We did give States flexibility in the use of these section 32 funds. In addition to using them for free and reduced-price lunches, they were authorized to use the funds to augment funds appropriated for the school breakfast program and the funds for equipment assistance for needy schools, especially for "no-program" needy schools.

However, as we gained operating experience under Public Law 91-248, it was apparent that the method of distributing the special section 32 funds was creating a problem. It did not put the funds in the States where they were needed. By January, some States were reporting that they would soon exhaust their funds; other States reported they had a surplus in funds. By mid-April-under the cumbersome and time-consuming reapportionment method-we were able to transfer over $30 million from States with a surplus to States with a deficit. But, during the period we were effecting those fund transfers, the deficit States had to operate upon our assurance that we could obtain the release of funds from other States.

THE 1972 PROPOSAL

After this experience, we concluded that it would be in the best interest of all of the States if a method for distributing the available funds could be found that would better distribute the funds among the States in accordance with expected participation at the beginning of the school year.

This exploration led us to another conclusion; one that-in our view-represents a real breakthrough in school lunch financing. We concluded that we needed to go beyond the funding level planned in the 1972 appropriation-a national average reimbursement rate of 5 cents under section 4 and a national average rate of 30 cents under section 11. We felt the available section 32 funds should be used to guarantee each State that-no matter how much expanded its program-it could be assured that it would be able to maintain a Statewide average rate of 5 cents under section 4 and a Statewide average rate of 30 cents under Section 11.

This is the essence of our August 13th proposal.

Some States have interpreted our proposed regulations to require them to initially establish rates of assistance within the funds apportioned to them under sections 4 and 11 of the Act. That is not the case. That would, in effect, cancel out our announced guarantee that no State will have to establish Statewide average rates at less than 5 and 30 cents. The regulations, as amended by our proposal, instruct States to establish rates "within the funds available" to the State agency. The funds available to a State agency in 1972 under the regulations are:

Its apportioned share of the $225 million appropriated for section 4, plus such amounts of special section 32 funds as the State needs to maintain a Statewide average section 4 rate of 5 cents; and

Its apportioned share of the $237 million appropriated for section 11, plus such amounts of special section 32 funds as the State needs to maintain a Statewide section 11 rate of 30 cents.

With program expansion in 1972, these 5-cent and 30-cent guarantees will use all of the special section 32 fùnds made available under our 1972 appropriation act.

Under our proposal, some States would be able to maintain Statewide average rates in excess of 5 cents or 30 cents in 1972-out of their apportioned share of the direct appropriations for section 4 and section 11. They would be able to pay those higher rates. They would not, of course, receive any section 32 funds to enable them to pay still higher rates. On the other hand, they would not be asked to release any of their apportioned funds for use by other States.

Some have interpreted our proposd regulations to mean that no school can receive more than 35 cents for a free or reduced-price lunch. That, too, is not the case. States can continue their past authority to vary rates among schools-paying above the Statewide_average rate to the needier schools and less than the Statewide average rate to the more affluent schools.

THE IMPACT OF OUR PROPOSALS

We have a series of charts that summarize the impact of our proposed regulations on section 4 and section 11 funding.

This first chart shows the 1971 expenditures for section 4 and section 11 purposes and the amounts provided under our annual appropriation act for 1972 for these same purposes: [In millions of dollars]

As this chart indicates, the amount of money available for section 4 purposes in 1972 is the same as was appropriated in 1971-$225 million.

There is $78.8 million more available for special assistance for free and reduced-price lunches than was spent in 1971-$309.2 million compared to $311.4 million.

The second chart shows the Statewide average section 4 rates that were paid out of the $225 million in 1971 by the 50 States and the District of Columbia; the projected average rates that those States could have paid in 1972 without our proposed change in the use of the special section 32 funds; and the projected average rates under our proposal;

In the absence of our proposed change, 17 States were faced with an average Statewide section 4 rate of less than 5 cents and five of these were faced with an average rate of less than 4 cents. We are proposing to guarantee these States a Statewide average rate of 5 cents.

The third chart shows the same information for the section 11 rates-the special assistance for free and reduced-price lunches: The average Statewide payments out of the $311.4 million expended for this purpose in 1971; the projected rates that would have prevailed in 1972 if we had not proposed a change in the distribution of special section 32 funds; and the projected rates under our proposal.

If we had continued last year's method of distributing the $153.2 million in special section 32 funds, and every State used all of its section 32 money for free and reduced-price lunches, the average rate in seven States would have been between 25 and 29.9 cents. In an additional 12 States, the average rate could have been below 25 cents, and 3 of the 12 could have faced an average Statewide rate of less than 20 cents for each free and reduced-price lunch. Our proposal guarantees every State at least a minimum Statewide rate of 30 cents for each free or reduced-price lunch.

It is true that a few fortunate States would have been able to pay higher rates of assistance under section 11 in 1972, if we had continued last year's method of distributing section 32 funds. But, these higher rates would have meant that up to 19 States would have a Statewide average rate of less than 30 cents in 1972.

EQUIPMENT ASSISTANCE

Before summarizing these proposals on the distribution of available funds, I want to comment on a second part of our August 13th proposals-those that affect the equipment assistance funds.

Section 5 of the Child Nutrition Act authorizes Federal equipment assistance for schools which draw their attendance from areas in which poor economic conditions exist-in short, needy schools. The funds can be used to help needy schools which have "no, or grossly inadequate" food service equipment.

In 1971, a total of $15 million was appropriated for this equipment assistance. But States elected to use substantial amounts of their special section 32 apportionment for equipment assistance last year. In total, reports from the States now show that a total of $36.7 million was used for equipment assistance last year.

