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 31⁄2 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 22 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. 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. 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 31⁄2 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 3%. 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 21⁄2 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 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? 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 actual 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. 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 31⁄2 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 |