEY. The next witness will be Mrs. Ada Stough, the American Parents Committee.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ADA BARNETT STOUGH, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PARENTS COMMITTEE, INC.

Mrs. STOUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I also have a short statement which I shall file for the record. Since I notice time is getting

short I shall not take further time.

Most of the members know the organization I represent and how we

work for school lunch appropriations and better school lunch programs.

We were very gratified to see we got increased appropriations from

the Congress this year and I see no reason if this bill is passed why

Congress will not increase the appropriations next year so that Mr.

O'Hara's State and some of the other States where some of my good

congressional friends come from will not be left holding the bag, so to

speak. They will not be cut so drastically. I feel optimistic about

getting an appropriation large enough to take care of some of these

States.

In summarizing, I want to make just five points we would like to

see in this legislation. The first point is that we would like to see a

formula which would distribute funds to the States on the basis of

aotual participation rather than potential participation. You have

had ample testimony before this committee last year, and I have

tried in the written testimony to show how a State which really tries,

Mr. Quie, to spread the school lunch program to more children, in

other words, increase the participation, is penalized because the money

has to be spread much more thinly. Each school that takes on a

school lunch program gets less per lunch and it does not encourage the

length of the program as this new principle might.
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 25

The second principle we would like to see is in the same idea of

reimbursement in accordance with participation. The nonpublic

schools are getting a larger reimbursement per lunch than the public

schools.

The third principle which I find now is in the O'Hara bill, which

we found was in the Senate bill, is that there would be a special and

additional appropriation to help schools in areas of special need. We

realize, Mr. Bailey, what is going on in your State and from the letters

we got from States this year when we were preparing testimony for

the Appropriations Committee we found that these areas of special

need were making for a great handicap and a great financial burden

on the whole school lunch program in the entire State because of the

number of free lunches they were called upon to serve. We think

this principle in this bill would help greatly.

The fourth principle we applaud in the new bill is this transition

period which would cushion some of the shock from States such as

Mr. O'Hara's and others where they would be drastically cut if the

appropriation were not appreciably increased.

The fifth principle we like in the new bill is that there is a specific

floor under which reimbursements would not fall. This year, with

appropriations not being adequate to take care of many States, the

reimbursement has fallen way down in some States. It is dangerously low. I say "dangerously" because if a school cannot get a

certain reimbursement they have to close the school lunchroom rather

than serve luncheons.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. As I say, we applaud your

consideration of this bill and we would like very much to see these

amendments go through early in the next session so we can get work

for an increased appropriation.

May I ask that this full statement be submitted in its entirety?

Mr. BAILEY. Without objection that may be done.

(Mrs. Stough's statement follows:)

TESTIMONY BY ADA BARNETT STOUGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN

PARENTS COMMITTEE, INC.

GENTLEMEN. I am Ada Barnett Stough, executive director of the American

Parents Committee, Inc. The organization I represent is an organization which

concerns itself solely with legislation for the health, education, and welfare of

children. Members of its Board (on the list attached to my testimony) include

as you will see, many outstanding men and women. Support and improvement

of the national school lunch program has been one of the major objectives of the

American Parents Committee during its 15 years of existence.

We have watched the school lunch program grow from a program serving 3%

million children in 1947 to one serving almost 13 million in 1960. Each year

we have worked for adequate appropriations for the program. Consequently,

support for the legislation you are considering is based on familiarity with the

program and is in accordance with the principles voted each year by our Board.

I appear here today as a representative of that Board and particularly as a representative of George J. Hecht, chairman, who is also as you know publisher of

Parents' magazine.

Rather than address ourselves to any particular bill, we would like to reiterate

the principles we would like to see incorporated in amendments to the National

School Lunch Act.

The first and most important amendment we would like to see is one which

would set up a formula to distribute funds to the States on the basis of actual

participation rather than potential participation as is now the case. The present

formula penalizes a State which makes an effort to have a good and growing
26 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

school lunch program and rewards the State which does not encourage improvement, expansion, and the serving of a greater number of children. The State

which exerts itself to see that a hot lunch is available to the greatest possible

number of school children must spread its allotment over a larger area. On the

other hand, the State which simply accepts its allotment, maintains the status

quo and makes little attempt to stimulate growth is rewarded. Fewer children

buy lunch in that State so the State allotment does not have to be shared by so

many schools and each school gets a larger reimbursement for each lunch served.

