gone through the whole process, that we are right back where we started from. Obviously the intent of the chairman, whether you agree with that position or not, is that at this point subject to your testimony, but the intent of the chairman obviously is to build a 40cent floor and a 6-cent rate of assistance.

Now we will be talking here with counsel to find out precisely if this resolution can do exactly that and then we will slug it out on the floor. If we have the votes, fine; if we don't, that is the name

of the game.

Mr. LYNG. In Chairman Perkins' testimony on page 3 he said that translated into dollar figures the State directors have estimated that it will take $513 million under the section 11 and section 32 funds to meet the national needs for free and reduced price lunches.

The regulations that we announced today will put $525 million into that area, which is $8 million more than the chairman's testimony estimated, said that the State directors have estimated. So that in that area I believe that we have substantially solved the major problem.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I know it is entirely possible that you may have, I don't know. It seems to me that when we are dealing with as big a program as this, it is quite possible that there may be some slippage, that we overlook and maybe we are doing a much better job than we think we are. I don't know. For that reason it would seem to me that if our estimates showed $513 million, and you are already spending $525 million, then why would we object to having an ironclad resolution that cost for 40 cents and 6 cents?

If you are already doing that, then it won't affect you.

Mr. LYNG. Mr. Chairman, the 40 cents and 6 cents, as outlined by Chairman Perkins, would cost a great deal more than $525 million. Mr. PUCINSKI. In other words, you think the $513 million figure is low?

Mr. LYNG. We think it is what the State directors believe they needed. With due respect, I find the chairman's testimony somewhat confusing, because the minimum levels that he referred to would cost a good deal more than that $513 million figure.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, we will certainly want to get some more information on this.

One quick question. Perhaps Miss Kelley or someone else can answer. Generally how do you evaluate the program today? Without discussing whether we go to 40-cent average or 40-cent base, how in your judgment is the program working out? Are we reaching the youngsters we want to reach?

Miss KELLEY. Yes, I think we have made remarkable progress. I think it is essential that we try to clarify the funding structure. To prevent, year after year, putting the funds in States, not in accordance with the participation, with several States having to wait 6 to 8 months to see if we can reapportion funds among States.

I think we do have a problem in reaching the no-program schools, particularly needy no-program schools. That is why we have directed the States to put a higher priority on the use of equipment assistance funds to reach needy schools-rather than spending the money on already participating schools.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, Miss Kelley, I have heard all sorts of statements back and forth, even right up to the day of these hearings on the basis of your own knowledge of the program and the problem. Are there in your judgment any hungry children in this country, children that are not being reached by this program?

Miss KELLEY. Yes. Clearly we have 20,000 schools that do not at this time have a food service other than perhaps a service of milk. These are the schools to which Mr. Lyng referred-we have had various estimates of perhaps as many between 900,000 to 1.2 million needy children in those schools who are now without a food service.

We regard that as a high priority. We are hoping-with a guarantee of 40 cents without regard to how fast a State expands the program, with our new revisions to concentrate the use of equipment assistance, Federal equipment assistance, on needy no-program schools-that we can make very substantial progress in bringing more of these 20,000 schools into the program.

In some instances, this will mean taking advantage of the new food technology. We have been moving to use engineered foods, to use outside food management companies to bring food into the school, to find better, more effective, cheaper ways of moving food into schools where there is no hope of putting food preparation facilities.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The architect of my own school system told me recently that this is the very problem that he has. There are no funds available for developing these lunch facilities in many of the schools in our area. While we have funds here for equipment, his problem is that they don't have the space.

I saw one of the high schools in my district that literally served a lunch in the gym and they prepare it in a closet. They just have no facilities and it is a pitiful thing.

Now what are we doing to help these schools develop the lunch facilities that they need so that they can serve these meals?

Mr. LYNG. Mr. Pucinski, we have a graphic example in the city of Chicago in the Archdiocese schools there, many of which were old schools in the older part of town, I understand in the downtown area.

I would like Mr. Hekman, who is close to what was done in that program-this is an example of the kind of cooperative work we have done not only with parochial schools, but in many instances with the public schools, of course.

