school lunch program and rewards the State which does not encourage improvement, expansion, and the serving of a greater number of children. The State which exerts itself to see that a hot lunch is available to the greatest possible number of school children must spread its allotment over a larger area. On the other hand, the State which simply accepts its allotment, maintains the status quo and makes little attempt to stimulate growth is rewarded. Fewer children buy lunch in that State so the State allotment does not have to be shared by so many schools and each school gets a larger reimbursement for each lunch served. Since the present formula discourages the growth of the program and works to deprive some children of the benefits of a hot lunch, we would like to see the act amended to allot Federal funds on the basis of actual lunches served.

The second amendment we would like to see is one which would make the principle of actual participation apply to nonpublie schools which receive school lunch money. Available information reveals that the average reimbursement rate per lunch in nonpublic schools runs much higher than the average for public schools. The reimbursement rate is figured on the total enrollment of children in the nonpublic schools. Since comparatively few of the schools operate lunchrooms the money is spread only over a small area and each school profits accordingly.

We note in S. 2442 a new section which would provide for an additional appropriation of funds to provide special help to schools in areas of special economic need. We assume such a section would also be in a House bill. Such a provision would seem to us very desirable if sufficient flexibility is allowed the Department of Agriculture in the administration of this section. This past year we received letters from many States pertaining to funds for the school lunch program. From almost all of them we heard about the financial burden involved in providing free lunches for the youngsters of the unemployed or those in schools in general economic depressed areas.

The 1-year transition period before the new formula would be effective provided in the Senate bill would seem to us also desirable. The effect of the new formula will not be the desired one if there is not a specific floor below which the reimbursement rate per lunch would not fall. We believe the act should be amended as soon as possible. The President should then recommend in his next budget an appropriation large enough to insure that every State would receive the minimum amount per lunch. The U.S. Congress has always supported the school lunch program and we believe it will do so in the future. For that reason we would like to see legislation before you enacted into law at the earliest possible date. Thank you.

Mr. QUIE. In the second point you made, do I understand there will be less money available under the new formula for nonpublic schools? Is that correct?

Mrs. STOUGH. The principle regarding nonpublic schools would be the same as that for the public schools, which would be on participation rather than the enrollment of public schools.

Mr. QUIE. What would be the practical effect?

Mrs. STOUGH. The practical effect, as I understand it, and Mr. Fuller knows these details more fully, the practical effect would be this: Now the allocation to nonpublic schools is based on enrollment of pupils in nonpublic schools. Since fewer of the nonpublic schools serve lunches this serves to make the reimbursement per child greater. Many nonpublic schools do not serve lunches. To those who do serve lunches the reimbursement rate per child is greater, so they are really getting more assistance from a practical point of view than the public schools.

Mr. QUIE. But the effect of this formula will be to reduce that

Mrs. STOUGH. If we make it on participation it would not reduce it if a larger percentage of the pupils enrolled were getting lunches. It means the formula applies to those people as well.

Mr. BAILEY. Does the gentleman representing the Agriculture Department wish to comment on this?

Mr. DAVIS. I would be very happy to comment on this. We have had some adverse comments in the past over the condition which arose in some States where a private school on one side of the street serving lunches was perhaps reimbursed at 1 cent more than the public school across the street in the same city. In some instances it was just the reverse, where the private schools had very high participation they might be receiving less in one school on one side of the street than the public school on the other.

Everyone agreed, I believe, that this was not equitable, that all schools should be treated alike, so the formula as it is in the bill would provide the same opportunity for the same reimbursement for all schools in the State, public and private. They would be treated alike.

Mr. QUIE. Where the effect of the new formula would mean a reduction to a nonpublic school they would at least now be treated equitably with the public schools in the area. Where they were lower than the public schools before because of graeter participation they would be brought up so they will be made equitable?

Mr. DAVIS. That is right. In all fairness, so we do not leave the wrong impression with the committee, I believe there will be more instances where the private school rate will be lowered than there will be where it will be raised because, as the lady has already testified, generally speaking, across the country the participation in private schools for many very good reasons has been lower than it has been in the public schools, so that in all fairness I think you should know there will be more instances where it will be lowered than raised. However, there are some where it has been lower in the private schools in the past. They will now receive the same.

