a pilot going there; also in Seattle, Wash., in Hoboken, N.J., in Bridgeport, Conn.

Mr. BARTLETT. I am aware primarily of the one in Memphis, and our concern here is that making lunches available to the children without direct cost eliminates the problem of identification of these

Mr. VEYSEY. Isn't that what these existing community programs are doing, the ones that I have enumerated?

Mr. BARTLETT. I am not familiar with what the others are doing. Mr. VEYSEY. It occurs to me, Mr. Bartlett, if you are proposing or advocating here an expenditure of $5 million a year to establish additional pilots to find out much the same things that are now being explored and studied in half a dozen locations in the Nation, I think we should come together here some way and build on the experience that has already been funded and the lessons that have already been learned in these other locations.

I would like to commend to you checking on the experience thus far with these other pilots before we go in yet another pilot project on top of that. That would be one observation.

Secondly, the whole objective of this bill, as I understand it, is to find out some things, find out how people respond, what the cost would be, what the cost of alternative delivery systems would be and what the benefits would be.

But I fail to find in this bill any requirements that that sort of information comes out of it. In other words, there is no evaluation requirement in the bill. It just sets up the pilots without any real strong evaluation of performance against goals that we would like to achieve.

I think this is a serious defect, and how could we say we are going to try to find out these things without that being in the legislation? Mr. BARTLETT. Perhaps that might be somewhat difficult to do. I was not earlier familiar with the bill to recognize that this evaluation procedure had actually been left out of it.

Mr. VEYSEY. I don't find it there. The chairman and the other members of the committee know I have been advocating strong evaluation sections in much of the educational legislation going through this committee. I would not want to see us put out a pilot project without the mechanism in it to assure us of finding information on these questions.

Mr. QUIE. Could you tell me what the cost per meal in Memphis is under your new free program as compared to the cost per meal for providing food when there were some of the students paying for it? Mr. BARTLETT. The current cost is approximately 46 cents per plate.

Mr. QUIE. Does that take care of everything, the labor?

Mr. BARTLETT. That includes the reported cost that the school itself has, administrative cost, warehousing, administrative, labor, food purchases, nonfood, all of these items that go to make up the present cost of operating the program.

Mr. QUIE. What about the cost of the kitchen and the equipment that went into it?

Mr. BARTLETT. This is not included. These programs are operated in existing kitchens that were long established and this cost has not been included or reported in this operating cost.

Mr. QUIE. What was the cost before you went into that free program?

Mr. BARTLETT. Last year's cost-of course, they have a systemwide, about 146 schools involved-the cost per plate in this study that they did last year was approximately 3 cents per plate less than the average cost for the rest of the schools in the system.

Mr. QUIE. Why was it costing them less? I see you have a laborsaving figure here, a little over 3 cents per plate.

Mr. BARTLETT. This labor savings was due-when you calculate on a per plate cost you take all of the plates, all the lunches served during the month or during the year, and you still have the same amount probably of labor involved. If you have a constant level of children eating daily, then you adjust your labor, your food purchases, and the amount of food you prepare for the day to agree with the number of children that you are serving, so that then you do not have these ups and downs, and highs and lows, as far as participation is concerned. When you have low participation for the day, you probably have the same amount of labor involved. You may have prepared the same amount of food as you would if you had a high participation. So the level of participation in the Memphis city schools has been fairly constant, so they know exactly how much to prepare for the day.

They have also eliminated labor in not having to fool with collection procedures in these schools. These are some of the reasons for the cost savings.

Mr. QUIE. You have an average daily attendance of 8,539 and average daily meals served, 8,285. What was the average daily meals served prior to the program?

Mr. BARTLETT. The system average was about 70 percent whereas our statewide average in the State of Tennessee is in excess of that. Mr. QUIE. Are you comparing then in your own evaluation the experience in those six schools with this district average or with the State average? Shouldn't you take those same schools and compare what the experience was with them before and the experience afterward?

Mr. BARTLETT. We can get that comparison. I don't have it right at my hand right at this moment.

