My bill is not an anti-vending machine measure. It is directed at the soda pop. cakes and candies sold in some vending machines and which undermine the purpose of the school lunch program. The objective of the lunch program is to help provide a nutritionally adequate diet for school children and, thereby, help to safeguard their health and wellbeing. It has been proven time and again that well nourished children are more alert in school, better behaved, and benefit more from their classroom experience. Many experts and citizens concerned about the existence of empty-calorie foods in the school cafeteria have been in touch with me. And I share their belief that any assault on the integrity of our school feeding programs must be regarded most seriously. My bill has the support of the American School Food Service Association and the American Dental Association, both strong advocates of the best in nutrition for the school lunchroom. The practice in my own state of New Jersey is to serve only nutritious food during the hours that the school breakfast and luuch programs are in operation. In other words, the vending machines selling non-nutritious foods are turned off for those periods. I do not know what the practice is in other states. For my own part, I am deeply concerned about the attitude of the Department of Agriculture on this matter. Through its inaction and failure to speak out, it has permitted its authority over the school feeding programs to be undermined. Several years ago I offered an amendment to the School Lunch Act to prevent the sale of competitive foods in the school cafeteria. While my amendment was adopted by the Senate, it did not have the support of the Department of Agriculture. Without this support, the amendment was dropped in conference. I hope the Committee will look into the question of how well the Department is carrying out its responsibilities for safeguarding children's feeding programs particularly with regard to competitive foods. I agree with Senator Allen, chairman of this subcommittee, that "proper nutrition is the primary purpose" of the school lunch programs. In line with this objective, S. 1309 also provides cash grants to departments of education or comparable agencies in the states to educate children on the nutritional value of foods and the importance of nutrition to good health. In addition, it authorizes the Department of Agriculture to carry out research and develop materials and techniques for effective presentation of this information. Enactment of S. 1309 will go a long way to assure that the Federal dollars spent in the school feeding programs are providing the best possible nutrition for the children of our country. I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to say a few words in support of the amendment to S. 850, which I am co-sponsoring, to make mandatory the reduced price lunch. As the original sponsor of legislation to make permanent the optional reduced-price lunch-termed a milestone by the American School Food Service Association-I view this proposal as yet another milestone. The school feeding programs take on added importance at this time when the economy is depressed and the rate of unemployment is high. Family incomes cannot stretch to meet increased prices, and those in the low to middle income range have the hardest time of it. Prices of school lunches have increased, and children are being forced to drop out of the program because they simply do not have enough money to be able to purchase the nutritionally adequate lunch available through the school lunch program. To safeguard the health of these children, I urge the committee to act favorably on the amendment to make mandatory the reduced price lunch program. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The Honorable HERMAN TALMADGE DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you begin hearings on the extension of the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Acts, the House probably will not have completed action on H.R. 4222. Regardless, I would like to draw your attention to an amendment which I proposed to the National School Lunch Act and which was 'approved during markup in the Education and Labor Committee. During consideration of this legislation, I became aware that, in operating the commodity purchase and distribution program of the National School Lunch Act, the USDA has issued certain specifications making it nearly impossible for small, local producers of various commodities and agricultural products to participate in the program. For example, under the National Frankfurter Purchase Program, producers are required to be federally inspected (under the assumption that they will be shipping in interstate commerce) and must offer frozen frankfurters for sale in production carlot sizes of 38,000 pounds. This effectively precludes many small packers from participating. There must be a better way to conduct this program. For instance, if local producers were able to participate in the program and distribute to schools in their area, they should qualify under equivalent state inspection and would not need to freeze and offer such large lot sizes for sale at one time. While certain economies of scale may exist because of the present specifications, other efficiencies and benefits can be obtained through the purchase and distribution of commodities and other foods in the same geographic area. Therefore, the amendment I proposed provides that, in making purchases of such agricultural commodities and other foods, the Secretary of Agriculture shall not issue specifications which restrict participation of local producers unless such specifications will result in significant advantages to the national school lunch program. I have enclosed a copy of the pertinent section of the Act for your information. It is intended that this amendment serve as a catalyst. At a time when the effect of federal regulations on our economy is being scrutinized, it encourages the Secretary to make a thorough review of specifications for purchase. If changes cannot be made without damaging the program or sacrificing substantial efficiencies, the Secretary should point this out. On the other hand, if changes can be made resulting in benefits to local small businesses without sacrificing overall efficiency, competition, health and safety, the Secretary should ensure that such changes come about. I hope you will find this information useful in your upcoming deliberations. NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT APPORTIONMENT TO STATES SEC. 4. (a) The sums appropriated for any fiscal year pursuant to the authorizations contained in section 3 of this Act, excluding the sum specified in section 5, shall be available to