Secretary FREEMAN. Yes.

Senator MONTOYA. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis has stated, just now, Mr. Secretary, that in some areas under existing law, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare came in and supplemented what you were doing. How did that happen? Did they take the matter up with you in advance and find out why you were not furnishing the food, or just exactly how did it barge in-in other words?

Secretary FREEMAN. They just proceeded to carry forward the program and to utilize the funds available, and we not having the funds or authority to act in these instances and the needs not being met, why, they just proceeded to work with the local school people to handle the needs.

The CHAIRMAN. You have under the present law the authority to provide nonfood help in areas where it is needed?

Secretary FREEMAN. We did not have adequate resources to meet the needs, and that is the reason we are here, Mr. Chairman, in trying to get those resources so that the needs can be met.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be that the Congress did not provide the funds for you, but you do have the authority, as I remember, under the School Act, to do that very thing.

Secretary FREEMAN. Yes; under section 11. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. But you did not do it?

Secretary FREEMAN. No, sir; we did it to the extent of the funds that we had to do it, as I have tried to point out, but we did not have adequate resources to meet the need, so while the need was unmet they moved in.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they consult you before coming in?

Secretary FREEMAN. I have had no consultations. In some instances, let's say, why, there were consultations; in other, why, they just went ahead on their own.

Is that not about right?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent did they take over the school lunch program?

Secretary FREEMAN. They did not take over the school lunch program at all.

The CHAIRMAN. They are doing the same thing you are doing in a measure or that you contemplate doing under this bill.

Secretary FREEMAN. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And it seems to me that a little conflict there may develop.

Secretary FREEMAN. Well, a conflict could develop, but I think it is our best judgment that as the educational programs provide teaching equipment, providing for teachers and other things, which is the primary direction of the Education Act-as it gets moving, the resources will be needed for that, and there will no longer be the funds available from the sources to meet the needs to the extent that they have helped meet them.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not agree with you there. These programs are going to continue. They will get money to continue them.

Senator YOUNG. One of the most difficult problems I have is to find out for the people back home just what agencies of the Government will provide assistance of one type or another, such as where they can go if they want facilities for a school lunch or other program.

They can now go to at least two places-maybe they can go to other places, too. We find this in every agency of the Government. There are programs for almost anything people want and they can find a part of it in several agencies of the Government. That is why I think it would be a whole lot better if you could confine activities such as providing facilities for this whole lunch program in one agency of the Government and not have it scattered around in two or three or four or more places.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if we could not provide in this bill-since the Department has been in this field for so longthat any funds that are provided by the Congress through other laws, and administered through other laws, be administered through the Department of Agriculture? What would be wrong with that? Secretary FREEMAN. I have no objection to that.

The CHAIRMAN. That they be administered through the Department of Agriculture.

Secretary FREEMAN. I have no objection to that.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that where there is duplication it, will mean that a lot of the funds are being wasted in administration, and I believe that it might well be for us to give thought to that, so that any programs under existing laws that contemplate anything approaching the school lunch program be under the same umbrella. I wish that you would expand on that, if you will, and give us an indication how you would like to proceed. Give us some language that we might put into this bill. This lunch program has been on the statute books at least 20 years, and has worked well, and my fear is that if other agencies of the Government barge in, you are going to have confusion and duplication and quite an expensive program that may not be as effective as what we have here now.

Senator MONTOYA. Would it be in order to ask the staff to prepare a résumé of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare provisions which deal with this particular subject, and that that study be included in this part of the record?

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest that we get it from the Secretary. I guess he is familiar with it. I guess, Mr. Davis, you are familiar with all of it. You come in head-on contact with them in some of these programs.

Mr. DAVIS. We could supply the language in the current legislation for education and OEO, under which this money has been made available.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if you could follow the suggestion by Senator Montoya as to all of the programs that may deal with the school luncheons being connected with the schools providing food, of providing nonfood assistance, that such legislation references be given at this point in the record?

Senator MONTOYA. Including the categorization of the funding. The CHAIRMAN. And how much money is being spent in each eategory.

Senator YOUNG. I think that other programs are in it, too.

For example, in my hometown, just a little town, the school district was given a grant of $26,000. They hired some teachers but they used part of this money to buy equipment. They could have bought the equipment for the school lunch program, I assume, under that program.

Secretary FREEMAN. It is difficult to get solid figures on this, because the Office of Education tells us that the project plans from the individual school districts do not show the amounts spent for individual project items, but from the preliminary data that we have been able to get we would make an estimate of as much as $16 million in education funds being spent this year to assist the schools in feeding needy children.

Senator TALMADGE. That is for equipment only?

Secretary FREEMAN. For equipment, but also to help buy food to feed them.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if we could get that in the record, a breakdown of that, and who is furnishing what, outside of the Department of Agriculture, in the school lunch program?

(The information is on p. 8.)

Senator TALMADGE. Do you know how much OEO has provided in that area?

Secretary FREEMAN. The best information we have, with the exception of "Headstart" programs for the preschool children, is there have been very few OEO projects involved in the school feeding programs mostly done under the Education Act.

The CHAIRMAN. That is out of school, is it not?

Secretary FREEMAN. The "Headstart", it is preschool.

Senator TALMADGE. They have, in fact, three different agencies involved in this field.

Secretary FREEMAN. Yes, sir.

I might say, to follow the chairman's last remark, we will be happy to prepare and submit language that would specify that school feeding programs should be coordinated with the basic school lunch program. The CHAIRMAN. In the schools?