Our fourth chart shows the amount used for equipment assistance for needy schools in 1970 and 1971. You will not that most of these funds went to schools that were already operating a food service.

There is no doubt that some already participating schools did have "grossly inadequate" equipment. But, we now believe greater emphasis should be placed on the use of these funds to bring needy "no-program" schools into the Type A program.

We are holding equipment funds in 1972 to the $16.1 million authorized in our appropriation act. We have amended our regulations to place a positive obligation on States to seek out and work with-needy "no-program" schools.

And, we are proposing that at least half of each State's equipment funds be held in reserve for "no-program" schools until March 1--unless the State can demonstrate that the funds should be released for already participating schools at an earlier date.

SUMMARY

Returning to our August 18th proposals on the distribution of cash assistance funds to the States, we would want to emphasize these points:

First, our proposals are not designed to save funds. We expect to spend all the funds authorized in our 1972 appropriation act.

Second, we have not reduced the maximum rates of assistance that were authorized for last year.

Third, we will be placing a floor under section 4 and section 11 rates on a Statewide basis for the first time-a floor that is guaranteed no matter how much expansion a State is able to achieve.

Fourth, we do not believe that we should have continued a method of distributing available funds among the States which-because of the vagaries of statistical apportionment formulas allowed some States a "funding feast" while other States suffered from a "funding famine".

Finally, we want to re-emphasize that the National School Lunch Act contemplated that the funding of the program would be a joint Federal, State, and local responsibility. This principle was reaffirmed in the Public Law 91-248 amendments. One of those amendments required, beginning this fiscal year that all States put State tax revenues into the program. State matching is required only for the funds made available under section 4 of the Act. But, Public Law 91-248 requires States to distribute the matching State revenues they put into the program in a manner that concentrates their use on the financing of free and reduced-price lunches.

FEDERAL FUNDING-NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM, FISCAL YEARS 1971 AND 1972

AVERAGE SECTION 4 REIMBURSEMENT RATES FROM $225 MILLION APPORTIONMENT. 50 STATE AGENCIES AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
AVERAGE REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENTS FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCHES. 50 STATE AGENCIES AND

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Mr. ELLENDER. I ask unanimous consent to place in the RECORD tables from the
Department of Agriculture indicating how the section 32 funds are and have
been used over the last few years.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM-PROGRAM

SUPPORT

The table below indicates, on a per meal basis, the amount of program support and
the proportion of the total from each source.

The Fiscal Year 1972 data are projected assuming: (1) a 5 percent increase in total
program support to meet increased living costs; and (2) the 1972 Federal proportion
of support at the 1971 level.

2 The projected 1972 rates are based on the assumptions that increased costs of 5 percent in 1972 over 1971 will be
reflected in the program support and the proportion of Federal support would continue at the 1971 level of 32.7 percent.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SEC. 32-SUMMARY OF USE OF FUNDS

1 Department of Commerce in fiscal year 1972.

2 Included production payments on cranberries of $7,500,000.

3 Includes à recovery of prior years obligations of $802,000 available in fiscal year 1961.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I suspect that the Senator from Louisiana and some others, especially those of us on the Appropriations Committee, who will vote against the joint resolution will be labeled as being against the school lunch program. I would like to point out again that the Senator from Louisiana was coauthor of the present School Lunch Act, and he led the fight 5 years ago to put the breakfast program in the school lunch program.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes at this time, because I would like to comment on what the Senator from North Dakota said.

When we had our executive committee meeting 2 days ago, at which this joint resolution was ordered to be reported to the Senate, there was a generous supply of public relations men in the committee room-three to be exact, two employed by the committee and one besides. I was surprised when shortly after the meeting a reporter came to me and told me he had heard that anyone who voted against this measure was against the school lunch bill.

I was further amazed to find in the report the names of Senators Ellender. Aiken, Young, Curtis, and Dole in big letters, as voting against this bill. Coupled with what the reporter was told, it means that these five Senators were against the bill.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.

Mr. TALMADGE. The Reorganization Act requires the report to state how the Senators voted. It was done for that purpose alone, in compliance with the Reorganization Act, which I voted against, may I say. I thought it was unwise. I certainly would not want this RECORD to indicate that the distinguished Senator has been dilatory or negligent in his support of nutrition programs, because that is not true.

Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator from Georgia for I was not aware of this change in the rules, but I had never seen the names listed in that manner before in a report of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Mr. HRUSKA. It is required.

Mr. AIKEN. If it is required by law, I am for it, but I do want to say that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Ellender) is the father of the school lunch bill and he was assisted in that effort by the Senator from North Dakota and myself, and I will say that no one has worked harder for a good school lunch program than those who are recorded as voting against this resolution, which would bypass the Appropriations Committee.

What we insist on is an adequate school lunch program and we will, I am sure, vote for every dollar necessary to feed every child in this country who is entitled to a school lunch, and possibly some who are well able to pay for their

own.

We ask for efficient management of the school lunch program, and above all, we want honest and aboveboard management.

I will yield myself a few minutes later to give an example of what I mean by that latter statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. I dislike finding myself in the role of being in disagreement with the distinguished former chairman of the committee, the able and distinguished Senator from North Dakota, the able and distinguished Senator from Nebraska, and the able and distinguished senior Senator from Vermont, former chairman of this committee himself. We find ourselves fighting together for the same objective the overwhelming majority of the time, but in this instance we disagree. All of these gentlemen have said they are, and knowing their records, I know they are ready, willing, and prepared to vote for every dime in a supplemental appropriation bill which may be necessary to carry out the program. Knowing of their dedication and their conviction and their loyalty to this program, I know that to be correct, but they make the argument that we are bypassing the Appropriations Committee.