Mr. PUCINSKI. The committee will come to order. Let me apologize to our distinguished witnesses this morning but this has been a hectic day here. We are holding very important hearings downstairs on black lung disease and the chairman of our committee, who has been the moving force behind H.R. 5291, is occupied with another very important matter, but we will proceed this morning anyway and begin hearings on H.R. 5291, a bill to establish a universal food service and nutrition education program for children. I am aware that the bill proposes a very ambitious program for improving the health and well-being of our Nation's children, and I know that as we proceed with our hearings, there will be undoubtedly high estimates on the cost of the program. But as the chairman of the Subcommittee on General Education, which has a keen interest in the education of our children in this country, there is no question in my mind that there is a direct correlation between the diet that youngsters get, the kind of nutritional support they get and their ability to progress successfully in the learning process.

And so while I am mindful that we are discussing here a very ambitious program, I believe that we ought to put into perspective the nutritional needs of America and the role that a sound nutritional program for the young children of this country would have on the learning process that we expose these youngsters to in our schools.

It doesn't make sense to me to spend almost $50 billion a year on public education and then find that many youngsters are not progressing as well as they could simply because of nutritional defects. And so it is my hope that we can in the course of these hearings develop the information we need to take action on this bill. I am going to ask that Mr. Perkins' entire statement on this subject with analysis of his bill be placed in the record at this point.

(Statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL D. PERKINS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking today in support of H.R. 5291, a bill to establish a universal food service and nutrition education program for children.

The bill proposes a program of great significance to the health and wellbeing of the Nation's children. In the long run, this program is the only sound and practical approach to solving the serious problems of malnutrition and poor diets that exist at all levels of income among the general population.

H.R. 5291 has three basic objectives:

First, to provide all children with adequate nutrition, free of charge, as a part of the educational program, on the same basis as most other school activities. No child is to be singled out or identified as different from his classmates in order to receive lunch at school.

Second, to provide funds and authority for the conduct of a comprehensive program through State Departments of Education to teach all children, as they learn and develop, the principles of good nutrition. All the evidence we have from the experts in nutrition and health points to one single conclusion. Ignorance is the fundamental, basic cause of undernutrition and poor diets. It is clear that an adequate level of income does not in itself guarantee an adequate level of nutrition:

Third, to strengthen the administration of food service programs for children by State and local governments. Over the past several years, one Federal program after another has been thrust upon State and local governments to the point that they do not have the financial ability to administer them effecively.

At this point, I should like to sketch out briefly the background of events that led to the introduction of new legislative proposals to improve the child nutrition programs.

During May and June 1968, the House Committee on Education and Labor held extensive hearings on malnutrition and Federal food programs. The testimony of many individuals and organizations, including professionals in the field of nutrition and health, educators, specialists in child feeding programs, and organizations concerned with the welfare of children, pointed conclusively to the necessity of upgrading and improving the nutrition programs for children. It was clear that millions of children who were most in need of better nutrition were not being reached by these programs.

Only recently has there been recognition of the relationship between good nutrition and a child's ability to learn, and his capacity to develop both his mental and physical abilities. This recognition has resulted in a number of rather spectacular changes in the child nutrition programs-since 1966 we have seen the passage of the Child Nutrition Act, which established the school breakfast program and provided funds to help schools to buy equipment to start lunch programs. Other legislation was approved to extend the lunch program to include child care centers and summer recreation programs; special legislation was passed in the spring of 1970 to provide emergency funding for the lunch program; and most recently, Public Law 91-248 was enacted and is bringing about major changes in the direction and impact of child nutrition programs.

This important progress has come about because the Congress has taken the leadership in initiating and approving measures to improve the health of our children through the expansion of the child nutrition programs. In the few short years since 1968, the number of needy children receiving lunches has risen sharply from less than 3 million to nearly 7.5 million children. Some 6,000 schools have come into the national school lunch program for the first time and are now offering nutritious lunches to all children in attendance. The school breakfast program has more than doubled in the past year and is now reaching a million children. But all this is simply a major step in the right direction. After 25 years of operation, only half of the Nation's children are now participating in the lunch program. I am convinced, therefore, that we must move in the direction of providing school lunches to all children free of charge on the same basis as all other school activities. As a practical matter, the local school system has the responsibility for the child from the moment he enters the school door until he leaves for home. All of his physical needs are provided for except for food. Free textbooks are provided, the physical education program is free, medical service or attention is provided for the child if he becomes sick, and transportation is supplied if needed to and from school. Why, therefore, should we continue to consider the need for food at school as different from the child's other needs?