Mr. QUIE. Can you send that up to us, because I think that would be valuable in trying ourselves to determine that.

Also, what has happened with the throw-away food since you went to free meals as compared to when some of the kids were paying for it? Mr. BARTLETT. It is considerably less.

Mr. QUIE. I mean thrown away by the kids.

Mr. BARTLETT. I visited a number of those schools, and I saw very little food thrown away.

Mr. QUIE. I assume there is a lot of food thrown away when they pay for it, and I can't imagine changing to a program where because it was free that would cause them to eat it.

Mr. BARTLETT. The food is very acceptable. It is well prepared. I was in one of the schools less than 3 weeks ago, and there was practically no food waste.

Mr. QUIE. Is it better prepared and is there a better choice of menu now than there was before you provided a free program?

Mr. BARTLETT. I would not say it was any big change in the quality of food. I just could not say there would be any change.

Mr. QUIE. I would like to have those figures of the amount that was thrown away by kids when they were paying for part of it and the amount that is being thrown away now when it is free, and compare it, because my belief is that if you pay for something you utilize it better than if you are given it free.

Mr. BARTLETT. I would say the food waste in these schools is very minimum.

Mr. QUIE. But you can get that information for us, the amount that was thrown away before and the amount thrown away now. The other question I would have is if we go to free programs, do you think we ought to permit people to come in with vending machines and choices other than what is provided in the school kitchen so they could compete with the school and also have a chance to meet the diet desires of the kids? In the case of schools in some parts of the cities where it is impossible for them to build a kitchen, perhaps a private operator with a vending operation could come in there more reasonably.

Mr. BARTLETT. Basically I am opposed to the outside people coming in and trying to do a job that can be done effectively by our own staff within our own facilities.

I would admit, sir, that perhaps in some of the programs in the major cities that ethnic likes and dislikes come into this, and there might be some difficulty on a planned systemwide menu where you might have difficulties meeting all of those needs or likes or dislikes. But, basically, I believe that the school food service people themselves can do the job as effectively and perhaps more effectively than can the profit-motivated outside groups, given the same job.

Mr. QUIE. Do you think there ought to be competition so they can prove they could do it more efficiently?

Mr. BARTLETT. I have no objection to competition. If we are doing an ineffective job, somebody should see what they can do to improve it.

Mr. QUIE. My feeling is that the Department of Agriculture frowns on anybody coming in and giving competition. They try to throw out roadblocks in the way.

Mr. BARTLETT. For some 20 years this was in the regulations which you are familiar with.

Mr. QUIE. What about the percentage of the cost of the meals that the Federal Government ought to pay for? What percent do you desire?

Mr. BARTLETT. I am sorry, I did not hear that.

Mr. QUIE. In providing free lunches now I assume that the Federal Government would not have to pay 100 percent of the cost because they do not have to pay 100 percent of the cost of education. The Federal Government pays 7 percent of the amount of secondary and elementary education cost. Would this be sufficient for the food program, just like education, or should we move it to a higher figure? Mr. BARTLETT. We should move it to a higher figure.

Mr. QUIE. What level do you think we should move it to?

Mr. BARTLETT. I would think initially, of course-we are talking now primarily of a pilot program-we would assume this would be a completely federally funded program for a pilot program. But for a universal bill, certainly initially I would say we need to move to

approximately 90-percent level at the Federal Government and then have acceleration or reducing of this at later stages.

Mr. QUIE. Earlier you were talking about providing food service as something comparable to providing education. The local schools are willing to provide education for the children even if the government did not put up anything, but they must not care about the food program if the Federal Government has to pay 90 percent to induce them to do it.

Mr. BARTLETT. We have to go back to the recognition that a free public education program has been here much, much longer than the concept of a lunch program as a part of it. I think it is a matter of needing to educate our educators that food is essential to a good education program.

Mr. QUIE. On the other side they might be right. What if we are to provide $2 billion for this program to make it universal? Do you think it would be better spent to spend $2 billion on feeding children whose parents can afford to feed them or to improve the quality of education?