Mr. BAILEY. This would tend to make it uniform?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; they will all be treated alike.

Mr. QUIE. Looking at the last column on your table, if we have an appropriation of $139 million this in practically every case will bring the participation up to or above what it is at the present time? Is that right?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. There are one or two exceptions, I believe, the District of Columbia, Alaska, and one or two others which will still take a small reduction under an appropriation of $139.9 million. Mr. BAILEY. One observation. I am curious to know why the District of Columbia is 8 cents per pupil and 4.2 cents in West Virginia. Mr. DAVIS. Entirely a matter of participation. In relation to their child population in the District, with a reasonably high per capita income, they are spreading their available funds among fewer children so they are able to pay this very high rate in comparison to other States.

In a State that has high participation under the present formula, as you well know, they have a very low rate per meal. This bill will correct this.

Mr. BAILEY. To what extent?

Mr. DAVIS. It will reduce the District and it will raise the proportion that a State such as West Virginia would get. For example, the percentage of participation at this point in the District of Columbia is 9.2 percent. In West Virginia it is 38.6, which is well above the national average as you can see so far as participation is concerned.

While this will cause a rather sharp reduction in the amount of money the District gets, and might necessitate some rather difficult adjustments, we still feel it is much more fair to give the States with high participation a reimbursement based on that participation rather than on their lack of it.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you.

If you take

Mr. QUIE. Is it not true that the District of Columbia has perhaps the highest per capita income of any State in the Union? Mr. DAVIS. That may have been true at one time. Metropolitan Washington that would be a different story. Mr. QUIE. The District itself.

Mr. DAVIS. You are right, Mr. Quie.

Mr. O'HARA. I do not like to prolong this but a couple of questions have arisen. First, before I get too much credit for an act of statesmanship, I call the gentleman's attention to table 4 which has the transition worked into it. My own State does not do quite as badly as it would if we went directly into the total allocation formula.

Other than that I would like, with respect to this question of the allocation of funds for pupils in public schools and nonpublic schools, to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the justification for this program, in light of the interpretations of the first amendment as made by the U.S. Supreme Court on various cases, really depends upon a grant of assistance directly to the pupils. This is conceived as a program not of any aid to a particular school or class of school but to American schoolchildren regardless of where they go to school. Equal assistance to them seems to me to be part of that justification, I wanted to point that out.

One further point with regard to that matter is that I feel to a large extent the lesser degree of participation by nonpublic schools is the result of the fact that a lower percentage of nonpublic schools have been financially able to equip their institutions with lunchroom facilities. I would personally like to see some effort made under this act, or under administrative action or under other programs, either to fund the existing provisions for assistance to such schools for the purchase of lunchroom equipment or to, in the alternative, provide a greater degree of assistance for lunches of a type which do not require preparation at the site.

I wondered if either Mrs. Stough or Mr. Davis would care to comment on that aspect.

Mrs. STOUGH. I defer to Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. One quick word on that. That is one way in which the funds that are provided in the bill for special assistance to needy schools might very well be used for additional help to them for the expenses of preparing lunches perhaps in another school, and transporting them. The actual assistance, however, would be in the form of additional food or additional money for the purchase of food so other funds would be released for the equipment and labor.

Mr. O'HARA. I would like to point out in conclusion that in the neediest areas, both in public and nonpublic schools, you are less apt to have the sort of financial base for support of schools that permits the construction of luncheon facilities and kitchen facilities, and it is in those very same areas that the greatest need exists for help through this program, too.

I am concerned that we work out some sort of arrangement whereby we can overcome that difficulty.

I have nothing further.

Mr. BAILEY. If the suggestion of Dr. Fuller prevails perhaps the States might have some money for the construction of facilities.

Our next witness is our colleague, the Honorable Vernon W. Thomson, of Wisconsin, author of one of the bills before the subcommittee. Mr. Thomson.

STATEMENT OF HON. VERNON W. THOMSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. THOMSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important legislation.

