accomplished a few things, not nearly what we had hoped for, although maybe more than we had any right to expect in some particulars.

And no small part of our accomplishment is due to you and your associates. I think you have done a very fine job of good citizenship of keeping before the Congress this problem. And I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your contributions.

You may proceed to discuss this problem in your own way. Mrs. LESSER. Thank you for the privilege of appearing here today. I am Frances D. Lesser, a housewife from Chevy Chase, Md. And as you have said, I have been interested in a school lunch program in particular, and the relief situation in general in the District of Columbia since my friend Mrs. Valre Davis called my attention to the scandalous conditions which are permitted to exist here, when she organized the volunteer lunch program at Barney Neighborhood House.

This interest has been intensified as a result of the facts developed at your previous hearing on hungry children, and our own experiences both at Barney, and in a pilot lunch program for two Southwest schools in which we participated with Barney Neighborhood House and the Jane-C's last year. I hope that the climate of opinion has now changed to the point where it is now considered both necessary and possible to feed these children. I shall therefore, if I may, address my remarks to certain ancillary matters, relating to the extent of such a program, its administration, cost, et cetera.

While a school lunch program available to all children in the District schools, is, I believe, the goal toward which we should ultimately strive, there are four groups of children whose needs should be given immediate consideration; first, of course, are the children of families in great need, who now go hungry-nothing should interfere with a program to feed these children as soon and as adequately as possible.

There is a second group concerns me even more, and these are the children from marginal, or submarginal income groups who would be eligible for a free lunch program, but whose personal pride, or family pride would not permit them to participate in a charity program; and you would be amazed at each time we have set up one of these programs, we have been confronted with that problem.

A third group includes the children of working mothers. In Washington, today, so many fathers of families are earning marginal incomes in terms of today's costs, that the mother finds it necessary to work outside the home. This means that there is no adult at home to prepare or supervise a noonday meal.

Lastly, as you pointed out in your report, Mr. Senator, more than half of the elementary schools in Washington have more than 500 pupils. This means that they are no longer neighborhood schools in the old-fashioned sense of the word. The greater distances which now have to be covered by short legs means that many children cannot make the round trip home in the allotted time. Nor are most of these children allowed to bring their own cold lunch to school, since there is no place to eat it, and no organized adult supervision is available. As a result of these two situations, many young children are running loose during the noon hour, and buying very inadequate food at neighborhood drug and grocery stores.

I would, therefore, strongly urge that a lunch program for next year be devised with these four categories of children in mind, and that it be made available on the basis of ability to pay, at cost where possible, for token payments where advisable, and completely free where economically necessary. This would not only fill the needs of the greater number of children, but it would at the same time remove the stigma of poverty from the first group. Imposing such a stigma bothered us, even as a private group, raising money strictly for charity. I believe it has no place in a public program, and this has been recognized by the National School Lunch Act.

As to the type of lunch provided, I would recommend a sandwich, a piece of fruit and a carton of milk, as essential, with the addition of a cup of soup if practicable, in terms of money available for food, and also in terms of additional installations costs, both from the point of view of preparation and serving-in other words, where the schools have installation costs for preparing the soup or whatever hot meal it is, and also from the point of view of dishwashing, and so forth.

To do this it may be necessary to get the Department of Agriculture to modify slightly their requirements for a type A lunch. But since these standards were adopted after consultations limited to representatives of States which were already participating in the school lunch program, and admittedly without considering the limitations of those poorer communities who had not yet been able to adopt any lunch program at all-their comment on this was that they were not a welfare agency-I believe that they should, under any circumstances, be asked to reconsider the rigidness of their position.

Senator MORSE. Let me interrupt at that point and ask Mr. Lee to write a letter to the Department of Agriculture-we had their witness before us several days ago calling their attention to Mrs. Lesser's testimony, and telling them that I would like to have a memorandum setting forth their position on this matter, because I would like to know what the reasons are, if any, that would make it under present rules and regulations impossible for them to modify their food distribution program to whatever degree is necessary to comply with this recommendation, and if legislation to accomplish it is necessary, ask them if they would support such legislation.

