This amendment will in no way affect the amount of State appropriated money required to match Federal funds. The provision requiring States to provide a percentage of overall matching from State revenues would remain intact.

This 3 to 1 provision was established in the original National School Lunch Act of 1946. The shape of school lunch participation has changed drastically since 1970 and the passage of Public Law 91-248.

In 1946-47, when the bill--when this provision was originally enacted, only 10 percent of the lunches served were provided at no cost to poor children. Today nearly 40 percent of all lunches are served free. Accordingly, the percentage of total income from children's payments has declined sharply, to the point that a number of States, at least five, and Georgia happens to be one of them, are approaching the point where they will be unable to maintain the 3 to 1 matching contribution from all sources from inside the State.

The problem is aggravated by the USDA's directive that States must pay the same level of section 4 funds for free as for paid meals. By imposing this requirement, the USDA is saying, in essence, that for each free meal served, the State must get 34 cents from sources within the State, if there are 50 percent free lunches.

They are saying that for each free lunch, you must get 34 cents from within the State. Now, if the State has 50 percent free lunches, what the regulation says is that we must have 68 cents per paid lunch from sources within the State.

The present law, and the present interpretation does need revising, otherwise States with a high percentage of economically needy children will not be able to meet these matching requirements. Consequently, in these cases, section 4 funds will be reduced in those States.

In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, this is part of the administration's cost-avoidance system. They would like for us not to be able to spend all of the money that is available. The 3 to 1 matching requirement of the National School Lunch Act became outmoded with the passage of Public Law 91-248 which provided for free or reduced price lunches as a right for economically needy children.

Section 5 of H.R. 3736 would liberalize the present eligibility standards for reduced price meals. Under the amendment, children from homes with income up to 100 percent above the poverty guidelines would be eligible for a reduced price lunch.

This would mean that children from a family of four, earning $8,640 per year would be eligible for a reduced price meal.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, families who fell into this income category are young families, often headed by one parent, and these are the families suffering the most from our present economy.

They are having to make choices which affect the health of their children. If the fuel bill doubles, they still must pay the fuel bill. Unless they have help with school meals, the children will have to settle for no lunch, or a substandard lunch.

Participation in Georgia has dropped in the last 2 years. More children from middle-income families simply cannot afford to pay the ongoing sale price, which is 40 to 55 cents per lunch.

It is truly sad that the amount that the child has to pay for a school lunch is a function of the wealth of the school district. I believe that the supreme court in California has addressed itself to this question about total educational opportunity.

It is further said that no provisions are made for the child from the middle-income family, and these are the struggling families. This amendment would help to relieve these inequities.

Section 7 and section 8 of H.R. 3736 provide an extension of authorization for the special food program for children. This authorization for the year-round program would be extended on a permanent basis, and Mr. Stalker will talk more about this provision.

Under section 7, however, the year-round program would be defined as a school which would assure more adequate funding for meals in the special food program. It would establish funding on a performance basis.

This portion of the legislation would operate as a school lunch program. At present, in the State of Georgia, there are many day care centers that are not eligible, and cannot be approved for participation, because there is not enough money.

However, there are some unanswered questions about this part of the legislation, which the language arouses. If this legislation is enacted, it certainly should not exclude any program from participating that is presently on the program.

This act should be thoroughly researched before enactment. There must be provisions for additional administrative expense for those States which would be expected to assume administrative responsibility, which is now assumed by the USDA.

It may be that some States will be prohibited by State definition of school from assuming this responsibility. In this case, the USDA will still have to run these programs.

There must be a determination regarding a State's legal authority to administer these programs.

The second part of the special food program for children, or section 8, is concerned with the summer feeding program. This amendment provides two things:

One, a simple 1-year extension of the summer program; two, it establishes a minimum period of operation for eligibility of 4 weeks.

Mr. Vanik this morning indicated that there should be some provision, probably, for those programs that operate less than 4 weeks. Since we have been in Washington this week, it has been called to my attention, for example, that in New Mexico there is a 2-week recreation program sponsored by some New Mexico Indians, which would become ineligible if we had the minimum of 4 weeks.

There are some short-term programs in West Virginia that have been very successful. These and other such programs should not be excluded with this new legislation.

Now, sections 11 and 12 of H.R. 3736 relate to the commodity program. We feel, in Georgia, where we have 83 percent participation, that one of our best public relations, one of our best merchandizing techniques, is the good hot bread that we prepare in the schools, and that the children have daily.

There is nothing as enticing as the aroma of fresh bread. So, we fully support this provision that would allow the Department, or

require the Department of Agriculture to once more make cereals and grains and oils available to the schools, because this year the schools in Georgia that had depended so heavily on these commodities have missed them very much.

Second, we support very strongly the provision that would require the Department of Agriculture to spend 75 percent of the commodity allocation for foods. We feel that this would give the State authorities, and the local school administrators some assurance that there was going to be a continued food distribution program. It would help not only in budgeting for school meals, but it would also help give the planning for transporting the donated food, the freezer space, etc. We would ask, Mr. Chairman, that local school people, and particularly our major city directors, who are operating large central kitchens, and who sometimes find it difficult to use the cereal products, the oils, and what-have-you, and who also find it difficult to use some of the foods that is purchased by the USDA, we would ask the USDA to consider the school food service practitioner in selecting the foods to be distributed to the schools-to be made available for the school food service program.

