Senator MCGOVERN. I appreciate that, but I wanted to underscore the importance of that.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, sir.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF STATE DIRECTORS

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Select Committee, this concludes the testimony to be presented by me as chairman of the State directors' section of the ASFSA. We feel, however, that we would be remiss if we did not make recommendations to you and to the USDA concerning the proposed rule changes:

1. That the proposed rule change be set aside.

2. In conjunction with setting aside the present proposed changes that the "12-cent rule" be dropped from existing regulations as permitted by memorandum from USDA in March 1971; and

3. That States be permitted to pay up to 40 cents out of Section 11-32 funds as long as Section 4 funds are being expended in a school at or equal to the State's assistance need rate. Rates above these would be permitted if there was justification. In a final addition, may I present this point for your consideration: That for 25 years the backbone of the School Lunch Program has been the payments made by the paying child and the Section 4 reimbursement. The ratio of the Section 4 rate to the price charged to paying children has continuously widened. This results in schools being forced to increase prices to paying children. The guarantee as suggested by USDA of each State receiving an average of 5 cents per meal is not enough. There should be a firm guarantee of not less than 6 cents for all Section 4 meals and an increase of at least 1 cent per meal guarantee above the State's assistance need rate for all meals. If the paying child is priced out of this program, our operating cost just for the needy child will be greatly increased. It is inconceivable that we can approve a 3-cent reimbursement for one-half pint of milk in a nonprogram school-that is not required to meet any kind of nutritional standards nor to provide lunches for needy children-yet can offer only 5 cents for a Section 4 lunch to a school that has a complete meal, including milk.

USDA PROPOSALS MEAN HUNGRY CHILDREN IN SCHOOL

All that I have said really can be summed up in one very simple statement. The proposals will curtail the program and prevent millions of hungry children from being provided a lunch at school.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our association, its 50,000 members, the 50 State directors of which I am chairman, and for millions of children who are beneficiaries of the School Lunch Program, I thank you for letting me appear before your committee.

Senator McGOVERN. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett, as you know, on May 14, 1970, the President signed into law an expanded school lunch program authorized by the Congress. Is it not your understanding of that law-very clearly man

dated by the Congress, signed by the President-that every child should receive an adequate school lunch? If he did not have the funds to pay for it, he should get a free or reduced-price lunch.

Is there any doubt in your mind, as a student of, and longtime administrator of these school lunch programs, that that was the intent of Congress?

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I read that exactly as you have stated it. It is my concept. And we have had a firm belief and commitment to our school boards that this would happen; that if they provided the lunch, that the Congress would assure that they received sufficient funds to help take care of the cost of that lunch.

Senator McGOVERN. And you are telling this committee today not only on behalf of the State of Tennessee, but on the basis of the unanimous verdict of all of the school lunch directors, that if the new guidelines stand, you cannot carry out the mandate of the Congress?

NEW GUIDELINES WILL STIFLE MANDATE

Mr. BARTLETT. That is correct, sir. It is not possible to do it under the present proposed regulations.

Senator McGOVERN. I do not know how the issue could be stated any more bluntly. You are saying in effect that these regulations defy really the intent of the Congress and the actual law that has been signed by the President more than a year ago?

Mr. BARTLETT. That is right; that is exactly what we said, sir.

And I think I can say that for the other States, all the State directors. I know I can say that very emphatically for the 36 others who were at the Minneapolis convention, and post-convention director's workshop.

Senator McGOVERN. How much did you increase the program in your State last year under the new program as mandated by the Congress?

Mr. BARTLETT. Our previous percentage of free lunches had been running around 14 to 16 percent; and at the end of the year, Mr. McGovern, we got to 30 percent of the lunches, which were served free or at the reduced price, with approximately 80 percent of the total children in schools that had programs participating on a daily basis. Senator McGOVERN. Will these new regulations allow you to continue that rate of expansion, or any expansion at all?

Mr. BARTLETT. We could not expand. In fact, we can't even stand still, because the program will regress without additional funding to take care of the additional costs of the free lunch.

Senator McGOVERN. I must say, Mr. Bartlett, that I could hardly believe it when I was in the field talking with a number of school lunch directors during this recess. After all the talk and all the effort of this committee and the Congress of the United States and statements by the President that we were going to reach every childevery poor child in this country--with an adequate school lunch, that we now have these guidelines, coming out almost on the eve of the opening of classes this year, announcing that we are really going to stand still-as far as our efforts to end hunger are concerned in the schools.

