Mr. PUCINSKI. Fine.

Mr. VEYSEY. Were you going to have Mrs. White next?
Dr. PERRYMAN. I thought we would proceed.

Mr. VEYSEY. I wanted to particularly greet Mrs. White because she is from California. I spent quite some time once at China Lake, so I know where it is and I remember when we were trying to encourage people to come to China Lake for the Navy project there. We used to advertise "Live and work in beautiful China Lake". And we got quite a few that way.

Mr. PгCINKSI. Mrs. White, why don't you proceed.

Mrs. WHITE. Thank you. I am Gene White, food service director of schools at China Lake, Calif., and State president of the 4500member California School Food Service Association. I wish to express my appreciation for this opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 5291.

I appear here today representing the California School Food Service Association and the other 10 State associations in the western region. In the Far West, as throughout the rest of the Nation, we are deeply concerned about the nutritional needs of children. It has been 25 years since Congress passed the National School Lunch Act. During this time the school lunch program has grown and some progress has been made. However, we have fallen far short of our goals to reach all children and to make school food services a meaningful part of the total educational program. Financing has been so inadequate and insecure that in my own State some programs are being closed. Long range planning has been difficult if not impossible. Nutrition education is almost nonexistent. Hungry children and malnutrition are still with us.

In California we have approximately 1 million needy children. Only half of them are receiving free or reduced price lunches. Less than one-third of the 5 million children enrolled in our schools are participating in the type A lunch program. Twenty-eight percent of our schools, representing an enrollment of 700.000 children, have no food service at all. In spite of good intentions, our Nation has never accented its responsibility to eliminate hunger and malnutrition for all children. If we are to ever accomplish this, adequate funds and strong legislation, as specified in H.R. 5291, must be provided.

There are many reasons why we in the West support this universal food service and nutrition education bill. I would like to mention just three:

1. Lunches would be provided for all children, without cost nationwide. For the first time they would be equally available to all children. We know from experience that the "means" test now in use is not a reliable index of nutritional need. Many children, who are not in the poverty class, urgently need food assistance due to broken homes, neglect and ignorance. These children in no way qualify for free or reduced price lunches. In our effort to help the poverty group, we have completely neglected other children. Lunch costs for paving students are constantly rising. As a result, we are pricing the low- and middle-income groups out of the program. As this happens, the broad health and educational opportunities of school food service are being lost, and the program as a whole is losing its effectiveness and support.

2. Administration of a universal food service program would be proportionately less costly and more realistic. It is virtually impossible to identify needy students for selection and accounting purposes and at the same time protect their anonymity. We find that many proud parents, such as the Mexican-Americans in my State, choose to go without free or reduced price lunches rather than publicly declare their need. As a result, these children are not being fed.

3. Nutrition education would be established for the first time, as a high priority national program. We believe education is as important as food itself in meeting the long-term health needs of children. There is particularly concern for the nutrition and education of teenage girls who grow more, mature earlier and start raising families at a younger age. It is imperative that nutrition education be made a permanent and meaningful part of the school curriculum designed to meet the needs of all children.

The concern and activity in the West typifies that in other regions of the Nation. We are asking for supportive Federal legislation, but we are also trying to help ourselves.

In California we have written and widely distributed a position paper, "Apparent Hunger in California Schools," urging support for universal food service and nutrition education. The 1971 master plan for public health in California also supports free lunches for all children and comprehensive nutrition education. The State Department of Education has recently appointed a task force with responsibility for extending the national school lunch program to all schools in our State. During this week and next, 100 school food service leaders from the Western States are attending a USDA sponsored Nutrition Education Seminar at Utah State University. The State of Alaska has its own bill for universal food service and nutrition education before its legislature at the present time.

The need is clearly recognized. The course of action is defined and agreed upon. The only remaining question is one of national priority and personal commitment. Do we really want to end hunger and malnutrition? Are we willing to take the action and support the programs to provide for these urgent health and educational needs of children? We believe these are items of highest national priority.