Mr. BARTLETT. I don't think we can divorce the needs for a good nutrition, good food program, from the concept that a child needs this in order to learn. I don't believe you can spend it much more effectively in the other realms of education than you could if you spent it for food.

Miss MARTIN. May I add to that? I think that one of the reasons we feel that universal school food service and nutrition education is so important-and we are referring to it as universal and not free because we would like to get it away from the concept of free, welfare, in this area-but universal because all children need nutrition and nutrition education regardless of the child's socioeconomic level, his cultural pattern or what else, he needs nutrition, one-third of his daily food needs as a minimum at school each day.

The reason he needs this is for two purposes. No. 1, he needs it to fulfill his nutritional needs for physical and mental development. Secondly, if we are spending the billions of dollars on education that we are spending, we want to get the maximum benefits from the educational program, and if the child is hungry, it makes no difference why he is hungry, whether it is because he does not have the money, whether he spends his money for something else, or whether he has poor food habits, we still cannot have him take full advantage of an educational program unless he is well nourished or adequately nourished.

Mr. QUIE. I have a comment, but I will yield to Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. I don't think there is any disagreement on that question. But what is at issue here is if the parents are able to supply good nutritious meals, then why should the Federal Government or State or local government step in and say, "Even though you can feed your children properly, we will do it anyway"?

Miss MARTIN. Mrs. Green, I think we could always look back 20 or 25 years; if we had started a nutrition education program in 1946 when the National School Lunch Act was begun, then we would have been teaching young people to make wise food choices and those young people that would have already learned how to make wise food choices back then would be the parents of today.

But, unfortunately, people do not spend their money wisely. Oftentimes when they have to cut down on family expenses, the first place they cut is food, because they have an overhead.

Mrs. GREEN. Then, what you are saying is that all of the parents. who can afford to supply lunches and other meals for their children do not have enough brains to supply nutritious meals. Is that what you are saying?

Miss MARTIN. No.

Mrs. GREEN. But that is the only realistic interpretation of your comments. You said we must educate in the area of nutrition. Î am talking about families that have just as much sense as the people planning school lunches and who have supplied their children through the years with nutritious, well-balanced meals. My question is: Why should the Government step in and say, "Even though you are doing this, we will do it."

Miss MARTIN. I refer to the 1965 household food consumption report made by the Department of Agriculture. This study indicated that fewer American families were well fed in 1965 than in 1955.

Mrs. GREEN. I don't see that citing such a report has anything to do with my question. I am talking about the families that can afford to supply nutritious meals and are doing so. Why should the Government then step in and say, "We will do it"?

Miss MARTIN. Because many of the families who can afford to do it do not. They have not recognized the importance of nutrition to their child.

Mrs. GREEN. Again, you did not respond to my question. I am referring to families that do know about nutrition, and know as much as you or anyone else. I am talking about those families that can afford to supply nutritious meals, and do so. Why should the Government step in and say, "We will supply the meals for your youngsters and we will pay for it"?

Miss MARTIN. I really do not have an answer to that question, but but maybe we could look at it from another point of view, and that is from the standpoint of our goal of trying to help improve the educational opportunities for disadvantaged children.

The curriculum experts tell us that one of the places that where we need to work with disadvantaged children is in building his self-image and oftentimes the poor child will not accept lunch at school because it is a free lunch and the children who are better off than he is financially do not get the lunch free.

Mrs. GREEN. Now, apparently you are offering another reason for supplying everyone with meals. Do you have any statistics that bear up what you just said: that the selective serving of meals to those in need destroys the self-image of the poor child, and that the disadvantaged child won't accept the free lunch because others are not getting these meals? Are there any statistics to substantiate your assertion?

Miss MARTIN. To my knowledge, there are no specific statistics. You hear school principals and school superintendents say this. I don't know how you could arrive at a statistical report to indicate this. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Quie.

Mr. QUIE. Thank you for coming here today. One comment, though. I guess I would agree to the Federal Government providing the same share for food services as they provide for the rest of education and, to