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 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 purchase 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. 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 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 legislation 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 advisable 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 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 close 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." Mr. BAILEY. The next witness is Dr. Edgar Fuller, executive secretary, Chief State School Officers. 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 25,000member 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 |