On behalf of the California School Food Service Association and the western region, I respectfully solicit your support for this legislation. I wish to thank you for this opportunity to testify before this

committee.

Thank you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mrs. White. Miss Martin. Miss MARTIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Josephine Martin. I am administrator of the Georgia school food service program. I appear here today in support of H.R. 5291. I wish to thank you for your leadership in securing passage of the amendments to the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These amendments-Public Law 91-248-have made possible the expansion of the program to reach millions of additional economically needy children through child nutrition programs. Their full implementation will provide the transition necessary to a universal school lunch and nutrition education program.

I wish to thank this committee and also to commend you for introducing H.R. 5291. The experiences of 1970-71 have vividly demonstrated that the only way to meet school day nutrition needs of all children is through a universal school lunch and nutrition education program. More and more school administrators, teachers, and parents are coming to an awareness that lunches are a right of children; that school lunches are needed by all children; that nutrition education is equally as important as education in other subject matter areas if children are to learn the valuable lessons in making wise food choices that will in reality determine to a great extent the quality of their lives.

A longtime advocate of a universal school lunch program, can you imagine the excitement I experienced a few days ago when Sam Morris, superintendent of Meriwether County Schools, Georgia, said:

The way to improve the school lunch program is to make it available to children, just as we make library books available. Wouldn't it be ridiculous to charge children a fee for using library books? It is equally as ridiculous to expect them to pay for their lunches.

And the same administrator stated:

Schools must be relieved of some of the paperwork necessary to identify and provide lunches to economically needy children.

Local systems have limited central office staff; in many instances. the principal must be responsible for collection of moneys and reporting as well as determining eligibility of children for lunches. Often all this is done with no secretarial help. The Georgia school administrators have done a fantastic job in serving children, 83 percent of all of the children in Georgia had lunch at school in May and approximately 34 percent of those were free or reduced.

H.R. 5291 would provide the kind of help needed by Superintendent Sam Morris of Meriwether County as it would make lunches available as library books are made available. A very important section of that bill provides funds to States for local costs of supervision. If we are to achieve the goals of meeting school nutrition needs of children, school districts must have professionally qualified persons to direct and coordinate school food service. It is not possible for school lunch to an "add-on task" and to achieve "universal school lunch and nutrition education."

I was equally as excited to hear Dr. R. L. Johns, University of Florida, reiterate his position last week during a meeting of school food service people in the Southern States. Dr. Johns has advocated for 25 years that school lunch services should be provided on the same basis as other educational services. The concept of universal school lunch is not new. Nearly 25 years ago, the late Mrs. Agnes E. Meyer of the Washington Post stated:

What we must aim at is a gradual evolution toward a free hot midday meal for every child-it should be provided in the same spirit in which we now provide each child with free textbooks.

Mrs. Meyer further stated:

The present program, which reaches only a limited number of our children, will prove its inadequacy and its injustice to those who are now excluded. Although the idea of a universal school lunch program has been promulgated for many years by visionary leaders such as Dr. Johns and Mrs. Meyer, perhaps only now is the time right to implement a

universal program. Perhaps it was necessary for the country to experience the Korean war, Vietnam, the advent of space exploration, the population explosion, the technological revolution, the fear of a food abundance becoming a food shortage, the shock of facts about malnutrition in developing countries, the war on poverty which led to nutrition studies that produced startling statistics about the nutritional status of people in America, and research that reflects a relationshipprobably greater than ever suspected-between food intake and physical and mental health.

Perhaps we had to experience some of "the great society" programs, such a title I of the ESEA which provided large amounts of funds for disadvantaged children, and many of these dollars were spent for free school lunch. School administrators for the first time had dollars for free lunches and they could see the results of free meals-attendance increased, holding power improved, absenteeism and tardiness declined, academic achievement improved.

