Mr. WEINBERG. No, sir. Mr. Morse, who represents these employees would have the same jurisdiction. They would still bargain in the same way they are doing now. The union represents these employees and will continue to represent these employees.

Mr. HORTON. Does the union represent the District employees now that are in comparable jobs?

Mr. WEINBERG. A number of them. Most of our Food Service employees, yes, at our institutions.

Mr. HORTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUDE. I have heard in some areas of the D.C. school systemmaybe this is just in Head Start-that there was some sort of school breakfast program. Could you comment on that?

Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir. We do have a breakfast program in 107 elementary schools. These are for the needy children also. This is during the school year where these children are. They come to school at 8:45 and they receive breakfast.

Mr. GUDE. They come before the other students?

Mr. JACOBS. That is correct.

Mr. GUDE. What is the cost of such a breakfast?

Mr. JACOBS. The cost is free to the child. The cost is about 15 cents. We serve a cereal, milk and four ounces of orange juice for the breakfast.

Mr. GUDE. This is only in 107 of the elementary schools?

Mr. JACOBS. In other words, all of the needy. All of the elementary schools where there are needy children we have the program. That is

107.

Mr. GUDE. The balance of the students come at 9:00 o'clock?

Mr. JACOBS. That is right. The school day begins at nine o'clock. Mr. GUDE. Does this offer any problem in the school breakfast program? We were talking about the fact that the needy children, it was obvious that they were receiving a free lunch while the other students were getting paid at-getting fed at lunch time. Does the fact that this group arrives earlier, does this create any problem?

Mr. JACOBS. I am not aware of any particular problem created. Mr. GUDE. What about the schools where you do not offer this? There are no needy children?

Mr. JACOBS. That is correct.
Mr. GUDE. Only in the 107?

Mr. JACOBS. That is correct.

Mr. GUDE. Has there been any observation of the effectiveness of this program as far as the D. C. School System is concerned, this breakfast program?

Mr. JACOBS. We have had personal observations. We have had many of the school principals attest that the children are livelier and they don't fall asleep in class. We do observe that on Mondays, in a number of schools they seem to be particularly eager to come to breakfast and for lunches, which means that they may not have eaten too well over the weekend.

Mr. WHITENER. In these schools where you have no cafeteria, where you transport food, how many employees would you have in a typical school where the food is brought in?

Mr. JACOBS. They have lunch room clerks. I think that is set up at about one clerk for each 100 children who are served. I would say most schools have two.

Mr. WHITENER. Do they work eight hours?

Mr. JACOBS. They are part-time workers, working four hours. Mr. WHITENER. I thought you told us all of them work eight hours? Mr. AYERS. Those particular people are not paid from the Food Services Fund. They are, however, people who would be some of those transferred into the Fund.

Mr. WHITENER. You say 635 people are involved and you do not include the part-time worker?

Mr. AYERS. That is right.

Mr. WHITENER. And how many students?

Mr. JACOBS. 107.

Mr. WHITENER. The full-time people would be the ones preparing and serving the food?

Mr. JACOBS. Yes.

Mr. WHITENER. When you get into a school which has no cafeteria facilities and get into a school where you merely serve a box lunch or food prepared elsewhere, you do not have any full-time employees? Mr. AYERS. That is right.

Mr. WHITENER. Does the high school student pay on a daily basis. or per-meal basis, or does he maybe pay by the week?

Mr. JACOBS. On a daily basis.

Mr. WHITENER. How about the elementary school children? Mr. JACOBS. All of our meals are paid for on a per-day basis. Mr. WHITENER. Down my way I believe the elementary students pay by the week and the high school people by the day. As I understand the philosophy, it is that the lower grade students should not have this choice that we are talking about. They should eat the wellbalanced meal and pay for it, take it or leave it, whereas the high school people have a choice.

Would not a weekly payment plan by the lower grade children get you away from the thing that worried some of us about the needy child having such identification, as a needy child?