Ed, could you comment on that?

Mr. HEKMAN. Yes.

At the invitation of the parochial school authorities in Chiago, Mr. Chairman, I visited there. Using of Federal funds and local funds, a central kitchen was installed on the near North Side. It is now serving some 14,000 children in the type schools that you have described-old schools, 100 years old, narrow halls, small rooms and all the other problems that go with it.

This has worked out very well. Now they are substantially expanding it. That is the central kitchen approach.

Others have used the so-called satellite approach. The private sector is moving very strongly in this whole field, with the major capital

commitments by major companies. They go all the way to the financing of the equipment.

I was privileged recently to study one proposal rather closely. In this city where it was proposed, it would affect some 20,000 students. All of the financing was built into the plans. I was told that, if the goahead decision was made in August, the food could be on the table through this system at a range of 41 to 49 cents per lunch within 4 months. These are examples of two programs, one through a central kitchen; the other, through the private sector.

There are many, many examples that I could give the committee. Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, you are very kind to give me this information. I have a feeling that we have really torn up your schedule this afternoon, so I think we better get you out of here as fast as possible. Mr. VEYSEY. Would you yield, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Surely.

Mr. VEYSEY. I would like to explore a little further the point that Miss Kelley brought forward about new approaches in serving meals. I just received a letter from an assistant school superintendent in my district from Hemet, Calif., who says to me something like this; Yes, there is an awful lot of distribution of food being made. We are getting the food into the system and it is going out there, but that is a different thing than producing nutrition in all the young bodies that we would like to think we are taking care of.

Knowing teenagers and their habits along this line, I suppose it is true that there may be a great deal of food that is not getting where it should be going. He points out or suggests that, he thinks the style in foods has changed and is changing quite rapidly and a lot of young people are just not too well-acquainted with some of the types of food that are placed before them in the system that has been set up in the cafeterias. He is proposing some type of pilot projects which could explore new ways of serving good.

Now you touched on something like that but I don't know whether that is what you were referring to by "other ways," alternative ways of more effectively getting nutrition, that is the name of the game with all these young people rather than simply getting rid of a lot of food. From all my readings in California it seems to me that the administration here, while it may have had some problems, has done an excellent job of expanding this program and getting to a lot of people. There are still more to cover, I grant you that, and we will always have that problem and have to keep working at it. But I am worried about whether we are delivering nutrition to the young people's bodies as effectively as we think we are when we just get the food out.

Mr. LYNG. Mr. Veysey, this is a subject we have spent a lot of time on. Most recently, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Secretary of Agriculture have met and talked in terms of collaborating on nutrition research and nutrition education. We do have a number of programs really aimed toward this.

The largest one right now is at Rutgers University where we have a major study underway. We will be getting the results of that before too long-on acceptability of foods, what can you do to encourage people to eat right, the fortification of foods, the new food concepts.

We have been talking a good deal with all kinds of food people, food experts, on this. Campbell Soup, General Foods, a number of these people have been meeting before the Senate Select Committee. A lot is going on.

We would be happy to send some information as to what we are doing. You have a very good point, a good question as to whether or not we are really delivering nutrition.

Mr. VEYSEY. Maybe I will send you down that letter and we will answer it.

Mr. LYNG. We will be happy to do so.

Mr. VEYSEY. The pilot programs that you spoke of, are they of the type that would touch the problem that I mentioned here?

Mr. LYNG. Yes.

Mr. VEYSEY. And there are several going on?

Mr. LYNG. Yes.

Mr. VEYSEY. Maybe you could give me some information.

Mr. HEKMAN. One is on food preferences. It is a study that ties in very closely to what Mr. Lyng just discussed as going on at Rutgers. Mr. LYNG. We are very concerned that we are spending here $4 billion of the taxpayers' money in an effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition. Yet we really don't, I believe, have a good monitoring system to tell whether we are getting our money's worth. We are working on that.

Mr. VEYSEY. Good. I hope we can get a monitoring system. I think that would be important.