(The memorandum referred to may be found on p. 311 of the hearings.)

Mrs. LESSER. I mean, there is nothing to prevent a State or a city which already has a lunch program in operation from raising its standards. But the difficulty comes where you have a poor community trying to install a lunch program, and not getting any help, because it can't go to the ultimate.

If I remember correctly, the requirements now are for two ounces of protein, and two slices of bread-which can easily be supplied in a sandwich-a carton of milk, and three-fourths cup of fruits or vegetables. Three-fourths cup of one fruit or vegetable won't suffice, and even if it did, no one can guarantee that every orange, apple, or banana served, will equal three-fourths cup. Yet the preparation costs involved in this additional couple of teaspoonfuls of food are out of all proportion to the nutritive value to the child, even assuming he eats every bit of it.

It was our experience over 2 years of feeding these younger children that what they ate best, was the sandwich, the piece of fruit

and the milk. There is an old adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, and I believe that some serious second thoughts should be given to the question of how many children throughout the country are now being deprived of a school lunch because of these rigid requirements.

At the same time I would suggest that the Department of Agriculture should be asked to collect data from the different communities participating in the school lunch program and have them available here in Washington. Then when a city or State then wishes to start a program, it could compare the various systems and benefits by the experience of others. The District would have been able to save a great deal of money this fall, I am sure, if this information had been available. And I don't think Congress would now be confronted with such a numbers game as to how much money it is going to cost to put into effect the different systems that are being proposed.

Senator MORSE. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that information isn't available or could very easily be drawn together for us.

Mr. Lee, in your letter to the Department of Agriculture, will you make inquiries as to whether or not they have such information that can be quickly drawn together for us that would meet the points that Mrs. Lesser raises?

Mrs. LESSER. Mr. Senator, they do not. I asked them for that. Senator MORSE. They do not?

Mrs. LESSER. I asked them for that information, and they do not. I would recommend that a minimum amount be expended on alterations and facilities to get this program started for two reasons. First, in view of the understandable pressures for economy, I would prefer to see as much of the money as possible spent for its primary purpose, that is, to put as much food into as many hungry tummies as possible, and I deplore using large sums on capital investments for the few, which would not be usable if the program were later expanded to include more children.

Second, I would like to urge on the Congress a long hard look at the way the Department of Buildings and Grounds operates, at least as far as its value to the public schools is concerned.

In Dr. Hansen's original estimation the cost of installing a school lunch program for 7,000 children, approximately $1 million was allocated for capital outlay, and only half a million went for food, services, et cetera. Although this estimate was supposedly arrived at after breaking the schools down into four different categories, several attempts have failed to bring forth any information with respect to the cost factors considered in arriving at any of these conclusions. If I remember correctly the lowest cost estimated for any category of school was $10,000. I know of at least two schools in the southwest area where I cannot conceive of such an amount being necessary to make their lunchrooms usable for this purpose. Last year when we proposed to feed the neediest children of Syfax and Greenleaf Schools, our original plan was to feed the children in a large room in Syfax which was complete with tables and chairs for 200.

The Health Department decreed that we could not do this without first putting screens in all the windows, filling in two archways with doors, and installing a washbasin-there was a washroom directly across the hall. This the Department of Buildings and Grounds

offered to do for us for $1,500. Since this constituted a large part of the amount we were hoping to raise for feeding the children, we could not face this kind of expenditure.

Now, as a do-it-yourself householder, I have made screens, hung doors, and indulged in amateur plumbing, I have also paid people engaged in private enterprise to do it for me, and I cannot see how, under the farthest reaches of the imagination, the Department of Buildings and Grounds can be justified in charging $1,500 for 10 screens, 2 doors and a washbasin.

Furthermore, I understand the Department charges the Board of Education $35 every time it installs an electric outlet in a classroom. Two friends of mine have very recently had such work done in their homes, and private contractors charged them $4 for original installations, and $8 for moving outlets and wiring. I asked the Montgomery County school budget office to comment on these costs, and their curbstone opinion was that they were much more than they would have to pay for even the most expensive types of material and installations. The Montgomery schools have their own maintenance department which operates on a year-round basis for repairs and minor alterations, including minor plumbing and electrical installations, and farms out major alterations and improvements on the basis of competitive bids.