the Secretary for supplying agricultural commodities and other food for the program in accordance with the provisions of this Act. For each fiscal year the Secretary shall make food assistance payments, at such times as he may determine, from the sums appropriated therefor, to each State educational agency, in a total amount equal to the result obtained by multiplying the number of lunches (consisting of a combination of foods which meet the minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary under subsection 9(a) of this Act) served during such fiscal year to children in schools in such State, which participate in the school lunch program under this Act under agreements with such State educational agency, by a national average payment per lunch for such fiscal year determined by the Secretary to be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act: Provided, That in any fiscal year such national average payment shall not be less than 10 cents per lunch and that the aggregate amount of the food assistance payments made by the Secretary to each State educational agency for any fiscal year shall not be less than the amount of the payments made by the State agency to participating schools within the State for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, to carry out the purposes of this section 4. (b) (1) In addition to the food assistance payments under subsection (a) to a State educational agency for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall make supplemental food assistance payments for that year to any State educational agency in a total amount equal to the sum of the results obtained by multiplying (A) the number of lunches, other than free lunches and reduced-price lunches, (consisting of a combination of foods which meet the minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary under section 9(a)), served during such fiscal year to children in each school in such State which participates in the school lunch program under this Act under agreements with such State educational agency in accordance with section 8, by (B) a payment per lunch for that school determined by the Secretary, in accordance with the first and second sentences of paragraph (3), whichever is appropriate. (2) Supplemental payments to any State educational agency under this subsection shall not be subject to the matching requirements contained in the third sentence of section 7 and in the second sentence of section 10. (3) In the case of any school which was participating in the school lunch program under this Act as of January 1, 1975, the payment per lunch for a school determined by the Secretary for purposes of making supplemental payments to a State educational agency for any fiscal year in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be an amount equal to (A) the difference between (i) the price, in effect on January 1, 1975, for a lunch (other than a free lunch or a reduced-price lunch) served to a child in that school and (ii) 25 cents, or (B) 10 cents, whichever is the greater. In the case of any school which was not participating in the school lunch program under this Act as of January 1, 1975, the payment per lunch for a school determined by the Secretary for purposes of making supplemental payments to a State educational agency for any fiscal year in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be equal to (A) the difference between (i) the average price, in effect on January 1, 1975, for a lunch (other than a free lunch or a reduced-price lunch) served to a child in all schools in that State which participate in the school lunch program under this Act under an agreement with such agency in accordance with section 8 and (ii) 25 cents, or (B) 10 cents, whichever is the greater. DIRECT FEDERAL EXPENDITURES SEC. 6. (a) The funds provided by appropriation or transfer from other accounts for any fiscal year for carrying out the provisions of this Act, and for carrying out the provisions of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, other than section 3 thereof, less (1) not to exceed 31⁄2 per centum thereof which per centum is hereby made available to the Secretary for his administrative expenses under this Act and under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966; (2) the amount apportioned by him pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of this Act and the amount appropriated pursuant to sections 11 and 13 of this Act and sections 4, 5, and 7 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966; and (3) not to exceed 1 per centum of the funds provided for carrying out the programs under this Act and the programs under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, other than section 3, which per centum is hereby made available to the Secretary to supplement the nutritional benefits of these programs through grants to States and other means for nutritional training and education for workers, cooperators, and participants in these programs and for necessary surveys and studies of requirements for food service programs in furtherance of the purposes expressed in section 2 of this Act and section 2 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, shall be available to the Secretary during such year for direct expenditure by him for agricultural commodities and other foods to be distributed among the States and schools and service institutions participating in the food service programs under this Act and under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 in accordance with the needs as determined by the local school and service institution authorities. [In making purchases of such agricultural commodities and other foods, the Secretary shall not issue specifications which restrict participation of local producers unless such specifications will result in significant advantages to the national school lunch program.] The provisions of law contained in the proviso of the Act of June 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 323), facilitating operations with respect to the purchase and disposition of surplus agricultural commodities under section 32 of the Act approved August 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 774), as amended, shall, to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, also be applicable to expenditures of funds by the Secretary under this Act. (b) As of February 15 of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make an estimate of the value of agricultural commodities and other foods that will be delivered during that fiscal year to States for school food service programs under the provisions of this section, section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, and section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. If