Further, we must abolish once and for all the application of discriminatory "means test" to determine which children pay nothing for lunch, which children pay a portion of the price and which pay the full price. School principals should not be asked to assume what is basically a welfare function when their business is education.

There is but little question that the teaching of the principles of good nutrition has been largely neglected in the Nation's educational system. We find poor diets or less than adequate diets prevalent in all segments of the population, regardless of income. To correct this situation, there is an urgent need to incorporate nutrition education in various phases of the educational system. It need not be a separate course of instruction but can be given appropriate attention in hygiene classes, the home economics class, geography class, physical education and so on. The bill proposes grants of funds to assist States and local districts in the supervision and administration of food service programs for children. In the final analysis, no program is any better than its administration. In order to provide for a much larger program there will be a need for additional personnel, expanded training programs, and closer supervision to assure that tax monies will be spent efficiently.

Mr. Chairman, let's take a look at the cost factor in the proposed program. From a broad viewpoint, I know that everyone would agree that all children should receive adequate food in their hours away from home. If this goal is to

be accomplished, the total cost will be roughly the same, no matter how it is financed.

However, as a preliminary figure, it is estimated that the cost of a universal food service program for children would run about $4.5 billion in the early years of the program and about $5.5 billion annually when fully developed and available in all schools. The present national school lunch program, which reaches nearly 50 percent of total school enrollments, is costing about $2.5 billion, taking into account expenditures from all sources, i.e. governmental contributions, payments by parents for lunches, and contributions by private groups.

To be sure, we are talking about very large sums of money which would be required to carry out this program. But, costs must be measured against benefits in terms of what such a program would accomplish both for children and the population in general. In the longrun, the savings to the Nation in the cost of treating illnesses resulting from poor diets could well outweigh the cost of the program itself.

In conclusion, I recognize that this bill has many implications to a great variety of organizations and groups concerned with the welfare of children. For this reason, I trust that this committee will call upon the best advice and experience it can find in consideration of the merits and objectives of this legislative proposal. Experts in the fields of nutrition, education, health, and school administration and finance, food service management, child development, and related fields of knowledge, as well as representatives of affected organizations should be called upon to assist in framing the most effective legislation than can be passed to safeguard the nutrition and health of the Nation's greatest asset-our children.

As we look to the future, I sincerely hope that the day is in sight when we can say that every child has access to adequate food at school to meet his nutritional needs as well as access to knowledge of nutrition and its relationship to health. These are the two basic aims of the bill before you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. It is our pleasure to call before our committee this morning a very distinguished panel of nutrition experts. Mr. Wade Bash, State director of food services in Ohio; Mrs. L. Gene White, director of school food service in China Lake, Calif.; Miss Josephine Martin, State director of food service for the State of Georgia; Mr. John Stalker, State director of food services in Massachusetts; Miss Frances Fischer, Department of Nutrition, Cleveland, Ohio, representing American Dietetic Association; Dr. Perryman, accompanied by Miss Louise Frolich, assistant for legislative affairs of American School Food Service Association of Colorado; and Mr. Samuel Vanneman, Washington representative, American School Food Service Association here in Washington, D.C.

I wonder if I may ask the ladies and gentlemen to come before the committee here as a panel and then we will proceed with our discussion this morning.

Now I presume that all of you have prepared statements and all of your statements will go in the record in their entirety. Why don't we start with Mrs. White? Perhaps you can summarize your statement so we give everyone a chance to give an opening statement and then we can go into questions.

I might say there will be other members of the committee joining us as we move along here. I said at the outset this morning that a good part of our committee is downstairs on other hearings, but we have to become somewhat ambidextrous around here and we have to be able to cover three or four meetings at one time, so don't be disturbed as you see members of the committee come and go shifting between the two hearings.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN PERRYMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY MISS LOUISE A. K. FROLICH, ASSISTANT FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION, COLORADO; SAMUEL VANNEMAN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THE FOLLOWING PANEL: WADE BASH, STATE DIRECTOR FOOD SERVICES, OHIO; MRS. L. GENE WHITE, DIRECTOR SCHOOL FOOD SERVICES, CHINA LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CHINA LAKE, CALIF.; MISS JOSEPHINE MARTIN, STATE DIRECTOR FOOD SERVICES, GEORGIA; JOHN STALKER, DIRECTOR FOOD SERVICES, MASSACHUSETTS; AND MISS FRANCES FISCHER, DEPARTMENT OF NUTRITION, CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION

Dr. PERRYMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have tried as a panel to coordinate our statements so that there would be as little repetition as possible and to time them rather carefully. I believe that they can all be given within 35 minutes if we may have your permission.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Fine, Dr. Perryman. Why don't you take charge of the panel since you put the panel together and why don't you introduce each member and then the order in which you want the statements to be made. We will put you in charge of this operation.

Dr. PERRYMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am John Perryman, executive director, American School Food Service Association. We are very grateful, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee in support of H.R. 5291. Since we are recommending the most sweeping changes in school foods service in a quarter century, we must believe there is something wrong with school food service today. We do.

Much has been accomplished that is laudatory. Under the leadership of this committee, the Congress has mandated that school food service should be made available to every economically needy child in the Nation, that every parent shall be given an opportunity to indicate his need, that eligibility standards be published for the knowledge of all, that there not be a hungry child in the United States of America.

The step we have not yet taken, the giant step forward proposed by H.R. 5291, is that we as a nation think in terms of our nutritionally needy children, not just those who are economically needy. After 25 years of operation, we are reaching only about 25 million children per day. In other words, it has taken us a quarter century to reach only the halfway point of the more than 50 million school age children in the United States. The pace is not quick enough; the accomplishment is not good enough.

The economic means test imposed upon school food service, the only requirement of its kind remaining in our educational system, is a major roadblock in the path of expansion of school food services. More than that, it is an administrative nightmare. Often it is treated dishonestly by parents; it is a constant annoyance to administrators and is often

the source of wasted money by students. If we were to send our children to school with money in their pockets to pay for the day's education, it is difficult to know what use they would actually make of the money. In the same way money intended for a nutritious meal at school is many times diverted to empty calories, cigarettes, or put aside for a Saturday night date. Furthermore, the concept of secrecy for free or reduced price meals is largely fiction. Children themselves are the greatest source of information on this subject, the free meal student often gloating over his paying classmate.

H.R. 5291 concerns itself with two basic needs held in common by all children—a need for food and a need for a knowledge of food. Let us look briefly at each.

Our need for food is the most persistent. constant, never ending of all human needs. A homely example may be found in analogy to the family automobile. If the tires are balding, we make an administrative decision that they are good enough for another thousand miles. If the upholstery on the front seat is threadbare. we cover it with the souvenir blanket from the honeymoon trip to Canada which we don't use for football games anymore anyway. If the tuneup is long overdue, we give it low priority on next month's budget. But if the car runs out of gas, it simply stops; right then and there it stops. Busy intersection, deserted road. or urgent call, it stops. There is no argument, no administrative decision, no postponement, no room for reasonable compromise. It stops.

So it is with the human anatomy. With our needs for clothing, shelter, recreation, even procreation, there can be delay, decision, deference. Not with the body's need for fuel. When the source of energy is gone, the functioning ceases. The child needs to be fed at school-where he is, where he is hungry and where he is daily and hourly expending the fuel which must be replaced.

Our need for a knowledge of food is also a continuing and neverending need, in the area of knowledge which could make a major impact on the health, vigor and productivity of our Nation. I wish to emphasize the fact that in this time of engineered foods consumer education of all people to guide them through their grocery lists is going to become increasingly necessary.

Today when a fortified cupcake is a breakfast and a soy bean is a niece of bacon, every food consumer-that means every human being in the Nation-must be increasingly knowledgeable in foods he is purchasing and consuming.

If the results of a universal school food service and nutrition education program would be so fortuitous, why has such a program not been undertaken previously? Two reasons are customarily given-such a move would be a step toward socialism and the cost is to great. Let us make a frontal attack on the charge of socialism. The old laissez faire theory of economics that every man looking after his own best interests would inevitably bring about the best interests of society has already been cast aside in a thousand different projects designed for the public good. Transportation, education, national defense the list of examples is myriad. There are well-established parallels and precedents for the concept of universality. Public education itself is one such prime example. Only when we moved from the concept of paupers schools to the concept of schooling for all, did public education in this country come to age.