The city Commissioners in their proposed

Senator MORSE. May I interrupt there for just a moment.

Mr. Lee, will you have a letter drafted for my signature to the city Commissioners, Commissioner McLaughlin himself, telling him we would like to have a memorandum setting forth his observations on that.

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

(The memorandum requested is as follows:).

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, April 3, 1959.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: This is in reference to your letter of March 30, directing my attention to the testimony of Mrs. Lawrence Lesser at the hearings on March 25, 1959, on the problems of hungry children.

We appreciate your holding the hearing record open, and I am enclosing a memorandum regarding the service provided the public schools by the Department of Buildings and Grounds.

With warm regards,
Sincerely yours,

ROBERT E. MCLAUGHLIN,

President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia.

The Department of Buildings and Grounds has at all times made every effort to provide the best service for the least cost. As regards to costs passed to the public schools, your attention is respectfully invited to page 289 of the hearings for the District of Columbia appropriations, fiscal year 1959. An extensive report was presented to the House Appropriations Subcommittee by the Superintendent of Schools, outlining in detail the various economies effected by the Department of Buildings and Grounds in the cost of school construction.

In regard to the statement that approximately $1 million was allocated for capital outlay, we wish to state that the figure in based on construction costs for six separate kitchens, and according to sketches furnished by public schools. It should be noted that each scheme requires installation of kitchen equipment in locations where adequate service utilities are not now available. In some

37538-59-17

and the milk. There is an old adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, and I believe that some serious second thoughts should be given to the question of how many children throughout the country are now being deprived of a school lunch because of these rigid requirements.

At the same time I would suggest that the Department of Agriculture should be asked to collect data from the different communities participating in the school lunch program and have them available here in Washington. Then when a city or State then wishes to start a program, it could compare the various systems and benefits by the experience of others. The District would have been able to save a great deal of money this fall, I am sure, if this information had been available. And I don't think Congress would now be confronted with such a numbers game as to how much money it is going to cost to put into effect the different systems that are being proposed.

Senator MORSE. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that information isn't available or could very easily be drawn together for us.

Mr. Lee, in your letter to the Department of Agriculture, will you make inquiries as to whether or not they have such information that can be quickly drawn together for us that would meet the points that Mrs. Lesser raises?

Mrs. LESSER. Mr. Senator, they do not. I asked them for that. Senator MORSE. They do not?

Mrs. LESSER. I asked them for that information, and they do not. I would recommend that a minimum amount be expended on alterations and facilities to get this program started for two reasons. First, in view of the understandable pressures for economy, I would prefer to see as much of the money as possible spent for its primary purpose, that is, to put as much food into as many hungry tummies as possible, and I deplore using large sums on capital investments for the few, which would not be usable if the program were later expanded to include more children.

Second, I would like to urge on the Congress a long hard look at the way the Department of Buildings and Grounds operates, at least as far as its value to the public schools is concerned.

In Dr. Hansen's original estimation the cost of installing a school lunch program for 7,000 children, approximately $1 million was allocated for capital outlay, and only half a million went for food, services, et cetera. Although this estimate was supposedly arrived at after breaking the schools down into four different categories, several attempts have failed to bring forth any information with respect to the cost factors considered in arriving at any of these conclusions. If I remember correctly the lowest cost estimated for any category of school was $10,000. I know of at least two schools in the southwest area where I cannot conceive of such an amount being necessary to make their lunchrooms usable for this purpose. Last year when we proposed to feed the neediest children of Syfax and Greenleaf Schools, our original plan was to feed the children in a large room in Syfax which was complete with tables and chairs for 200.

The Health Department decreed that we could not do this without first putting screens in all the windows, filling in two archways with doors, and installing a washbasin-there was a washroom directly across the hall. This the Department of Buildings and Grounds