And then, the findings of nutrition and food studies became available that revealed nutrition problems among all levels of society. The studies revealed that poor nutrition was not only related to low income, but also to food habits and food education. The first really startling facts were revealed when the USDA issued the 1965 Household Food Consumption Report. That report revealed (1) that more people were less adequately nourished in 1965 than 1955; (2) that people from the lower socioeconomic groups made better use of their food dollar than people from higher income brackets; (3) that middle-income people spent more of their food dollar for food and beverage items that contributed little more than calories to their nutritional needs.

The findings of several of the panels of the 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health reflected only a cursory approach to teaching nutrition in public schools, as well as professional schools of education, medicine, social welfare, et cetera. On the basis of the White House Conference findings, recommendations were made to strengthen nutrition education at all levels of concern. Public Law 91-248, the amendments to the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act, did provide for nutrition education, but in a limited way. The recently released report of the 10-State nutrition survey in the United States, 1968-1970, reflected nutritional inadequacies among the people below and above the poverty level. There was no specific relationship between dietary inadequacy and socioeconomic groups except for dietary iron intake.

In a land that has an abundance of food, it is really startling that the education of its people has been neglected in the area of nutrition. As our country becomes more urban than rural, and more of its citizens depend upon the market for their food supply, and as our food technology becomes more sophisticated and more engineered foods appears on the shelves, nutrition education, the art of teaching people to make wise food choices, becomes critical. When sputnik was launched, we witnessed a nationwide crash program in the sciences. Why shouldn't we experience a similar crash program in nutrition now?

The Nation's most valuable resource is its children; the children's most basic need is food: education is the key that will unlock the door of opportunity to children. The school serves a vital role in meeting the child's food needs, and his education needs. A universal school lunch would provide the food he needs during the school day; food at school also facilitates the school program. Having lunch at school often reduces the length of the school day, reduces traffic and transportation hazards of children leaving campus during lunch, provides social opportunities for children during the day. Dr. Bruno Bettelheim, noted University of Chicago psychologist stated, "That how one is being fed, and how one eats, has a larger impact on the personality than any other human experience." Yes, school lunch is important. Providing an equal opportunity for all children to have lunch and nutrition education at school is important.

The National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act as amended by Public Law 91-248 provide the framework necessary for the transitional period into a universal program. If we set our goal for a universal program by 1976, aggressive steps must be taken now to see that existing legislation is fully funded, and fully implemented. Some amendments are needed to expedite the implementation and also to assist with the transition to a universal program.

A universal school lunch and nutrition education program is necessary (1) to provide schoolday nutrition and nutrition education needs of pupils, (2) to facilitate the educational progress and (3) to simplify the logistics of program administration and operation.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of a universal school lunch and nutrition education program The late and beloved Senator Richard B. Russell was often quoted as saying that the most valuable piece of legislation which he had sponsored was the National School Lunch Act of 1946. Twenty-five years from now, congressional leaders will be uttering a similar remark about the universal program—a program that reaches all the children, the Nation's most valuable resources, must be a good investment. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Miss Martin. Mr. Stalker, I have read your entire statement here and, if you don't mind, we are going to put your statement in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. STALKER. DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BUREAU OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND SCHOOL FOOD SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I am John C. Stalker, director of the Bureau of Nutrition Education and School Food Services, in the Massachusetts Department of Education. I appear here today as a representative of the Department of Education in support of H.R. 5291.

Other persons today, more qualified than I, have testified as to the importance of nutrition in the physical and mental well-being of our youth-and of the detrimental effects of hunger and malnutrition in the classroom in preventing children from reaching their full educational potential.

Massachusetts is cognizant of the fact that hunger and malnutrition are not strangers to many of its young citizens. In 1969, a special commission was established to investigate their occurrence in the Commonwealth. Public hearings were held in ten areas of the State over a 6-month period. I was a member of this commission and our child nutrition programs were included in the study. In March of 1970, the commission reported: