for each educational agency which would include skill and experience necessary for effective administration." 12. Section 220.16, paragraph (b) revised: We see no basis in the law or in fact for restricting the availability of equipment funds for schools already participating in the school lunch or breakfast program. To delay the approval of funds needed for equipment to serve additional needy children either lunch or breakfast until March 1 simply postpones this operation until the following fiscal year. We therefore recommend that this amendment be deleted. We note the following objections: (a) The term "grossly inadequate" is vague, (b) this section requiring Washington's approval for expenditure of funds which is inappropriate and inconsistent with congressional intent and the state autonomy, (c) the section requires the state to work with individual schools rather than school food authorities. We further recommend that this sub-section be amended to require that equipment funds apportioned under the formula for the basis of the number of children in schools without food service be restricted to use in such schools, they shall be returned to USDA for reapportionment to other states in need for such funds. Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, ATLANTA, GA., September 4, 1971. Senator of South Dakota, Chairman, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. We, as home economists in business, are distressed at the cut in funds for the school lunch program. Recognizing that economies in government are sorely needed, we feel that priorities need be examined providing poor children at least one well balanced meal and for many the only meal of the day. We are concerned and hope the cut back can be recinded before it takes place. MILDRED ALMDALE, Chairman, GEORGIA HOME ECONOMISTS IN BUSINESS. Mr. HERBERT ROREX, Director, Child Nutrition Division, ROME CITY SCHOOL CAFETERIA, OFFICE OF LUNCHROOM SUPERVISOR, Food and Nutrition Service, Washington, D.C. Rome, Ga., September 10, 1971. DEAR MR. ROREX, this letter is in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, published August 13, 1971, in the Federal Register to amend the regulations governing the operations of Federal-State Child Nutrition Programs. Certain provisions of Public Law 91-248 made it mandatory for local boards of education to meet the nutritional needs of children qualifying under income standards established by the Department of Agriculture. Under the proposed new regulations we are quite concerned how we shall meet the obligations and requirements of Public Law 91-248. Our operating cost per lunch last year averaged .43. We have some schools in our school district that feed 65-70% free and reduced price. With a percentage this high we are most concerned how these schools and others like them can abide by the law and still meet their financial obligations. Your support concerning changes in the proposed regulation would be most appreciated. Sincerely, MADGE MAUNT. KRANNERT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Hon. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR, in lieu of the fact that it is difficult to operate a school lunchroom adequately, and meet the needs of children who are eligible for free and reducedprice lunches, I am asking you please to consider supplying additional funds to lunchrooms. Reimbursements of 30¢ per plate on free lunches as is supplied under Law #91248 is not enough. Specific reasons for an increase are as follows: 1. High food prices. 2. Increased labor costs. 3. Major break-downs of equipment. 4. High prices of cleaning chemicals and other products. We are situated in an area which has a large percentage of families from low income brackets. We fed from 10% to 15% of our children free and furnish a number of reduced-price lunches. Thank you for your serious consideration. FRANCES E. EVANS, Principal. KRANNERT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am the legislative chairman of the Floyd County School Food Service Association. Again I am asking your help in getting additional funds to finance the free and reduced-priced lunches. As you know we are getting more and more of them and 30¢ just doesn't go as far as it used to in buying power. I will appreciate all the help you can give us in securing additional funds. Thank you. Sincerely, (Mrs.) SARAH W. CHANDLER. GLYNN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN, I have followed in the news media, newspapers, etc. your sincere interest and desire to help the School Lunch Program. We have been charged with the responsibility of feeding all eligible youngsters and yet the appropriation committee is getting ready to cut the School Lunch budget. Is this reasonable! It doesn't even make sense when we go ahead and waste so much money on the war in Viet Nam. Won't you please do all in your power to see that our money is not taken away. (When I say "our" money I mean the child's.) Could you, could the appropriation committee members, look a child in the eye and say: "I'm sorry you can't eat a lunch any more the reimbursement has been cut and we can't afford to feed you". The children are depending on you to speak for them. (Miss) ANNETTE EVANS, Director. KENNESAW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The faculty and parents of our school are deeply concerned about the recent cuts in lunchroom reimbursements to our school. We too live in an area where food costs are very expensive, and quite frankly, we don't see how our lunchroom program can survive and operate in the black without the full reimbursement that we have been receiving. We are proud of the lunches we serve but we shudder to think of what we would be forced to serve when we cease to operate in the black, which would be inevitable in a short period of time. If the present rates had been in effect last year, it would have cost our school lunchroom over 1,600 dollars and we would have ended the school year in the red dollar figure. We do not feel that proper judgment has been used in this instance and under no circumstances is it justified when our children will be the ones who would be done the injustice. We urge you to use every influence possible to have these funds reinstated. Respectfully yours, Mr. HERBERT ROREX, Director, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Services, Washington, D.C. J. PHIL BLACKWELL, Principal. ROME CITY SCHOOLS, OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT, DEAR MR. ROREX: This letter is in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, published August 13, 1971, in the Federal Register to amend the regulations governing the operations of Federal-State Child Nutrition Programs. Certain provisions of Public Law 91-248 made it mandatory for local boards of education to meet the nutritional needs of children qualifying under income standards established by the Department of Agriculture. Under the proposed new regulations, we are quite concerned how we shall meet the obligations and requirement of Public Law 91-248. Our operating cost per lunch last year averaged 43 cents. We have some schools in our school district that feed 65 to 70 percent free or reduced price. With a percentage this high, we are most concerned how these schools and others like them can abide by the law and still meet their financial obligations. Your support concerning changes in the proposed regulations would be most appreciated. Sincerely yours, JESSE C. LASETER, Superintendent. JESUP JUNIOR HIGH AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: We are most concerned about the appropriation for paid, free and reduced price school lunches. In the Jesup Junior High and Elementary School where I am manager of the school lunch and breakfast program, we fed 97% lunches and 19% breakfasts during the school year 1970-71. This provided 163,205 total lunches; 105,154 paid, 56,450 free and 1,601 reduced. This provided 15,377 total breakfasts; 759 paid and 14,618 free. We feel, in Wayne County, Georgia, that to meet the nutritional requirements of children enrolled in the Wayne County School System, we will need the same amount of reimbursement received in 1970-71. We appreciate all your untiring efforts in working for the School Lunch Program. Sincerely, BEVERLY J. POPPELL, Manager. GLYNN COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, ALTAMA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Brunswick, Ga., September 21, 1971. Hon. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: It has been brought to my attention that the funds to support our school lunch program is likely to be cut. Please consider the effect that this would have on so many children. In order to comply with the unitary school system guide lines laid down by Court Order, my enrollment includes some two hundred seventy children from Federal low cost housing. The majority of these children are on welfare or public assistance. The information I have is that the cutback will amount to some eleven cents per lunch served. May I request that you use your influence to help get this amount restored, as it would seriously impair the quality of lunches served. Thank you for your efforts. Very respectfully, TROY C. BEAVERS, Principal. POWDER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCGOVERN: I would like to take this means of registering my opposition to the proposed reduction in the school lunch reimbursment rate now under consideration by the USDA. As you are aware, the general economic conditions already impose a burden on the operation of school food service programs. In addition, the following are reasons against the proposed regulations for child nutrition programs: 1. Could not afford to have reimbursement rate lowered. 2. Cannot continue to feed needy children. 3. For our school, a loss of $1,023.60 over a period of nine months. 4. The continuing rise in food and labor costs. Your influence in maintaining the present level of funding for school reimbursement rates will be appreciated. Sincerely, J. WADE ASH, Principal. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCGOVERN: At a meeting of State School Food Service Directors and USDA officials in Atlanta, Georgia, during the week of August 23, 1971, the announcement was made that no additional funds other than those available as a result of PL 92-32 were available to continue the Breakfast Program during FY 1972. This was quite a shock to me as Director of the School Food Services for Kentucky and a fear that consternation would reign among local school officials in more than 500 schools should it be necessary to cancel the Breakfast Programs at the end of September, 1971. PL 92-32 will provide only sufficient funds for the months of August and September combined for School Breakfast. During the FY 1971 more than $1,000,000 from Section 32 funds were used to continue the Breakfast Program in Kentucky schools and it is anticipated that an equal or greater amount would be needed for FY 1972. Could it be that there is a difference of opinion between the Congress of the United States of America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture as to the use of Section 32 funds? It seems to me to border on being ridiculous to recognize the fact that the USDA be permitted to use a Congressional appropriation in such a manner as to curtail those activities for which the funds were appropriated to say nothing of the future use to which they might be put. As it stands now the only source of funds for the continuation of the Kentucky School Breakfast Program is Section 32. We sincerely request that steps be taken to cause these funds to be released immediately in such amount that the Breakfast Program can be continued during the 1971-72 school year. Sincerely, Enclosures. C. E. BEVINS, Director, Division of School Food Service. Mr. C. E. BEVINS, MILLERSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Director, Division of School Food Service, Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, Ky. DEAR MR. BEVINS: We feel that the time has come for us to venture into the realm of the tried and true and start a breakfast program. Our enrollment as of today is 210, and our percentage of attendance is around 95 so we should have an ADA of 200. About 100 of our children walk from home and are the ones that need breakfast. Also, several Junior high and Senior high students meet the buses here to ride to their schools. May we feed these children too? Answers to these questions and any information we need will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, CHARLES TRIBBLE, Principal. BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Attention: Mr. O. J. Allen, Superintendent. MR. ALLEN: As principal of Milner School, I request permission to set up a breakfast program at Milner School. After sending a survey home to parents concerning student participation in a breakfast program, I am convinced that parents in the community wish to see such a program set up at Milner School. Thank you. Sincerely, PAUL F. O'REILLY, Principal. LOUISIANA Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Baton Rouge, August 31, 1971. Chairman, U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: Mr. Bartlett, who will represent the School Food Service State Directors at the Hearing of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, has been furnished with the material requested from the State of Louisiana. However, I would like to supply you directly with this additional information. As you are aware, we are indeed more fortunate regarding School Lunch than other states in that the State of Louisiana supplies a larger reimbursement rate than that supplied by the Federal Government under Section 4. We are, however, extremely concerned about Breakfast Program funding. Louisiana instituted the first public school Breakfast Program in the United States on the first day of its eligibility and has continued from that date to promote this program. Growth has been very good; however, we were expecting our greatest single year of progress in 1971–72 with a record number of requests already received. For example, one of our largest parishes (Caddo) has requested institution of Breakfast Programs in every school in the parish numbering 78 schools. After having been encouraged to push this very worthwhile program, it was quite frustrating to be told at the last moment before schools opened that we would have to advise these people we could not institute the Breakfast Program. All reports on Breakfast Programs in our schools are positive in their assertion that the Breakfast Program serves an equal if not greater purpose than does the School Lunch as many administrators say if a child remains hungry until the noon feeding period we have completely lost our best teaching period for him. It has been our observation that those who have breakfast accomplish much more in many ways. All of our 199 Breakfast Programs operating last year in Louisiana have been a great success. We therefore appreciate any effort |