to enforce its own regulations and its own guidelines. I think these amendments will strengthen the avowed purpose of the national school lunch program, but whether they are accepted by the Senator or not, it is my hope that this will be adopted. I want to do what I can to assist him in that effort.

Senator TALMADGE. I am grateful indeed.

(The prepared statement of Senator McGovern follows:)

Our children are the nation's most precious resource. The time has come to face up to the full implications of this. We must affirm the principle that every child has the right to the nutrition required for good health, just as the right to education has been recognized for every American child.

As a people we cannot afford the loss of intellectual resources and productivity that results from an incomplete effort to feed our children. This alone should prod us toward innovative solutions to the problems of child nutrition.

The Congress should move as quickly as possible to revamp present child feeding programs and adopt comprehensive child nutrition legislation to assure the nutritional well-being of all our children from infancy through adolescence. After twenty-three years of operation, the National School Lunch Program has contributed inestimably to the well-being of our nation. Unfortunately, however, it still reaches only 1% of the nation's school children. At least seven million and perhaps as many as nine million children go to schools without facilities for food service. Availability of school lunch is not based on need, but on past participation and average per capita income: a formula which inhibits programs and works against children in our inner cities.

Funds are desperately needed to bring lunches to the 8.4 million school age children who require free and reduced price lunches.

Furthermore, we need to strengthen the school breakfast program. The Department of Agriculture has failed to request any increase in funds for the School Breakfast Program; yet that program has served only 275,314 children in its peak month. In my view, breakfast is at least as important as lunch. The breakfast program should be expanded.

The long-range nutritional impact of our child feeding programs is at best uncertain. After twenty-three years, "graduates" of the National School Lunch Program, teen-age mothers, are among the nation's worst fed citizens.

We can no longer afford a program that befuddles its local administrators, not to mention the Department of Agriculture, with 16 separate Federal sources of funds for feeding children-sources which overlap and leave children in one category unfed while the school returns unspent money from another category. Piecemeal amending of present laws will probably not adequately reform our present hodge-podge of child feeding programs. What we need is a comprehensive new structure designed to eliminate present inefficiencies, over-lapping and gaps.

I believe the answer is a single program utilizing schools as a delivery system to bring nutrition education and two nutritious meals a day to all pre-school and school age children. Since hunger does not take a vacation, this program should operate year round and not be limited to a 180 day school year. It should have one funding provision, to provide breakfast and lunch to each pupil regardless of economic status, thus ending eligibility requirements and the demeaning welfare aspects of the program. Since we now know that good nutrition is as important to learning as are textbooks and teachers, we must treat nutrition as an educational service to be provided by the school in the same manner as other school services.

I propose Congress set as its goal the implementation of such a program within the next five years.

Nevertheless, with this goal in mind, I consider S. 2548, authored by Senator Talmadge, a progressive interim measure which can and should be passed this year. It is the best child feeding proposal yet introduced in the Congress. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of Senator Talmadge's bill.

It greatly increases special assistance funds to needy schools. It defines a reduced price lunch. It attacks the equipment assistance problem head on. It requires state matching funds from state revenues. And most importantly, it allows for the interchange of funds among programs and the carryover of appropriations from year to year.

In one particular area, however, I believe S. 2548 needs improvement. During the hearings of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs nearly every witness testified to the unevenness of local administration and operation of the National School Lunch Program, especially in the area of eligibility for free and reduced price lunches. My concern for this problem leads me to suggest a package of three amendments to S. 2548, all of which, I believe, will be complementary to that bill. They will assure that poor children are fed at school— an assurance that cannot now be given by the Department of Agriculture.

The first would provide for national eligibility standards for free and reduced price lunches to be fixed at a minimum of $4,000 per year for a family of four to be revised annually to reflect cost of living changes, a provision which the Senate last week adopted for the Food Stamp Program.

Second, I suggest an amendment replacing the term "school" with the term "local educational agency", a term synonymous with "school district." This would end the option available to states and local authorities to allow schools rather than school districts to be contracting agencies. It would reduce to onefifth the number of governing bodies instituting local school lunch policy and result in more uniform administration of the program.

Third, I urge an amendment to require that state plans of operation set forth a comprehensive description of the manner in which the applicant state proposes to assure food service programs in every school in the state by the school year 1972-73. The state would also be required to set forth in its plan precisely how it would utilize its child feeding funds each year. This procedure would be coupled with a reporting system requiring each local educational agency to report monthly to the state and the state to the Deparment of Agriculture on the number and percentage of eligible children receiving free or reduced price lunches.

These proposals are designed to assure uniform eligibility for free and reduced price lunches and enable the Department of Agriculture to enforce its own regulations and guidelines. I believe these amendments will strengthen the avowed purpose of the National School Lunch Program. It is my hope that Senator Talmadge, as the author of S. 2548, will consider these further suggested improvements in his already excellent bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Perkins.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL D. PERKINS, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Mr. PERKINS. Senator Ellender and members of the committee, it is a great pleasure for me to appear here today to endorse the bill. S. 2548 in its purpose and most of its specifics. I want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Georgia for sponsoring it.

Senator TALMADGE. I am grateful indeed. As the Congressman knows, we are considering the bill that you sent over from the House at the same time. I take it from your statement that you would desire this committee to substitute S. 2548 for your bill.

Mr. PERKINS. That is correct. I am presently circulating your bill among the membership of the Committee on Education and Labor for cosponsors. I shall then introduce it in the House. Then if we have to go to conference, we can more easily reach agreement.

Senator TALMADGE. I am indeed flattered, sir.

Mr. PERKINS. The Senate bill is a remarkable bill. It is for that reason that I appear here today to endorse it.

The bill provides a 50-50 matching formula. H.R. 515, which is also before the committee, provides for a graduated matching formula, stopping at 10 percent. They may come a time when we can realistically expect all of the States to match our Federal school lunch dollars on an equal basis but I fear that if we went at this time to a 50-50

matching formula, we might reduce the school lunch program rather than expand it.

I make that statement because I conducted extensive hearings a year ago into the school lunch program, I know it will be impossible for Kentucky to come up to 50 percent in the foreseeable future. By setting a lower contribution rate and getting the States involved over a period of years, I think would benefit the school lunch program. In my eastern Kentucky coal mining area, we need all the money we can obtain from the State, but it would hurt us if Kentucky's inability to match kept Federal help away.

The focal point of proposals before the committee, including the two House bills, is more money directed to supplying free or reduced price lunches to needy children and to equipping schools to enable them to provide food service. All proposals center around section 11 type assistance. S. 2548 goes beyond an infusion of more funds to revise the basis for a distribution of those funds. Section 11 as it stands on the books permits payments by a State of special assistance funds to schools selected in the light of economic problems of the schools and the area which they serve. Thus the poor children attending an affluent school can be shortchanged. The Talmadge bill would require section 11 funds to follow the child. In this respect, the bill is better than the provisions of the two House-passed bills.

The House bill and S. 2548 both provide for advance funding. I urge your retention of this feature as one of the most helpful to local school officials. Local school boards approved in the spring of 1969 budgets for the school year we are now in. Congress has not yet approved the appropriation for the program for the same school year. It can readily be seen that chaos is created in all programs where there is Federal financial support.

We tried to do something about the forward funding position in our school bills, but we have not had it fully implemented in appropriation bills. But sometime in the future, I think that day will arrive. The advance funding provision will be of tremendous benefit to orderly conduct of the school lunch program.

I urge favorable action on S. 2548 and I assure you that I shall urge my colleagues in the House to go along with the Senate version. It is a great pleasure for me to be here and I am proud that we are taking steps to improve the free lunch program in the country.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman, as you know, one of the difficulties in the past was our inability to get the States to contribute. Mr. PERKINS. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the fact that you make it obligatory in this instance-I mean in this bill-would you want to put any kind of compulsion on the part of the State if it is possible to?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, at a rate that they can meet, that is realistic, like the approach that we took in the House bill. I think the quicker we get them involved, the better off we will be in the long run. This program will eventually run into the billions of dollars in my judgment, over a period of years, if we are to take care of all hungry children. It costs now, from all sources of Government and children, several billion dollars a year.

The CHAIRMAN. Two and a half.

