Also, these projects might be used to take advanage of food catering services on an experimental basis where school districts are unable to provide hot lunches under there own management.

Section 9 of my bill provides three badly needed innovations. Clearly we need more knowledge about how to overcome the problem of hunger and malnutrition in our growing children, and we need a better means of disseminating this knowledge. Therefore, my bill provides for Federal grants to State educational agencies for research surveys, demonstrations, and dissemination of information in the field of school food service.

There is a grave need for more trained individuals to administer school lunchrooms on the local level. The bill provides Federal grants to State educational agencies to pay up to half the expenses incurred by local school districts in employing a limited number of personnel especially trained in matters related to the diet of children.

In order to coordinate all child nutrition activities on the national level, my bill establishes a National Advisory Council on Child Nutrition. This Council would make a continuing study of programs under which meals are served to children and report annually to the President and Congress, with recommendations for improvements.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I have given only a brief summary of the provisions of my bill. The bill contains other features that I do not think it necessary to discuss at this time. The committee staff has done a good job of providing a section-by-section analysis of the bill, and I believe all the members of the committee have this analysis before them.

I believe that my bill makes the changes that need to be made in our school lunch program. Of course, I am sure my bill is not perfect and it may stand improvement in certain points. I would certainly be amenable to any suggestions as to how it can be improved. However, I do hope that this committee can take expeditious action to report a school lunch bill to the floor in the very near future.

I do not think I need belabor the point that there is a need to do more to provide adequate nutrition for our growing children. I believe that as a very minimum we must insure that no school child need go without a meal because he cannot afford it. In the school lunch programs already in operation, we have a good vehicle for providing adequate nutrition. My bill provides the necessary changes to make this vehicle function with maximum efficiency.

As we learn more about the symptoms of malnutrition, it becomes apparent that a child may suffer a serious impairment in his learning capacity if he goes to school hungry. Moreover, school administrators in economically deprived schools have found that there is a marked improvement in school attendance when children can look forward to the prospect of a good meal at school.

While I am not one to discount the importance of seeing that all hungry people are given a chance for adequate diets, I believe that we must concentrate special effort on our Nation's children. If we are ever to break the poverty cycle, we must give every encouragement for underprivileged children to go to school and learn properly.

In my judgment, the only way we can ever break the poverty cycle is to get our children into school young and keep them in school, educate them and give them sufficient training to the point where they can get useful employment.

The very least that we as an affluent nation can do is to see that these children are well fed. I believe that my bill provides an adequate program to insure that our Nation fulfills this responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Talmadge.

By the way, I am pleased to report that our new member Senator Bellmon from Oklahoma, is present.

We are glad to have you, Senator.
Senator BELLMON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator HOLLAND. I have two questions, Mr. Chairman.

First, however, I would like to ask that there be incorporated into the record in support of this bill a statement by Mr. Robert W. Rutledge, executive vice president of the Florida Citrus Mutual.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the statement will be put into the record at this point.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. RUTLEDGE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, FLORIDA CITRUS MUTUAL, LAKELAND, FLA.

This statement was prepared by Robert W. Rutledge, Executive Vice President, Florida Citrus Mutual, Lakeland, Florida in connection with the hearings of Agriculture and Forestry Committee of the Senate on Senate Bill 2548.

Florida Citrus Mutual, organized in 1948, is authorized (among many other things) "to provide means of representation to its members and other patrons in securing appropriate state and federal legislation affecting the Florida Citrus Fruit Industry". Currently it has a membership of more than 15,500 grower members who produce about 90% of all the citrus fruit grown in Florida.

This statement is presented by direction of the Board of Directors of Florida Citrus Mutual who have unanimously endorsed the provisions of S. 2548.

The Florida Citrus Industry has been interested, through the years, in enlarging the food service programs provided for children under the National School Lunch Act and, more recently, under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. This industry has had the privilege and opportunity to supply grapefruit sections and orange juice for use in the National School Lunch Program on occasion in the past. These products have been extremely well received and have served to support these health and nutrition programs.

As an illustration of the interest of our industry in the National School Lunch Child Feeding Programs, a self-imposed tax in the sum of $10 million has been provided by our orange producers currently. This money is designed to explore and develop ways and means to market orange juice through the National School Lunch Program on a continuing and regular basis in cooperation with the Federal Government to the end that more of our nation's school children can have highly nutritious orange juice daily and learn good basic dietary habits.

Due to lack of Governmental funding, it has not been possible for the Florida Citrus Industry to supply orange juice to the National School Lunch Programs on a continuing basis. It is apparent that Senate Bill 2548 can make it possible not only to extend the food service programs provided under the National School Lunch Act, but more importantly, to give new direction to those programs making it possible for school children in the less affluent sections of our society to have the advantage of an enlarged and improved program of bringing needed nutritious foods to every child who needs this far-reaching service. We submit, then, that the passage by the Congress of S. 2548 is necessary to allow children the special benefits of orange juice with its important health and nutritional values (primarily Vitamin C) of pure orange juice.