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, we were just as amazed as you were, sir, at this date.

Senator MCGOVERN. Let me ask you this, Mr. Bartlett: Is it your interpretation of these present proposed regulations and I emphasize again they are only proposed regulations-that they will prevent you from spending the $100 million in Section 32 funds which the Congress authorized?

NO INTENT TO UTILIZE SECTION 32 FUNDS

Mr. BARTLETT. Very definitely; in fact, I pointed out in the testimony here, sir, that it appears that there is no intention on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to permit the expenditure of the Section 32 funds, because none have been apportioned. And we must stay within the regulations which say you apportion or assign your rates based upon the funds that are currently available. And these must last for the entire year.

My fiscal agent, my fiscal officer, will not permit us to budget the funds that we do not have.

Senator MCGOVERN. Well, then, the same thing would apply with reference to any planning for a supplemental appropriation by the Congress. That is, you cannot really go ahead with the School Lunch program for this academic year on the assumption that there will be supplemental appropriations?

Mr. BARTLETT. No, sir.

Senator McGOVERN. I remember very clearly during the congressional debate last year the Senators who questioned the size of the expansion-that is, the cost of it-said, "Well, if we need additional money, we can always get it with a supplemental authorization and appropriation."

But I take it you are telling us that these new regulations make it impossible for you to plan on that kind of a supplemental appropriation?

Mr. BARTLETT. Absolutely; there is no provision, as I see it, in the proposed regulations whereby funds can be transferred from Section 32 for Section 11 purposes.

Senator McGOVERN. Well, we have programs here from all over the country indicating that numerous schools may have to drop out of the program, or cut back the program.

My own State has indicated to me in a number of school districts that they may not be able to participate in the program at all if these regulations stand.

INCREDIBLE-DEFIANCE OF INTENT OF CONGRESS

I just have to say again that I find it incredible, at a time when I thought we were expanding the School Lunch Program, that we are now being deluged with statements from school lunch directors that they are either going to have to drop out of the program or retrench or cut back. It seems to me to be a total defiance of what this committee and what the Congress of the United States intended last year.

Mr. BARTLETT. That is exactly true. And this briefcase has just a few copies of letters I received expressing these same feelings.

Senator McGOVERN. I would like to ask that these telegrams and communiques that have come to the committee be made a part of the record,* together with a statement from Senator Montoya of New Mexico, Senator Moss of Utah, and Congressman Abourezk of South Dakota.

(The statements follow:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH M. MONTOYA

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for convening this hearing, and I very much appreciate this chance to testify before your Select Nutrition Committee on a matter of extreme urgency to the children of the Nation. The school lunch program for poor children has been unjustifiably eviscerated by the Administration and the Department of Agriculture.

Further, they have done this by executive fiat while Congress was out of session and away from the seat of government in Washington. The Department of Agriculture, which has participated in so many similar actions harming nutrition programs for the poor, has slashed school lunch funds from 60 to 35 cents per child.

The State Directors of National School Lunch Program are committed to carrying out the mandate given them by the President. In December of 1969, Mr. Nixon pledged to put an end to hunger among American school children.

I believed then in his good faith, secure in the knowledge that we had the wherewithal and commitment with which to do such a job. Surplus foods, funds and Congressional intent were all there, merely awaiting implementation. Now this hope has been cut down by administrative sleight of hand. These children have been betrayed and the nation should know it.

Mrs. Gretchen Plagge, Director of the School Food Service Division of my home state of New Mexico, has joined other State Directors of the National Lunch Program in vehemently protesting this action by the Administration. She joins in warning that there is considerable anticipation of shutdowns of such school lunch programs early in the school year because of inability of local school districts to handle indebtedness which will be unavoidable as a result of inadequate Federal funding levels.

My home state of New Mexico has relied heavily on this program's fulfillment. Thousands of our school children will have to do without the only decent meal of the entire school day because of this inexcusable action.

Mr. Chairman, the hungry child cannot learn, as has been proven again and again. To deprive this program of its full funding is to guarantee multiplication of all the ancillary problems attendant upon hunger in our schools; absenteeism, dropouts, irregular behavior and lethargy among children. We will have to watch helplessly while a bad situation worsens.