Secretary FREEMAN. In the schools that have been carried on, as you have pointed out, successfully for many years.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Senator HOLLAND. What is the essential difference between the school milk program that you have incorporated into this new bill, S. 3467, and that which is now pending?

year.

Secretary FREEMAN. There is no difference, Senator Holland, from the current law which is presently on the books and which runs out this year, with the exception that this bill would provide for a limit of time, and it would provide for a maximum of $100 million a The bill which has been introduced, as I recall, provided for not less than $110 million, and as it was reported out of the subcommittee I think that was changed to not more than $110 million. But S. 3467 provides not more than $100 million, and the recommendation made in my testimony was to leave that to the Appropriations Committee which is what the current law does without specifying it in the authorization as such.

Senator HOLLAND. Is there any section in this proposed new part of your bill that refers to special milk programs that confines the appropriation to the general revenue funds, as is now found in the present bill?

Senator FREEMAN. No, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. What was the reason for leaving that out?

Secretary FREEMAN. We thought that, again, is something that is properly a question for the Appropriations Committee to determine

rather than to place it in the general legislation. As to whether it should be funded out of section 32 funds or funded out of general revenue funds is a matter upon which there has been some differences of opinion from time to time, and we just thought that perhaps it would be more proper if it were determined in the Appropriations Committee.

Senator HOLLAND. So far as this committee is concerned, there has not been any great difference of opinion that the bill, as it now exists on the statute books, makes it clear that it is a social welfare program and that it would be financed out of the general revenue funds, rather than section 32 funds.

Is there any objection to having that same provision in this bill? Secretary FREEMAN. Senator Holland, I do not think that is the legislative history of this, if I may say so. I think that the bill originated not as a welfare bill at all but as a disposal program for excess milk, and as such-

Senator HOLLAND. Do you know whether there is any such wording in that bill at this time?

Secretary FREEMAN. I beg your pardon? Do you mean the initial basic legislation?

Senator HOLLAND. Yes.

Secretary FREEMAN. I know of no such wording, one way or another, in the basic law. But the legislative history of it is quite clear, that it was a surplus disposal provision, and as such it would seem that its financing would have to be limited to a particular source.

Senator HOLLAND. What is the provision of the present bill on this subject?

The CHAIRMAN. As I recall it, Mr. Secretary

Senator HOLLAND. The present legislation includes these words:

Amounts expended hereunder and under the authority contained in the last sentence of Section 201(c) of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended, shall not be considered as amounts expended for the purpose of carrying out the price-support program.

You have no such words as that in the present legislation which you are suggesting, do you?

Secretary FREEMAN. No, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. Do you have any objection to having such wording included?

Secretary FREEMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. You want it to be where you can use section 32 funds for this milk program; is that it?

Secretary FREEMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. If that is the purpose, I am completely against it, because I think that we should have section 32 funds available for the purposes intended, which are for various needs envisioned in years in which there would be a surplus in beef, that they would be up to $100 million for use of section 32 funds, and if there were a surplus in pork, calling for the use of a similar amount, or a surplus in poultry calling for the use of a similar amount, or a surplus in vegetables calling for various subsidies which might be that amount and more, and you get away from the primary purpose of the section 32 funds that are usually for something that is a price-supported commodity. You realize, of course, that section 32 funds are supposed to be dedicated for non-price-supported commodities.

Secreary FREEMAN. Yes, sir. And I heartly support that objective. Senator Holland, I would be the first to object if I thought those funds and their availability were threatened. However, each year, even in the year in which we spent $200 million for beef, we still turned back a substantial amount of section 32 funds. I honestly cannot envisage a situation where we would not turn back those funds. And the amounts that have been recommended by the administration in this connection for the school milk program has been recommended with the fact in mind that there should always be adequate funds under section 32, and there always have been adequate funds under section 32. And, therefore, while I completely agree with your objective, sir, in this instance I feel this is a restriction on our fiscal freedom, which I do not think is justified by the facts.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, if the Senator from Florida will permit, I do not see anything in the authorization of the pending measure that even refers to section 32 funds.

Secretary FREEMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 13 states:

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1967, and each fiscal year thereafter during the period ending June 30, 1970, such sums as may be necessary, but not in excess of $100 million for any fiscal year, to enable the Secretary of Agriculture, under such rules and regulations as he may deem in the public interest, to encourage consumption of fluid milk by children in the United States in (1) nonprofit schools of high school grade and under, and (2) nonprofit nursery schools, child-care centers, settlement houses, summer camps, and similar nonprofit institutions devoted to the care and training of children.

I do not see any reference there to section 32 funds. I do not see where your authority is for saying by leaving it to Congress that they can dip into section 32 funds. We cannot do it, as I understand, except by special authority.

Senator HOLLAND. We have had this language in the earlier bill that has been construed as requiring the appropriation to come out of the general revenue funds, and that is what I would like to see continued in the school milk program.

The CHAIRMAN. That is in this bill now. I do not see where the Secretary got what he stated-I mean, where in this bill the language justifies it.

Senator HOLLAND. He has just stated, as I understand it, that he expects to dip into section 32 funds.

The CHAIRMAN. It cannot be.

Senator HOLLAND. As a sponsor of the bill, you are stating now that could not be the case?

The CHAIRMAN. No-exactly, it could not be.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Secretary, I am going to ask you this question.

Secretary FREEMAN. I seem to be getting boxed in.

Senator HOLLAND. I will ask you to state what your impression is on that, and where you get that impression?

Secretary FREEMAN. I am a little bit at a loss now.

I gather that the question before us is whether there is some language which is the basic law to which you have just referred that is going to be changed by the proposal S. 3467 currently before this committee.