Since the present formula discourages the growth of the program and works to

deprive some children of the benefits of a hot lunch, we would like to see the act

amended to allot Federal funds on the basis of actual lunches served.

The second amendment we would like to see is one which would make the

principle of actual participation apply to nonpublie schools which receive school

lunch money. Available information reveals that the average reimbursement

rate per lunch in nonpublic schools runs much higher than the average for public

schools. The reimbursement rate is figured on the total enrollment of children

in the nonpublic schools. Since comparatively few of the schools operate lunchrooms the money is spread only over a small area and each school profits

accordingly.

We note in S. 2442 a new section which would provide for an additional appropriation of funds to provide special help to schools in areas of special economic

need. We assume such a section would also be in a House bill. Such a provision

would seem to us very desirable if sufficient flexibility is allowed the Department

of Agriculture in the administration of this section. This past year we received

letters from many States pertaining to funds for the school lunch program. From

almost all of them we heard about the financial burden involved in providing free

lunches for the youngsters of the unemployed or those in schools in general

economic depressed areas.

The 1-year transition period before the new formula would be effective provided

in the Senate bill would seem to us also desirable. The effect of the new formula,

will not be the desired one if there is not a specific floor below which the reimbursement rate per lunch would not fall. We believe the act should be amended

as soon as possible. The President should then recommend in his next budget

an appropriation large enough to insure that every State would receive the minimum amount per lunch. The U.S. Congress has always supported the school

lunch program and we believe it will do so in the future. For that reason we

would like to see legislation before you enacted into law at the earliest possible

date. Thank you.

Mr. QUIE. In the second point you made, do I understand there

will be less money available under the new formula for nonpublic

schools? Is that correct?

Mrs. STOUGH. The principle regarding nonpublic schools would be

the same as that for the public schools, which would be on participation rather than the enrollment of public schools.

Mr. QUIE. What would be the practical effect?

Mrs. STOUGH. The practical effect, as I understand it, and Mr.

Fuller knows these details more fully, the practical effect would be

this: Now the allocation to nonpublic schools is based on enrollment

of pupils in nonpublic schools. Since fewer of the nonpublic schools

serve lunches this serves to make the reimbursement per child

greater. Many nonpublic schools do not serve lunches. To those who

do serve lunches the reimbursement rate per child is greater, so they

are really getting more assistance from a practical point of view than

the public schools.

Mr. QUIE. But the effect of this formula will be to reduce that 

Mrs. STOUGH. If we make it on participation it would not reduce it

if a larger percentage of the pupils enrolled were getting lunches.

It means the formula applies to those people as well.

Mr. BAILEY. Does the gentleman representing the Agriculture

Department wish to comment on this?
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 27

Mr. DAVIS. I would be very happy to comment on this. We have

had some adverse comments in the past over the condition which

arose in some States where a private school on one side of the street

serving lunches was perhaps reimbursed at 1 cent more than the

public school across the street in the same city. In some instances it

was just the reverse, where the private schools had very high participation they might be receiving less in one school on one side of the

street than the public school on the other.

Everyone agreed, I believe, that this was not equitable, that all

schools should be treated alike, so the formula as it is in the bill

would provide the same opportunity for the same reimbursement for

all schools in the State, public and private. They would be treated

alike.

Mr. QUIE. Where the effect of the new formula would mean a

reduction to a nonpublic school they would at least now be treated

equitably with the public schools in the area. Where they were

lower than the public schools before because of graeter participation

they would be brought up so they will be made equitable?

Mr. DAVIS. That is right. In all fairness, so we do not leave the

wrong impression with the committee, I believe there will be more

instances where the private school rate will be lowered than there will

be where it will be raised because, as the lady has already testified,

generally speaking, across the country the participation in private

schools for many very good reasons has been lower than it has been

in the public schools, so that in all fairness I think you should know

there will be more instances where it will be lowered than raised.

However, there are some where it has been lower in the private

schools in the past. They will now receive the same.

Mr. BAILEY. This would tend to make it uniform?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; they will all be treated alike.

Mr. QUIE. Looking at the last column on your table, if we have an

appropriation of $139 million this in practically every case will bring

the participation up to or above what it is at the present time? Is that

right?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. There are one or two exceptions, I believe,

the District of Columbia, Alaska, and one or two others which will

still take a small reduction under an appropriation of $139.9 million.

Mr. BAILEY. One observation. I am curious to know why the

District of Columbia is 8 cents per pupil and 4.2 cents in West Virginia.

Mr. DAVIS. Entirely a matter of participation. In relation to their

child population in the District, with a reasonably high per capita

income, they are spreading their available funds among fewer children

so they are able to pay this very high rate in comparison to other

States.

In a State that has high participation under the present formula,

as you well know, they have a very low rate per meal. This bill will

correct this.

Mr. BAILEY. To what extent?

Mr. DAVIS. It will reduce the District and it will raise the proportion that a State such as West Virginia would get. For example, the

percentage of participation at this point in the District of Columbia is

9.2 percent. In West Virginia it is 38.6, which is well above the

national average as you can see so far as participation is concerned.
28 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

While this will cause a rather sharp reduction in the amount of

money the District gets, and might necessitate some rather difficult

adjustments, we still feel it is much more fair to give the States with

high participation a reimbursement based on that participation rather

than on their lack of it.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you.

Mr. QUIE. IS it not true that the District of Columbia has perhaps

the highest per capita income of any State in the Union?

Mr. DAVIS. That may have been true at one time. If you take

Metropolitan 'Washington that would be a different story.

Mr. QUIE. The District itself.

Mr. DAVIS. You are right, Mr. Quie.

Mr. O'HARA. I do not like to prolong this but a couple of questions

have arisen. First, before I get too much credit for an act of statesmanship, I call the gentleman's attention to table 4 which has the

transition worked into it. My own State does not do quite as badly

as it would if we went directly into the total allocation formula.

Other than that I would like, with respect to this question of the

allocation of funds for pupils in public schools and nonpublic schools,

to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the justification

for this program in light of the interpretations of the first amendment

as made by the 'U.S. Supreme Court on various cases, really depends

upon a grant of assistance directly to the pupils. This is conceived

as a program not of any aid to a particular school or class of school

but to American schoolchildren regardless of where they go to school.

Equal assistance to them seems to me to be part of that justification,

I wanted to point that out.

One further point with regard to that matter is that I feel to a large

extent the lesser degree of participation by nonpublic schools is the

result of the fact that a lower percentage of nonpublic schools have

been financially able to equip their institutions with lunchroom facilities. I would personally like to see some effort made under this act,

or under administrative action or under other programs, either to

fund the existing provisions for assistance to such schools for the

purchase of lunchroom equipment or to, in the alternative, provide a

greater degree of assistance for lunches of a type which do not require

preparation at the site.

I wondered if either Mrs. Stough or Mr. Davis would care to comment on that aspect.

Mrs. STOUGH. I defer to Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. One quick word on that. That is one way in which

the funds that are provided in the bill for special assistance to needy

schools might very well be used for additional help to them for the

expenses of preparing lunches perhaps in another school, and transporting them. The actual assistance, however, would be in the form

of additional food or additional money for the purchase of food so

other funds would be released for the equipment and labor.

Mr. O'HARA. I would like to point out in conclusion that in the

neediest areas, both in public and nonpublic schools, you are less apt

to have the sort of financial base for support of schools that permits

the construction of luncheon facilities and kitchen facilities, and it is

in those very same areas that the greatest need exists for help through

this program, too.
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 29

I am concerned that we work out some sort of arrangement whereby

we can overcome that difficulty.

I have nothing further.

Mr. BAILEY. If the suggestion of Dr. Fuller prevails perhaps the

States might have some money for the construction of facilities.

Our next witness is our colleague, the Honorable Vernon W. Thomson of Wisconsin, author of one of the bills before the subcommittee.

Ir. Thomson.

STATEMENT OF HON. VERNON W. THOMSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. THOMSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important

legislation.

Through the years the national school lunch program has been an

important instrument in maintaining and improving the health of

our young people, while at the same time providing a substantial outlet for our agricultural abundance. Last year some 13.5 million

youngsters participated in this valuable program. This was the first

time that this program which was enacted in 1946 has topped 13

million. According to the Department of Agriculture, some 2,142

million lunches were served last year, some 144 million more than in

the previous year. Most of this food, about 80 percent, was purchased

locally by the 62,000 public and nonprofit private schools participating

in the program. About 265,000 students in my State of Wisconsin

alone are enjoying the benefits of the program. During the year total

local purchases amounted to some $540 million. In addition, 58

million dollars' worth of nutritious foods were supplied by AMS

purchases to supplement the $70 million distribution of surplus foods

made available from the price support program.

Unfortunately, this worthwhile program is running out of money.

That is why I have introduced H.R. 6209 and am now urging the

support of the committee for my bill. The problem is an acute one,

not only in my State but also in the States of Arkansas, Colorado,

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New

York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South

Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming.

It may well be that the Committee on Appropriations can meet the

increased needs by added appropriation or by fund transfers. However, these increased needs developing in these 24 States must be met

promptly and I feel that this committee by giving its support to this

legislation can make a substantial contribution toward the strengthening of farm prices and the improvement of children's diets.

The success of this program through the years demands our continuing support, so I most sincerely urge the committee to approve

the authorized $10 million increases as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. The subcommittee will recess at this time, subject to

the call of the Chair.
30 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

(The following material was submitted for the record:)

SEPTEMBER 12, 1961.

Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY,

Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BAILEY: Thank you for your letter of August 29 requesting a statement in support of my bill (H.R. 4688) to amend the National School Lunch Act

to provide for a more equitable distribution of funds under such act and for other

purposes.

The purpose of the School Lunch Act as passed in 1946 was stated in its title,

as follows: 'to provide assistance to the States in the establishment, maintenance,

operation, and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs. For each fiscal

year, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary

to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the Act. It

is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, as a measure of national security,

to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage

the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other foods

by assisting the States, through grants-in-aid and other means, in providing an

adequate supply of foods and other facilities for expansion of the program."

The success of this program has been outstanding. Its acceptance by the

parents, pupils, and schools is demonstrated by the fact that in 1947 approximately 3 million pupils were served a complete meal each schoolday. By 1960,

nearly 13 million students were served a complete meal. The total number of

meals served crossed the 2 billion mark more than 2 years ago and continues to

grow.

However, the number of schools participating in the program and the number

of pupils eating lunches have both increased faster than available funds. Consequently, it has been necessary to reduce the Federal reimbursement rate. I

should like to show the application of these total figures to the State of North

Dakota, with which I am naturally the most familiar. Here is what has taken

place in this program within our State.

In 1959, the average national participation in the lunch program was about

35 percent of school enrollment. North Dakota's participation during the school

year 1959-60 was 4534 percent. In December 1960 alone the participation was

52 percent. However, the original act provided for about 8.7 cents per meal of

Federal participation in our State. Over the years, the increase in the number

of meals served reduced the Federal share to 5.3 cents by 1953. During 1960,

although the appropriations had increased to $100 million, the number of children

served in North Dakota was great enough to bring the reimbursement down to

a new low of 3 cents a meal, which was 1 cent below the national average. This

of course brought about increased costs to the school district in providing these

class A meals to the students. The current national 4.1 cents per meal does not

appear to be sufficiently conducive to encouraging schools to participate in the

program. North Dakota rate of 3 cents is even less conducive to it.

One of the reasons for the increased participation in North Dakota has been

a great deal of reorganization of school districts. This has eliminated a great

many of the small rural schools and necessitated those children being transported

by bus to the towns. This means that more students are away from home for

the noon meal and thereby increase the demand for hot meals. Having been

closely associated with this program in my State for many years and having

watched its expansion and success despite the drawbacks involved, I introduced

H.R. 4688 at the beginning of this session. If enacted, I feel my bill would do

a great deal toward stabilizing this program and safeguarding Federal participation from dropping to such a low point that the school districts will drop the

entire program..

I very strongly endorse the provisions of this bill to your committee for consideration with the hope that it will be acted upon favorably.

Sincerely,

HJALMAR C. NYGAARD, Member of Congress.
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 31

NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE,

Washington, D.C., September 15, 1961.

Hon. CLEVELAND BAILEY,

Chairman, Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BAILEY: We read with very great interest the remarks of Senator

Long and Senator Burdick relative to a revision of the formula for apportioning

cash assistance funds under the National School Lunch Act. Senator Long and

Senator Burdick spoke to the bill S. 2442 as a substitute for S. 347. Their remark

are to be found in the Congressional Record August 18, 1961, page 15258. We recognize the force of their argument for equity in the distribution of the funds.

We recognize that such equity should be represented in all Federal legislation,

Realizing the impact that the revised formula which seeks to provide such equity would have upon the school lunch program in the nonpublic schools, we appreciate

the proposal that there be a 1-year transition period. According to this proposal, during the transition period one-half of the funds would be made available for apportionment under the formula now in effect and one-half under the new

formula. This undoubtedly would help to alleviate the impact upon the nonpublic schools. In conjunction with this proposal we would urge that the Congress

direct a comprehensive study to be made of the operations of the school lunch

program, especially as to participation. We would suggest that this study extend

no more than 2 or 3 years. This study even in its initial phases will indicate a

need for a 2- or 3-year adjustment period.

We share with you, Mr. Chairman, and with the original framers of the school

lunch legislation a deep concern .for the health needs of America's children.

"ndoubtedly you are aware that the present lack of equity arises from the fact

that the relative participation by non-public-school pupils in the program has

been lower than that by public school children. If the participation had been

equal the inequity would not exist. Obviously the need of non-public-school children for the benefits of this program is the same as that of the public school children. We must ask, therefore, why there has not been equal participation.

It is our contention that the failure arises not from a lack of need or of interest

but rather from the inability of many nonpublic schools to provide the facilities

necessary. The original legislation included an authorization for an appropria- tion of funds for the purchase of such facilities. However appropriations have

not been made. We would ask that consideration be given to authorized appro- priations. We feel confident that if the nonpublic schools could find a means of securing the needed facilities the asserted inequity would disappear and a much higher percentage of America's children would have the needed benefits of this legislation. In this way, Mr. Chairman, non-public-school administrators would find the program more acceptable and the original intent of the Congress, namely, that all American children should have adequate nourishment, would be obtained.

In the light of these facts we urgently request a study of the school lunch program. We are mindful of the need for equity but we are also mindful of the need for providing for the well-being of all of the children whether they be in public

or in nonpublic schools. We know that you and your committee will do every- thing possible to provide legislation which will give to the Nation's schools a

program so designed that no child will be deprived of its benefits.

With many thanks for the opportunity to present our point of view,

Sincerely

Rt. Rev. Msgr. FREDERICK G. HOCHWALT,

Director, Department of Education.

S.F. No. 450

Resolution No. 7

A RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS To ENACT LAWS PROVIDING FOR MORE

WIDESPREAD USE OF FARM COMMODITIES FOR SCHOOL LUNCH AND WELFARE

PROGRAMS

Whereas, one of the most pressing problems of our Nation today is that of the ever-growing supply of farm surpluses; and

Whereas, there are persons in our Nation who suffer nutritional deficiencies because of financial inability to secure adequate, nourishing food; and
32 SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

Whereas some progress in the problem of surpluses could be made by greater

use of the surplus commodities for school lunch programs and welfare programs:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, That the U.S. Congress

and the Secretary of Agriculture be requested to expand programs whereby surplus food is distributed for school lunch and welfare programs; be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of state is instructed to send copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture,

and each Member of the U.S. Congress from the State of Minnesota.

President of the Senate.

E. J. CHILGUN,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Passed the senate this fourteenth day of March in the year of Our Lord one

thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.

HOY TANEY,

Secretary of the Senate.

Passed the house of representatives this fifteenth day of April in the year of

Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.

Approved April 20, 1961.

Filed April 20, 1961.

G. H. LEAHY,

Chief Clerk, House of Representatives.

ELMER L. ANDERSEN,

Governor of the State of Minnesota.

JOSEPH L. DONOVAN,

Secretary of the State of Minnesota.