I joined in sponsoring S. 2921 in the 89th Congress, now known as P.L. 89642. Signed October 11, 1966, it expanded the National School Lunch Act to provide a special milk program for children.

I also joined in sponsorship of S. 2871 in the 90th Congress, now known as P.L. 90-302. Signed into law May 8, 1968, it amended the National School Lunch Act to strengthen and expand food services programs for children. I voted for the McGovern Amendment to the Agriculture Appropriation bill for FY 1972, which increased by $16.9 million funds for school lunch programs. It was adopted, as I recall, by a vote of 56–28, bringing the total for the program to $33 million. Again, it seems to me as if the intent of the Senate was utterly clear, leaving little if any room for doubt, vacillation or cutbacks.

The school lunch program is supposed to be reaching 6.4 million of a potential 6.5 million needy children. It is almost certain that a far greater number could make excellent use of this program.

Mr. Chairman, we are spending vast sums for various projects and undertakings as useless as they are expensive. This Administration has just edged through approval of a $250 million government guarantee for Lockheed's loans. We are spending staggering quantities of cash for weapons systems, foreign aid and foreign wars. Yet we present the ludicrous spectacle to the world of actually

*See Appendix 1, p. 1795,

cutting back on minimal funding programs for feeding hungry youngsters. I plead for corrective action to reverse the decision of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, if we are to give any kind of signal to the dispossessed that there is hope, the least we can do is to assure their children of one decent meal daily so they can take advantage of an educational opportunity. If we fail to do this, then we have no right to ask why violent, anti-social actions occur and why there is despair and alienation among so many of our people.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK E. MOSS

Mr. Chairman: This Committee is to be commended for its dedicated and concerned leadership in holding hearings with regard to a reduction in reimbursements for free and reduced price school lunches. I share the deep concern of this Committee: the new regulations set spending ceilings that are woefully inadequate.

The Congress of the United States has pronounced its intent to put an end to hunger in American schools as is noted in Section 9 of the National School Lunch Act as amended by Public Law 91-248, which states, "Any child who is a member of a household that has an annual income not above the applicable family size income level shall be served meals free or at a reduced cost," as well as in Section 11(a) which provides authorization for "appropriation as may be necessary" to assure access to the school lunch program.

Despite the fact that the states have been instructed and committed to a school lunch program in every school and available to every student, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is proposing regulations which make this objective impossible to achieve. The USDA calls such changes "improved money management." If such changes are allowed the needed expansion for the 1971-72 school year will come to a screeching halt, needy children will remain hungry, and the USDA will violate the intent of Congress under the guise of "Improved Management of Program Funds."

Food for hungry children is an investment, not an exchange. It is an investment in America which we can ill afford to ignore. I am opposed to any reductions in programs designed to insure that our students will become educationally competent, nutritionally strong, and productive citizens.

Moreover, I am informed by Mr. Cluff O. Snow, Administrator, Utah Division of School Food Services, that the proposed amendments would cost the school lunch program in Utah approximately $468,000 for this coming year. Such a cutback will seriously hamper the program. Had the proposed regulation been in effect last year, the State of Utah would have lost a total of some $400,000 in Section 4 and 32 funds.

I am opposed also to the proposed regulation revisions that will take place after schools have started. This creates a very awkward situation for school districts because the restrictions of holding back one-half of the non-food suspended funds until mid-year will restrict implementation and expansion the first part of the year in many states. This creates a very confusing and irritating situation, especially to Utah district and school personnel.

I do not agree, furthermore, with the establishment of a base system to control funds. It will be too slow, cumbersome, and will increase the difficulty of administration. This method of controlling funds merely requires that needy lunches be frozen in terms of an appropriation instead of legal provisions to increase participation.

The rate guarantee from Section 11 and 32 funds should be 40 cents for each free and reduced-price lunch, with the possibility of going higher with justification. Thirty cents is not a realistic figure for free and reduced-price lunches. These funds also should be allocated to states on the basic of fiscal year 1971 and the use of a "base" to control the use of special assistance funds should be eliminated. The tentative original allocation would be a guideline and supplemental funds should be forthcoming as needed and justified.

All states should share in Section 32 funds on an equitable basis considering the need of the state as measured by per capita income and the need as indicated by increased lunches.

Finally, I can see no basis for restricting the availability of equipment funds. Holding back funds will penalize districts and schools in their efforts to improve

58-854-71-pt. 7- -2