on the part of the Congress and the Department of Agriculture in expediting the proper and complete funding of the Breakfast Program along with all other food service program needs. With best wishes, I am Sincerely, R. J. STOKER, State Director, School Food Services and Food Distribution. MAINE STATE OF MAINE, Mr. EDWARD HEKMAN, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, Augusta, Maine, August 26, 1971, Administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HEKMAN: I wish to express concern about the proposed revisions of the National School Lunch Program as listed in the Federal Register, August 13, 1971. It appears to me that these revisions would tend to reduce funds available to those states with high percentages of disadvantaged children. It is my understanding that the intent of the Congress has been to give special assistance to those states which have a high percentage of low income families participating in the School Lunch Program. Maine is one of those states. At least 30 percent of the total percentage of meals served go to those children qualifying for reduced-priced meals. School budgets are fixed for the current year, and if these regulations become effective September 1, many schools in the state will be unable to absorb the difference of the cost of the lunch and the reimbursement rate, and poor children will suffer. I urge you to review the regulations with a view toward establishing a more equitable formula which will meet the needs of all children. Sincerely, HERBERT S. SPERRY, Director. Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT No. 33, Chairman, Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: I have been informed that hearings will be held next week by your committee. Knowing that hunger exists in every part of this country, I commend your efforts at attempting to work out some equitable legislation that would help to meet the needs of all children-whether they come from low or middle or high income families. Malnutrition is not the exclusive domain of the economically deprived families. This is where free nutritious meals for ALL children of school age would be a tremendous stride in the right direction in our fight against malnutrition. In my particular case, most of the parents of our 850 boys and girls are at present not able to meet the costs of daily school lunches. The District is being as generous as possible but it is a small, poor district and its resources are not greater than those of the people it wants to serve. It is my hope that we will soon get the proper legislation that will allow all of our pupils-rich or poor-to stand in line and receive an adequate meal day after day during the school year. This is not welfare. It is justice. It is sharing in this country's great wealth and its great promise. Sincerely, GUY K. BAKER. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to the Secretary of Agriculture in which you request the withdrawal of proposed regulations to the National School Lunch Act. I especially wish to call to your attention the following points: 1. Legality of Proposed Regulations.-The USDA proposes with these revisions to circumvent the intent of Congress and the letter of Sections 4 and 11 of the Act. Section 32 would supplement the initial allocations under Section 4 and 11 with funds apportioned on the basis of participation only, yet both of these Sections consider the need factor in the apportionment formula. (Section 4 "Apportionment (of cash-for-food assistance) among the states shall be made on basis of two factors: (1) the participation rate for the state, and (2) the assistance need rate for the state. Section 11-"The amount (of special assistance funds) apportioned to each state shall bear the same ratio to the total of such funds as the number of children in such states aged 3 to 17, inclusive, in households with incomes less than $4,000 per annum has to the total number of such children in all states.") That Section 32 funds are intended to assume the identity of the section to which they are transferred is attested by the regulation requiring states to meet the matching requirement of Section 4 including any funds transferred into Section 4. If not illegal, the regulations are certainly inconsistent. 2. Effect of Proposed Regulations.-The regulations were designed to assure every state (1) an average 5¢ per meal for each Type A meal served in 1972; (2) 30 for each free or reduced price meal. However, states with incomes below the national average that under the Act would receive 6¢ or more per meal under Section 4 would not be able to maintain that level if any increase in participation were experienced. Any increase in such state would push the average per meal reimbursement down toward the five cent floor. This is serious but is not as potentially crippling to the program as the average 30 cent ceiling on free and reduced price meals. Although 11 was specifically designed to assist states with a high percentage of low income families under the proposed revisions low income states would receive no special consideration. All states would be held to an average of 30¢ per meal for meals served children qualifying for free or reduced price meals. 3. Effect of Proposed Revisions on Maine Schools.-With economic conditions prevailing statewide, we cannot in Maine rob Peter to pay Paul; that is, we will have to use the 30¢ rate statewide. With the average cost of a lunch exceeding 524, local communities cannot afford to serve children qualifying for free and reduced price lunches, especially as reduced price meals amounted to less than 15% of those served free and at reduced price. In May, 1971, Maine public schools served 2,071,625 meals. Of these 30.03% were free or reduced price (20¢ or less). And of the free and reduced price meals 85.85% were free. Computing reimbursement of the free and reduced price meals served in Maine in May on basis of proposed revisions, indicates that Maine schools would have had to absorb a loss of over $78,800 for one month's operation alone! It is obvious that the majority of the schools cannot provide free lunches under the reimbursement structure set forth in the proposed regulations. 4. Timing.-It is unreasonable to expect these, or any other amendments that so seriously affect the program, to become effective upon publication with no provision for an adjustment period. With budgets established in March and free and reduced price policies, in July, Maine schools at this point cannot provide free and reduced price meals to qualifying children at the proposed levels of funding. We are most grateful to you for your interest in expanding the program to reach all children. We especially appreciate your quick response to this crisis situation. Sincerely, Miss GERTRUDE GRINEY, Director, School Nutrition Programs. [Telegram] BATH, MAINE, September 7, 1971. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, (Select Committee on Nutrition) Washington, D.C.: Sincerely urge that basis of school lunch subsidy remain as intended hand planned. Our main schools unable to comply with announced policy. Family plans disrupted will create poor atmosphere such a proposed turn around of support will surely backlash to the detriment of even greater numbers of children cannot understand such gross disregard for local problems. CLIFFORD P. TINKHAM, President, Maine School Superintendents Association of Bath. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRACT No. 63, Chairman, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, U.S. Senate, DEAR SENATOR: The school lunch authorities tell us to give a lot of children free or reduced rate lunches. This we are trying to do. Without this subsidy we are getting for this, we will have to stop feeding these lunches or close down our lunch programs completely. The people in our towns are paying high taxes now and, if we do not get this subsidy we would either have to ask them for more money to run the school lunches or close them down altogether. Our state law says to feed free lunches. We cannot without this extra help. Very truly yours, Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, RUBY M. HALL, Supervisor, School Lunches. CARAVEL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, Chairman, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, DEAR SIR: We have just recently been made aware of the fact that Federal Subsidy for School Lunches have been drastically reduced. We are of the opinion that this will result in serious consequences and intolerable conditions as it pertains to impoverished, hungry youngsters as well as the financial aspects of the total lunch program in our particularly poor rural area. We admonish you therefore to use every bit of influence at your command to bring about at least a level of funding comparable to that which existed during the latter part of school year 1970-71. We will support your endeavor and we thank you sincerely. Sincerely, Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, NORMAN P. SOUCIE, Superintendent of Schools. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT No. 31, Chairman, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: On behalf of the people in the area covered by School Administrative District No. 31-eight rural towns, only one of which has an industry (and employment there has recently been drastically reduced) this letter is to request that the subsidy rates on free, reduced price, and regular meals not be lowered from May figures. To do so would impose such hardship that it might mean the program would have to be closed during the school year. Anything you and your committee can do to help will be greatly appreciated by all parents, school and lunch employees, and last, but not least, the students. Sincerely, OTIS A. ST. THOMAS, Superintendent. OXFORD HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, FOOD SERVICES DEPARTMENT, South Paris, Maine, September 17, 1971. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: It has come to my attention the question of the proposed Regulation Federal Register August 13, 1971 in question of school lunch program. Let me assure you we are in an area of high unemployment and our district needs the federal assistance of the past if it is to continue its school lunch program. Any cut back in federal funds will no doubt close our program to needy and hungry children. Sincerely, STEPHEN W. TAYLOR, Director. MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT No. 48, Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: I am writing concerning the proposal to reduce the government subsidy for lunches being served in our schools. We have been faced with budget reductions of $200,000 out of $1,500,000. The loss of lunch subsidy at its current rate would mean approximately $32,000 to this district. I am afraid that it would be necessary to close our lunch program if current funding is not available because it would create deficit spending. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. HARTLAND L. CUSHMAN, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT No. 36, DEAR SIR: Yesterday I learned that the Agriculture Department has cut the funds for the School Lunch Program for this year. I understand the funds are there and can be used for this purpose. We feed a thousand children a day and our lunch program is not operating in the black even with a local subsidy. With our tax rate at forty-two mills, on full valuation, it will be impossible to seek these funds from local sources. Hence, it boils down to the fact that without federal funding at last years level, as a minimum, we will have to suspend operation and this will mean that a lot of our children who depend on this as their major meal of the day will go without. If the money were not appropriated, and additional funds were being sought, I could understand the problem, however, with the funds available and held up in some department, this I can not understand. I know you will do all you can to alleviate this problem and I thank you in advance for anything you can do. Sincerely, RICHARD E. A. MARX, Superintendent. 58-854-71-pt. 7-6 MASSACHUSETTS Hon. GEORGE S. MCGOVERN, SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENCY UNION NO. 29, DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: The recent announcement that school lunch reimbursement will be cut back will jeopardize many of the existing school lunch programs and most certainly will curtail any expansion of such programs. In this day of high inflationary trends the cut back merely adds another burden on the already sickened home owner. In many cases, the immediate reaction to the announcement of a possible cut back in reimbursement is that we should end all lunches in the schools. If, as the government insists, school lunches are an important and integral part of any school system and if school systems are to encourage more participation by offering free or reduced priced lunches, than more financial help, rather than less, must be forthcoming. Many school systems that are having a difficult time housing youngsters educationally are being prodded to develop facilities or programs to feed youngsters. No community, under present conditions, will proceed in this direction. I know I speak for literally hundreds of parents, and many administrators when I urge your support of state and city lunch programs by asking the USDA to drop its proposed regulations. Thank you for your kind patience and understanding. Very sincerely, MAURICE J. BOULANGER, Superintendent. MICHIGAN DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SERVICE, Re Proposed changes in Regulations (7 CFR Part 210, 7 CFR Part 220, 7 CFR Part 245). Mr. HERBERT D. ROREX, Director, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ROREX: We have carefully reviewed the proposed changes in regulations pertaining to the National School Lunch Program, Non-Food Assistance Program, and Determining Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Lunches. We find nothing in these proposed changes that would lead us to believe that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is in any way attempting to follow the intent of the Congress in its passage of Public Law 91-248, namely, to provide food service to needy children. In fact, if our understanding of the proposed changes is correct, they will nullify much, if not all, of the progress that we have made during the last eighteen months. It is extremely difficult for us to understand why the Department has waited until such a late date to make these proposed changes. We know that changes in the regulations have been under consideration for some time as I was a member of the committee that met in March, 1971 to review the regulations and recommend changes. Unfortunately, few, if any, of the recommendations that were made by the committee are contained in the proposed changes. The proposed changes, if allowed to stand, will decrease the amount of federal money received by Detroit, at a time when it is being recommended that we liberalize our income guidelines for free lunch, and there is a high rate of unemployment in Detroit. Classes will start September 8. We are in the process of signing a new agreement with the State, yet no one can tell us what rate of reimbursement |