This would help us to maximize the Federal contribution in order to operate more eflicient programs.

I would feel very remiss if I did not make one remark about the comments that have been made this morning, or the questions that have been asked about waste in the school food service program.

We are, in school food service, very much concerned about waste in the school lunch program. However, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I would call your attention to the fact that if you are operating a school with 1,500 children, and you have as little as 1 ounce of waste per child, which is a little bit of waste, but by the time that much waste is accumulated and put in a few garbage cans, it looks like a lot of waste.

I don't really think there is as much waste as, perhaps, might have been talked about this morning.

Second, we perceive the school food service program as an educational program. Many times children come into the school food service program without knowing new foods. Unless they are exposed to those foods, and unless they have an opportunity, as Mr. Bolling expressed it this morning, to have small portions of these foods, they never learn to eat a variety of foods.

We believe that it is important for young people to learn to eat a variety of foods, and the school lunch program offers this opportunity.

Some very viable alternatives or suggestions have been made for improving the consumption of food, such as offering choices. Miss Perry mentioned this in her testimony. We do need to encourage local school authorities to provide choice. The present framework is flexible enough that local school systems may offer choices within the framework of the type A meal, and yet the child, the young per son would come up with a balanced meal each day.

For several years, we have proposed, and this is included in the provision of the universal bill, which you have introduced, and which other members of your committee have introduced, that local school

authorities need some help with money for administering the child nutrition program.

It is strange to me that we have 3.7 percent of the money for child nutrition programs available for Federal administration, and one of this is available for local administration. These are some ways that we could cut the waste.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, we appreciate theopportunity of coming to help interpret the needs of the school lunchprogram this year, and to pledge to you our continued support, and to ask your immediate consideration of this legislation.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much.

Dr. PERRYMAN. Mr. Stalker, director of school nutrition programs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and chairman of our State director section.

Mr. STALKER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, in testifying today, I am representing both the Massachusetts State Department of Education, and the American School Food Service Association.

As you have been provided with a complete statement, I would like to cover a few salient points.

Although I support all of the provisions contained in H.R. 3736, I am talking specifically now as to section 7, that part of the bill that relates to the year-round special food service program for chil dren, and its incorporation into the National School Lunch Act.

Such incorporation under the definition of public and private schools does not in any way preclude those agencies now currently operating and sponsoring such programs from continuing to operate such programs under the National School Lunch Act.

In fact, many such programs are now operating under the sponsorship of local public departments of education, and receiving the higher rates of reimbursement provided under the National School Lunch Act for breakfast, lunches, and also the ability to participate in the special milk program.

To me, although the summer feeding program should continue as presently authorized, year-around food service program should be conducted through the National School Lunch Act.

The problem to be resolved is how can we best provide for these services to the greatest number of children with the most efficient use of tax dollars. All children in each of these programs would receive equal nutritional and financial benefits, as the full cost to provide free or reduced price meal in child care and preschool programs would be more adequately financed and more needy children could be reached during these critical ages.

With the present program, many children are unable to participate because of too few day care centers. This aspect is even more important when we consider that 34 million of American women are working outside of the home, with nearly 38 percent having school age children, and approximately another 10 percent with children below school age.

If the year-round program was a part of the national school lunch program, children would be eligible for a breakfast, a type A lunch, and an extra carton of milk, all at no cost, or reduced cost to needy children.

True, the supper meal subsidy would be lost, unless the legislation was amended to provide for such meals, but such meals are in negligible number of the total meals served. Under such a plan, administrative time could be used more effectively at both the Federal and State level.

Duplication of effort would be eliminated with one set of regulations, and standardized applications and claim forms could be used under one reimbursement structure.

More programs could be reviewed with the same number of personnel. Paper printing and mailing costs would be less.

Local communities would also realize financial advantages. USDA foods would be allowable for use in all meals, and would have to reduce these costs.

Equipment money would be saved in many instances by using existing school kitchens, at the same time menu variety could be increased due to the more sophisticated equipment in these kitchens compared to that available in many small day care centers.

The staff would be better trained in food preparation and service as well as in other management procedures. The December 2 issue of Education USA recorded that the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Terrel H. Bell, who is known for his interest in early childhood education, intends to make a new preschool project his first personal priority. Pilot operations planned for fiscal year 1976 include 15 of the Nation's largest cities and several suburban and rural communities.

With this approach in mind, it makes sense to include the feeding of these children as part of the school program, too.

In addition, where preschool programs are an integral part of the educational agency, communities could make better use of empty classrooms in training professional staff.

Finally, in those instances where preschool programs become an integral part of the school lunch program, nutrition education also can be more easily implemented. Teaching our young people what to eat, and why, as well as seeing that they get enough of the right things to eat, must be our national nutritional policy.

We know that good eating habits must be established early in life. It has been estimated that $30 million a year on health care can be saved through proper nutrition. Surely, the monetary investment needed for special food programs for children is very minute in comparison to the projected benefits derived.

I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee, and express my appreciation for having had the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3736, and a special food service program for children.

Although I recommended that the summer food service program be administered as presently authorized, I believe that the expansion and incorporation of a year-round special food service program into the present national school lunch program would represent a major step in improving the nutritional health of our Nation's younger children. Thank you.

Dr. PERRYMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Joseph Stewart, director of food services programs for the District of Columbia Public Schools.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, on the premise that the best is saved until last, may I express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you.