The Florida Citrus Industry produces about 90%-95% of the nation's supply of orange juice. This product is processed under quality control and sanitation standards that are the envy of allied industries. The health and nutrition values of orange juice are fully documented. Not only does this product supply natural Vitamin C that is so important in the diet of school children, especially, but it also contains substantial amounts of many other nutrient factors. It

has become a must in the daily diets of many people. Its importance in the diet is attested almost universally by medical experts.

In the last several years, acreage in Florida devoted to the production of oranges has expanded rapidly to the extent that the industry is now able to supply orange juice at a cost that is substantially less than 1c per ounce for this pure nutritious product. Thus, the cost is even less than many of the beverages, cold drinks, or even synthetic products available on the commercial market.

Prices have become well stabilized at attractive levels.

The Florida Citrus Industry, through its self-help programs, has marketed orange juice in the school lunchroom system in the past on a limited basis, being able to serve only those schools which have special resources. Through these efforts, certain school entitles have used these products on a continuing basis and have found them to be of tremendous value in the school feeding systems. Our industry has moved rapidly in exploiting to the fullest possible extent the modern commercial market for our product. We now have an abundance of product and we submit that the enactment by the Congress of the United States of S. 2548 could permit our industry to take a giant step forward in assisting in the fight against hunger and malnutrition throughout the nation.

The CHAIRMAN. I also wish to present the statement of Senator Metcalf for the record.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to present my views on S. 2548, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill, would amend the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to strengthen and improve the food programs provided for children under these Acts.

Since its creation in 1946, no one has argued with the merits of the National School Lunch Program and the concept of Federal food assistance arrangements for school-aged children. Nor will anyone, I am sure, argue with the concept that time merits changes. As we move forward in time, problems of the day undergo a metamorphosis, and warrant re-examination and revision. S. 2548 is a response to the problem of hunger and malnutrition among the school-aged children of today.

During this decade, Americans have been increasingly aware of the fact that hunger and malnutrition exist in the United States. Accompanying this awareness, is their demand that steps be taken to eliminate this horrifying reality, one for which there is no excuse.

S. 2548 goes a long way toward meeting that need. I do not contend that this bill is the whole answer. Rather it is a part of a long-range treatment that must constantly be administered until we have expelled this disease.

Mr. Chairman, hunger and malnutrition are diseases which, if not combatted early enough, afflict their victims permanently with physical and mental retardation. Hunger and malnutrition, diseases themselves, also beget such diseases as anemia, kwashiorkore (a serious protein deficiency), and growth retardation. This bill is a preventive measure. Once the damage has been inflicted there is little or nothing that can be done; by assuring that a child, while still in the formative stages of his youth, is provided with at least one healthy meal each day, we significantly reduce the possibility of these diseases ever appearing. Heretofore, Federal food assistance programs for school children have been extremely successful where they have been applied. But, they have not reached far enough. Rodney Ashby, who is the head of the Utah School Food Services and Chairman of the State Directors and Supervisors Section of the American School Food Service Association, has reported a study which estimates that 32.5 million children do not now participate in the school lunch program, with 10 percent (3.25 million) of these non-participants requiring free lunches, and another 60 percent (19 million) needing price reductions. In other words, 22,250,000 children in need of assistance, are not even touched by the existing program. There are several reasons for this, and S. 2548 goes some distance in correcting them.

The increase in funds authorized by this bill, means that the School Lunch Program will not be so dependent on funds from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are concerned here only with feeding needy children. At present, if Title I funds are withheld, innocent children must pay the price of hunger and malnourishment; S. 2548 alleviates this by providing enough funds, so as not to have to dip into Title I funds. No matter what the political implications are, these children will at least be fed.

Schools in our cities and rural areas too often cannot provide lunch for the children who need them most, because there are no facilities. Over 9 million children are excluded from the child feeding program for this reason alone. At present, the National School Lunch Act authorizes an appropriation of $10 million each year to purchase equipment such as stoves, refrigerators, etc. This is simply not enough. Price levels have skyrocketed since 1946, but authorizations have not responded accordingly. S. 2548 recognizes the immediate need for increased equipment funding by authorizing $38 million for Fiscal 1970. This may appear stiff initially, but it is designed to break the back of the equipment problem and then subside gradually to $33 million in Fiscal 1971, $15 million in 1972, and return to the present level of $10 million thereafter.

Secondly, S. 2548 seeks to revise Section 11 of the School Lunch Act, so that its emphasis is the children, and not to their schools. As it presently stands, Section 11 permits payment by a state, of special assistance monies only to schools in the state selected in light of factors that focus excessively on the economic problems of the schools and the nature of the area in which the schools are located, rather than on the problems of the children who are in attendance. Thus, if a small school of 150 pupils, nearly all of whom are poverty-stricken, is situated in the heart of a ghetto, the odds are great that the school will qualify as a Section 11 school and those students will receive free or reduced price lunches. However, if a school is situated in the suburbs and draws its 2,000 students of whom 200 might be classified as poor, from an area that is more affluent than not, the chances are slim that any of those 200 will be given lunch unless the school collects enough from the 1,800 well-to-do to balance the subsidies to the poor, and it should be noted here, that hunger and malnutrition are not confined to hard core poor; scientific studies have repeatedly shown them to be evident within lower and middle class communities as well. S. 2548 corrects this inequity by focusing on the needs of the children the program is intended to serve, rather than on the needs of the school (in terms of its location, the percentage of free lunches it serves rather than the absolute number, the prices it charges for lunch, the relative financial status of its lunch program).