Mr. HEKMAN. This will be in the report to the Congress the latter part of the year from the advisory committee. It is interesting that discussions this afternoon centered so closely on two of the committee's priorities: One was no-program schools and the second one was exactly equal in their priority ranking, the problem that you just brought up of nutrition education.

Mr. VEYSEY. I think those are the two big problems that we have not handled.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, I certainly want to thank you and your associates for spending the afternoon with us.

I also would like the record to show that your very fine assistant, Mr. Howard Davis, is here. He has always been a friend of all of us on the committee and has been extremely helpful to us on many, many occasions.

Mr. LYNG. He has been helpful to me, too, Mr. Chairman. We just didn't want to overpower the committee, so we kept him in reserve.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I also see Mr. Sam Vaneman from the American School Services Association and I hope that you will be submitting a statement to the committee for the record.

Thank you very much.

The committee will stand adjourned until further notice.

Mr. LYNG. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

(The following material was submitted for the record :)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSHUA EILBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this subcommittee, we are concerned, extremely concerned, in Philadelphia, about the effect of the drastic limitation placed on the school lunch program by the Department of Agriculture.

It is certainly no secret that in professing to liberalize payments to states by increasing the federal share of lunch program costs from a proposed level of 35 cents a meal to 45 cents a meal at the request of Congress, the Agriculture Department actually was not liberalizing them at all.

Because at the same time it was graciously raising the federal ante per meal with one hand, it was severely limiting the number of meals with the other. And the device it used, as you are well aware, was restricting eligibility to a scale equivalent to families of four earning less than $3,940 a year.

Gentlemen, that is even less than the level of eligibility for welfare in many states, including Pennsylvania. What the Department of Agriculture is saying to hundreds of thousands of hungry children throughout the country is that even though their parents may be poverty stricken and on welfare, that still does not qualify their children to eat lunch.

And there are hundreds of thousands more whose parents are struggling along just above the welfare level, trying with all the pride they can muster to stay off welfare and still give their children the basic needs of life. They, too, are being told that it is too bad, but there are more important federal priorities than buying a hungry child some lunch.

I would submit that the estimate of Senator McGovern and Representative Perkins that this latest blatant move by the Agriculture Department would deprive a million children of free or reduced price lunches may be extremely conservative.

In Philadelphia right now, there are more than 35,000 youngsters receiving free and reduced price lunches each day, and most of them wouldn't have much more than a slice of bread or a candy bar if it weren't for the Federal school lunch program assistance.

Gentlemen, if these new restrictions stick, at least 25.000 of those children would lose their right to reduced price meals in Philadelphia, with 112,000 getting the same shoddy treatment statewide. That, I contend, would be disastrous to the city and the state.

And the impact becomes doubly serious in Philadelphia, because once the federal wage-price freeze is lifted, regular lunch prices are scheduled to be raised to cut into a $1 million food program deficit incurred by the school district last year. These price increases were planned for the opening of school in September, but were postponed by the freeze. What they will do now, unfortunately, is make it even more impossible for a hungry young child in the ghetto to buy lunch.

It would be nice, of course, if the Philadelphia school system could pick up the tab for the reduced federal funds under the new Department of Agriculture restrictions, but Philadelphia, like most other big city school systems, is broke. They already face a $40 million deficit for the 1971-72 school year, without taking on the Federal duty of feeding hungry kids.

Eligibility levels currently in operation in the Philadelphia public schools provide free lunches for 6,000 children from families earning less than $3,600 a year, and another 29,000 ten cent lunches for children from families in the $3,600 to $6,100 range.

Obviously, enforcing new restrictions of $3,940 literally would decimate the school lunch program in Philadelphia.

I would contend further, gentlemen, that the selection of a level of $3,940 a year as a poverty level is as out of date with the times and the economy of this nation as is the 20-cent hamburger. You can't get a decent hamburger for 20 cents anymore, and you can't raise a family of four on $3,940, either.

Even the state welfare level in Pennsylvania is $4,212 for a family of four and, as I have testified, here the Agriculture Department would be denying reduced price lunches to more than 100,000 Pennsylvania boys and girls whose families already are poor enough to be barely existing on welfare.