Mr. JACOBS. We have thought about a lot of these things and they are very much a part of our thinking and planning. There have been several considerations whether or not-as I say, since we are serving such a tremendous number, almost half of our people, without cost, whether or not 35 cents times 5 would be better than 35 cents a day; these are things we are exploring.

Mr. WHITENER. I have asked you about the procedure that you were following. As I understand, you say there is a very simple form that the parent or guardian would file with the principal?

Mr. JACOBS. That is correct.

Mr. WHITENER. What do you do in the case of the proud parent or guardian?

Mr. JACOBS. This is very much a problem, sir. The principal may seek information from the parent. In the case of the proud parent who won't reply, the principal may take certain information he has and on his approval the child can be fed. Our concern is for the child's welfare. This does turn out to be a problem in a number of cases.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Jacobs, I don't know a thing about how you operate the Food Services except what I have heard here today, but I want to tell you I have been most impressed with your apparent dedication and your knowledge of the details of the operation. Not

that these other gentlemen haven't been fine witnesses, but we have so many people who come before our committee who do not have at their fingertips the information about their operations that you obviously have. I want to commend you and thank these other gentlemen too. Mr. JACOBS. Thank you.

Mr. HORTON. I am concerned about the difference between the amount that the District Government will be paying into the fundI think we will be asked questions about this if we have to justify this bill. In other words, the D.C. government is going to assume the payment of some $2.4 million in salaries. That would be taken out of the Food Services fund. Now, you will assume, or the fund will assume $1.8 million which it would now not get from the District, as I understand the testimony. I think it would be very helpful to us for a letter to be directed to the committee for us to have in executive session, talking in terms of what you will be doing with the funds in the future if this bill is enacted.

Mr. AYERS. We will do that, sir.

Mr. HORTON. I think that will be very helpful to us.

If we have to justify this bill on the floor, we are certainly going to be asked questions about that. It is not going to be sufficient to say. "Well, I am sure they will use it wisely." That will not be enough. I think you have to have some plan as to what is going to happen to that money in that fund and what the fund is going to be doing in the future.

Mr. GUDE. The principal has the control over the policy as to whether a child receives a free lunch. Are there guidelines set down by the School Board, or what provision is made for him to take all the facts into account?

Mr. JACOBS. On that particular point each year we prepare the Food Service Department-a draft which is sent to the Superintendent setting out the procedures for this, with the sample forms, et cetera. This is given to each principal in the first part of August. There are definite guidelines on this, including samples of the forms to be used.

Mr. GUDE. Giving him information about how he shall determine whether or not a child should be given a free lunch? These are guidelines with regard to the welfare Department's relationship to the family and the child and so forth.

Mr. JACOBS. There is a memorandum on the children whose parents are on public assistance, but in addition to that—and this by no means is the majority of the school needs-it is a thing just like the problem of the proud parent; sometimes there is visual evidence that the child is undernourished, or listless in class. Then it is the principal's responsibility to initiate action with the parent on this and if he is unable to get a response, then, of course, we accept the responsibility of him pulling out this information and sending this child to the lunchroom as a needy child.

Mr. GUDE. The principal is given definite policy direction in making these decisions?

Mr. JACOBS. That is correct.

Mr. GUDE. You are certainly doing a very fine job and I want to compliment you on your dedication to your task.

Mr. JACOBS. Thank you.

Mr. SISK. In looking at the Senate bill, the bill which the Senate

passed, in Section 2 here it is my understanding, as I attempted to prepare what the substitute bill would do as against that part covered in the Senate bill, Section 4 of the new substitute I believe would take the place of the language in S. 2012 and yet there was some difference in the language.

Section 2 amend as follows: "Appropriations are authorized for all necessary expenses of the Office of Central Management, Department. of Food Services, in the public schools of the District of Columbia, including the payment of compensation for personal services and Government contributions to related insurance costs; for the acquisition, maintenance, and replacement of equipment used or acquired for use in the conduct of the Department of Food Services in the public schools of the District of Columbia, and for reimbursement"-and I want you to take particular notice of this because this differs from the other language "and for reimbursement of the District of Columbia public school food services fund for lunches served in accordance with section 9 of the National School Lunch Act (60 Stat. 233, title 42. sec. 1758, U.S.C., 1958 edition), to children without cost to such children or at reduced cost."