Through the years the national school lunch program has been an important instrument in maintaining and improving the health of our young people, while at the same time providing a substantial outlet for our agricultural abundance. Last year some 13.5 million youngsters participated in this valuable program. This was the first time that this program which was enacted in 1946 has topped 13 million. According to the Department of Agriculture, some 2,142 million lunches were served last year, some 144 million more than in the previous year. Most of this food, about 80 percent, was purchased locally by the 62,000 public and nonprofit private schools participating in the program. About 265,000 students in my State of Wisconsin alone are enjoying the benefits of the program. During the year total local purchases amounted to some $540 million. In addition, 58 million dollars' worth of nutritious foods were supplied by AMS purchases to supplement the $70 million distribution of surplus foods made available from the price support program.

Unfortunately, this worthwhile program is running out of money. That is why I have introduced H.R. 6209 and am now urging the support of the committee for my bill. The problem is an acute one, not only in my State but also in the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming.

It may well be that the Committee on Appropriations can meet the increased needs by added appropriation or by fund transfers. However, these increased needs developing in these 24 States must be met promptly and I feel that this committee by giving its support to this legislation can make a substantial contribution toward the strengthening of farm prices and the improvement of children's diets.

The success of this program through the years demands our continuing support, so I most sincerely urge the committee to approve the authorized $10 million increases as expeditiously as possible. Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. The subcommittee will recess at this time, subject to the call of the Chair.

(The following material was submitted for the record:)

SEPTEMBER 12, 1961.

Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY,
Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BAILEY: Thank you for your letter of August 29 requesting a statement in support of my bill (H.R. 4688) to amend the National School Lunch Act to provide for a more equitable distribution of funds under such act and for other purposes.

The purpose of the School Lunch Act as passed in 1946 was stated in its title, as follows: "to provide assistance to the States in the establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs. For each fiscal year, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the Act. It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, as a measure of national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other foods by assisting the States, through grants-in-aid and other means, in providing an adequate supply of foods and other facilities for expansion of the program."

The success of this program has been outstanding. Its acceptance by the parents, pupils, and schools is demonstrated by the fact that in 1947 approximately 32 million pupils were served a complete meal each schoolday. By 1960, nearly 13 million students were served a complete meal. The total number of meals served crossed the 2 billion mark more than 2 years ago and continues to grow.

However, the number of schools participating in the program and the number of pupils eating lunches have both increased faster than available funds. Consequently, it has been necessary to reduce the Federal reimbursement rate. I should like to show the application of these total figures to the State of North Dakota, with which I am naturally the most familiar. Here is what has taken place in this program within our State.

In 1959, the average national participation in the lunch program was about 35 percent of school enrollment. North Dakota's participation during the school year 1959-60 was 45% percent. In December 1960 alone the participation was 52 percent. However, the original act provided for about 8.7 cents per meal of Federal participation in our State. Over the years, the increase in the number of meals served reduced the Federal share to 5.3 cents by 1953. During 1960, although the appropriations had increased to $100 million, the number of children served in North Dakota was great enough to bring the reimbursement down to a new low of 3 cents a meal, which was 1 cent below the national average. This of course brought about increased costs to the school district in providing these class A meals to the students. The current national 4.1 cents per meal does not appear to be sufficiently conducive to encouraging schools to participate in the program. North Dakota rate of 3 cents is even less conducive to it.

One of the reasons for the increased participation in North Dakota has been a great deal of reorganization of school districts. This has eliminated a great many of the small rural schools and necessitated those children being transported by bus to the towns. This means that more students are away from home for the noon meal and thereby increase the demand for hot meals. Having been closely associated with this program in my State for many years and having watched its expansion and success despite the drawbacks involved, I introduced H.R. 4688 at the beginning of this session. If enacted, I feel my bill would do a great deal toward stabilizing this program and safeguarding Federal participation from dropping to such a low point that the school districts will drop the entire program.

I very strongly endorse the provisions of this bill to your committee for consideration with the hope that it will be acted upon favorably.

Sincerely,

HJALMAR C. NYGAARD, Member of Congress.