such estimated value is less than 90 per centum of the value of such deliveries initially programed for that fiscal year, the Secretary shall pay to State educational agencies, by not later than March 15 of that fiscal year, an amount of funds that is equal to the difference between the value of such deliveries initially programed for such fiscal year and the estimated value as of February 15 of such fiscal year of the commodities and other foods to be delivered in such fiscal year. The share of such funds to be paid to each State educational agency shall bear the same ratio to the total of such payment to all such agencies as the number of meals served under the provisions of section 9(a) of this Act and section 4(e) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 during the preceding fiscal year bears to the total of all such meals served in all the States during such fiscal year: Provided, That in any State in which the Secretary directly administers school food service programs in [the nonprofit private] any of the schools of such State, the Secretary shall withhold from the funds to be paid to any such State under the provisions of this subsection an amount that bears the same ratio to the total of such payment as the number of meals served in [nonprofit private] such schools under the provisions of section 9(a) of this Act and section 4(e) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 during that fiscal year bears to the total of such meals served in all the schools in such State in such fiscal year. Each State educational agency, and the Secretary in the case of [nonprofit private] schools in which he directly administers school food service programs, shall promptly and equitably disburse such funds to schools participating in the lunch and breakfast programs under this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and such disbursements shall be used by such schools to obtain agricultural commodities and other foods for their food service program. Such food shall be limited to the requirements for lunches and breakfasts for children as provided for in the regulations by the Department of Agriculture under title 7, subtitle (b), chapter II, subchapter (a), parts 210 and 220. LEVEL OF COMMODITY ASSISTANCE (e) For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and subsequent fiscal years, the national average value of donated foods, or cash payments in lieu thereof, shall not be less than 10 cents per lunch, and that amount shall be adjusted on an annual basis each fiscal year after June 30, 1975, to reflect changes in the series for food away from home of the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. Such adjustments shall be computed to the nearest one-fourth cent. Among those commodities delivered under this section, the Secretary shall give special emphasis to high protein foods, meat, and meat alternates. Provided, That not less than 75 per centum of the assistance provided under this section shall be in the form of foods purchased by the Department of Agriculture for the school lunch program. Senator McGOVERN. Our next witnesses will appear in a panel. Ms. Martin, Mr. Stalker, and Lee Searing. If they would come forward. Ms. Martin is the administrator of the school food service program in the State of Georgia, and she is also chairman of the legislative Committee of the American School Food Service Association. Ms. Martin has appeared before this committee many times. She is accompanied by Mr. John Stalker who is the director of the school lunch program of the State of Massachusetts, and by Mr. Lee Searing, who is the director of the school lunch program of Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. We are happy to welcome these three witnesses. Ms. Martin, you and your colleagues can proceed in any way you see fit. STATEMENT OF JOSEPHINE MARTIN, ADMINISTRATOR, SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION, ATLANTA, GA. Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Senator. I am Josephine Martin, administrator of the school food service in Georgia; with me is Mr. John Stalker, director of the State school lunch program of Massachusetts and chairman of State directors section, ASFSA, and Lee Searing, director of the school food service program in Broward County, Fla. Mr. Sam Vanneman is also with us this morning, and if you have questions I hope Mr. Vanneman will help to answer them. Mr. Vanneman is Washington representative for the American School Food Service Association. Senator McGOVERN. We will be glad to have him join you. Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, may I take a moment first of all to express my appreciation for the leadership of this committee for its continuing interest in and support of child nutrition programs. I have a statement and rather than reading it, I would like to have it submitted for the record and highlight some of the statement. It seems appropriate on the eve of the 30th birthday of the National School Lunch Act, important for us to pay tribute to this committee because it was in the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry that the concept of a national school lunch program for all children was born. Since the inception, this program has had as its single purpose the improvement of the nutritional status of all children in schools. As a result, all children in participating schools, regardless of family income, are able to secure a lunch at school, and for those not qualifying for a free lunch, at well below the cost of producing the meal. A key element in the program is the national standard for the nutritional quality of the lunches. This has been a part of the program since it was initiated in 1946. Schools have complete flexibility in combining or offering wide choices of food items to meet this nutritional standard. From this early concept of a nutrition program for the general welfare of the Nation has evolved a sound nutrition program for all children and one which has operated extremely well for the past 30 years. Today, I would like to address my remarks to the President's proposal to repeal the child nutrition legislation, to his proposal to place a 5-percent ceiling on increases in reimbursements, to the bills that are before us today-S. 850, S. 1309, and S. 894. First of all, I would like to state that the American School Food Service Association opposes the administration proposal to repeal all child nutrition program legislation. The administration's block grant proposal turns its back on the work of this committee and the Congress in the establishment of child nutrition programs for all children. It turns its back on 60 percent of the children who are now receiving 52-880-75--5 |