I would like to have some clarification. As I understand we are being asked by the District Government to substitute in its entirety this material furnished by the Mayor, to take the place of this other language.

Now, in Section 4 as the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Whitener, has read that already, I will say this matter having to do with Section 9 of the National School Lunch Act, with reference to the children without costs and reduced cost and so on, that is not referred to in this.

I would appreciate a quick explanation of the significance of the change in language here.

Mr. MOYER. The reason we made no reference to the national School Lunch Act is that we are no longer proposing that this expense be reimbursed by the District Government. In the future, the fund will pay for these needy lunches.

Mr. SISK. There is also the fact we are taking away from it the obligation to meet the salaries and other expenses.

Mr. MOYER. That is a major obligation.

Mr. SISK. So actually what you are going to do-and this goes to the question raised by the gentleman from New York to some extent, and others, that this is going to leave free the monies in this fund to go ahead and do a great deal more in the way of actually meeting the needs of needy children, children who are unable to pay anything, or children who are able to pay only part, to a much greater extent than theretofore you have been able to do in the past, Mr. Jacobs. This is what you really seek to do, is it?

Mr. JACOBS. Yes.

Mr. SISK. And also, as I understand, increase the number of cafeterias or schools at which food will be prepared and served. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. JACOBS. That is correct because we are presently serving all needy children but, of course, we are doing it at the expense of the fund and we are going in the hole. We are losing money.

Mr. HORTON. You are in the same area I was talking about before. I think it is important for us to have something from these gentlemen which we can use in executive session, which we can use in a report which will indicate what that fund is going to do in the future.

Mr. SISK. If you will read the Senate bill, it goes into some detail on the purposes for which this money is to be used after we appropriate funds to meet salaries and other needs and, of course, that is not spelled out in the proposal.

Mr. HORTON. May I be specific there, Mr. Chairman? I think what you have done is point out what has been said before. It is that in the Senate Bill, 2012, if that bill is passed out by our committee and enacted by the Congress, in essence what that would mean would be that the District of Columbia would assume some $2.4 million in salaries, plus additional increases which would be an extra amount, and it would also if this bill is enacted-mean that the District will continue to pay in the $1.8 million which Mr. Fletcher talked about.

The draft bill, as I understand it, would require that the District pay the salaries, but it would not require the District to pay the SS million into the fund. That would now be assumed by the fund if the draft bill is adopted. Is that right?

Mr. AYERS. That is correct.

Mr. MOYER. Except for this, Mr. Horton: The bill passed by the Senate is a very small bill which only relates to 13 positions. It doesn't relate to all of the Food Services people. It just relates to the employees in the Office of Central Management.

Mr. SISK. It specifically says "The Office of Central Management." The Office of Central Management is the one which the gentleman from North Carolina rather clearly delineated as being separate and apar from this group of people discussed in the "present and supplementa salaries" schedule.

Mr. HORTON. If S. 2012 is enacted, it would only involve some 13 employees. If the proposed bill is enacted, it will involve some 635 employees, or any future employees who might be retained in order to accomplish the purposes of the lunch programs in the schools: is that right?

Mr. MOYER. Yes.

Mr. SISK. Of course, the Senate bill does not deal with the question, of the retroactivity of paying certain employees on which agreements were reached?

Mr. MOYER. That is right.

Mr. SISK. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being excellent w nesses this morning. I want to join with my colleague from Nort Carolina, and Mr. Horton, in commending you. You have one of t'a toughest jobs in the world. You will not satisfy everybody, but yo are knowledgeable and are evidently doing the best job you can.

STATEMENT OF WARREN MORSE, BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. MORSE. I regret I don't have a statement because we did 20hear of this hearing until last night.

Mr. SISK. Proceed with your statement.