This bill would require that Section 11 money follow the child, not the school. Thus, under the proposed legislation, otherwise ineligible schools could be chosen by the state to receive Section 11 funds to feed their needy children. Where severe need existed, so that the Federal contribution rate would be too small to guarantee an effective program, the Secretary would be empowered to pay up to 80 percent of the school's operating costs. These operating costs, which include the cost of obtaining, preparing and serving the food have posed crucial problems. Under the provisions of the minimum wage law, which is one of the cornerstones in our battle against hunger and malnutrition, schools pay $1.30 per man hour now, and this will rise to $1.45 in 1970 and $1.60 in 1971. In Northern areas where the labor market is tight, more than $2.00 per hour has become commonplace. Local school districts have great difficulty in meeting these necessary costs, even with Federal assistance. Some cannot use Federal food funds, because the bill for readying the food for eating is beyond their budgets. The changes proposed in Section 11 of this bill would start to tackle this problem.

The real secret to expanding the school lunch program so that it reaches all those who need it but cannot afford it, is to prompt state governments to contribute their fair share of the cost. At the present time, legislation requires a 3 to 1 matching of the Federal dollar by the State from the "source within the state determined by the Secretary to have been expended in connection with the school lunch program." However, since the states' matching funds include the money the children themselves pay for their lunches, about twothirds of the cash amount of the program, no state has ever had any difficulty meeting this requirement. For example, the State of Mississippi allocates only $109,000 for its share of a $25 million school lunch program. No more than one-half of the states now appropriate or use state funds for school food service. The purpose of this program is to feed these children and making the matching requirement too stringent can only have the result of reducing the number

of children who will be able to participate. However, we must recognize that the present requirement is unrealistic. I am in favor of modifying the requirement but in such a way that it is more equitable from the perspective of both the Federal and State governments. I will support any such amendments, because, this is the only hope we have for ever phasing out Section 11, the special assistance section, and supplying free and reduced price lunches to needy children in any significant number.

Further, there is a long-range effect that enactment of this bill will have, one which cannot be measured in terms of dollars, or numbers of lunches served. Amongst school children today, the problem is not so much starvation as malnutrition. Too often, a child cannot afford the price of a school lunch, but he can afford the price of a glass of Kool-Aid and a candy bar. While this may be filling, it is certainly not nutritional. And malnutrition is even more dangerous than starvation, because, while it is just as detrimental to the child's health, it is not as easy to recognize a malnourished child as it is to recognize a starving one. By providing these children with healthy nutritional meals for their 12 years of primary and secondary education, we will be developing healthy eating habits that will remain with them for the rest of their lives. They, in turn will pass these eating patterns on to their own children, so that the next generation will see a major reduction in malnutrition. Furthermore, our economy is sure to profit in the long run. Firstly, and most importantly, we are all aware of the fact that a child's physical health is directly related to his ability to learn. I cannot even begin to guess at the number of children whose learning capacities would be increased, if only they were participants in the School Lunch Program. How much non-productive students would not now be non-productive, low skilled adults, had they not been left to go hungry during the day?

Secondly, and more indirectly related, what will the effect be on our agricultural economy in 10 years, if these children learn now to substitute green vegetables for Hershey bars, and milk for Kool-Aid.

Mr. Chairman, twenty years ago, polio was a crippler of children. All the money in the world could not eradicate this disease, until scientists had developed the knowledge of the causes of this disease. There is a justifiable reason why we could not prevent our children from being afflicted with polio-we simply did not know how. In the case of hunger and malnutrition, this just isn't so. These diseases are just as crippling as polio, but what is so horrifying, is that we know what causes them, we know how to prevent them, and yet we are slow to respond with what is necessary in time and money, to eliminate them. S. 2548 will not correct the damage that has already been done. Unfortunately, it is probably too late for that. But S. 2548 will revitalize the National School Lunch Program, so that it can respond to the pace of today, and in doing so, will contribute significantly to the prevention of hunger and malnutrition from occurring in the future. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Senator Holland.

Senator HOLLAND. The first question is, what is the standard or test by which those children entitled to receive free school lunches are defined as different from those that are entitled to receive reduced-price lunches.

Senator TALMADGE. We have Miss Martin here, who is my State administrator.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPHINE MARTIN, CHIEF CONSULTANT, SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

ATLANTA, GA.

Miss MARTIN. Federal regulations require that each local school district establish standards for determining eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches. Standards are based on the number of children in the family and the amount of family income. Standards are based on the needs of the individual school district.

Senator TALMADGE. Does it vary from region to region?

Miss MARTIN. Yes; it varies from county to county within the State.