Mr. PERKINS. We have so many million youngsters in need of school lunches that are not being reached today. I think we ought to bring the States in at a realistic figure and not require too much contribution. And when the general assemblies of the various States realize that they have to make a contribution, they will gladly come in if we do not try to put it all on them at once and drive them away when they cannot make the contribution. I know we have only a dozen or so States making contributions at this time, but most of them are putting up some administrative money-all of them, I think. I think the States should carry a small burden to start out with. I think they will all gradually respond. That is the information I get.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, Congressman, for your excellent

statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Ryan.

STATEMENT OF MRS. EDWARD F. RYAN, NATIONAL PTA CHAIRMAN FOR LEGISLATION, NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR PARENTS AND TEACHERS, MANCHESTER, MASS.

Mrs. RYAN. I am Mrs. Edward F. Ryan of Manchester, Mass., national PTA chairman for legislation representing the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, the National PTA, with more than 10 million members who are very much concerned with the school lunch program.

We wish to express our general support of Senate 2548, with some further statement.

I should like to say that for many years, no activity has been closer to the hearts of PTA people all over this country than the school lunch program. PTA concern dates from the years following the First World War when widespread malnutrition among children became so evident. In the twenties and early thirties PTA's began serving hot lunches in schools, and later led in support of the Congress in enacting the National School Lunch Act. We have supported annual appropriations for the continuation and expansion of the program, and we regret that it was left to others to point out to the Nation how very far expansion of the program has fallen short of serving our children, and that malnutrition among children is again a major problem.

Our members have now warmly joined in the effort to bring that program to all children. It must be said that practically all of us, in government, in schools, in private life, have used much high-sounding language about equal educational opportunity, about the importance of education, and the need for educating every child to full use of his abilities. We have been inclined to take it for granted that every child comes to school on equal terms, and forget that millions do not. We have not always been mindful of the inescapable fact that a hungry child can't learn.

We in national PTA, more than 10 millon of us, will not rest until all children are equally in a position to learn, whatever the number of children who require breakfasts and lunches as a part of needed school services. We regard this as an obligation in the way that public education is an obligation. Practically speaking, if public education is indeed an obligation, then it is only sensible to see that these

services are not wasted because children are too hungry to profit by them. And indeed the cost of the program, even at highest estimates, is small in comparison to the investment we place in our schools. It is also small against the greater cost of paying for dropouts; the costs of welfare, unemployment, delinquency and crime.

In respect to cost, we are glad to see the proposals for additional funds for children who are not able to pay for school lunches themselves that are before your committee. According to the reports of qualified observers, however, no increases yet proposed are adequate to meet the need. Undoubtedly these reports have already been presented you, but let me stress our concern. According to the National Council on Hunger and Malnutrition in the United States:

to

There are approximately 7.5 million children of school age from poverty families under OEO standards who, in order to eat lunch, require free or substantially reduced price lunches.

The estimated cost is approximately $415 million, in addition to present appropriations.

The chairman of the State directors and supervisors section of the American School Food Service Association, who appeared before you a few moments ago, reported a study estimating that 32.5 million. children do not now participate in the school lunch program. Ten percent of these children need free lunches, and another 60 percent need price reductions. The additional cost under existing legislation, he reports, would be $622 million, allowing for usual absenteeism. Thus even the $200 million proposed by S. 2548 falls far short of actual need.

National PTA supports without reservation the appropriation of the largest funds needed to provide every child with a balanced and nutritious school lunch, as well as breakfast where indicated, as rapidly as food services can be established. Further, we urge that measures be developed and enacted to insure that this service becomes available in every school.

We are deeply concerned by the large number of inner city and other schools where lunches are not available, on one pretext or another. We are deeply concerned by the hungry children who are forced to sit in a lunchroom and watch other children eat. We believe steps should speedily be taken to enable States to require local action. We are also concerned with the continuing rise in school lunch prices, now commonly 50 cents or more, which will not only increase the number of children going hungry but will steadily erode the number of children from moderate-income families who participate in the program. We do not believe children should be made to carry the burden of inflation, but rather a Federal participation should increase with costs of the program.

We should like to see States participating in the cost of school lunch programs from State tax funds to a greater degree than at present. Yet we are mindful of the effect such a requirement may have on use of the program itself in poor States. We approve the proposals to reduce the percentage of State contribution required, and the supplementing of children's payments with tax funds to meet these requirements. The use of a sliding scale according to relative per capita income should be continued.

Finally, we are far from satisfied with current reports of methods by which free and reduced price lunches are made available to needy