(d) Total average payment per meal (from school lunch fund only) (cents).[

35.8

33.8

40.4

45.3

39.6

4. Status of Federal appropriations to carry out the National School Lunch Act

11947-51 represents year in which commodities were distributed. Not necessarily
year in which funds were expended. Beginning with 1952 distributions were made in
year in which funds were expended. Discrepancies between expenditures and distribu-
tions in these years result from loss in transit, failure to meet specifications, and other
program adjustments.

2 Represents estimated requirements based upon expenditures during fiscal year 1957.
Matching requirements are as follows: 1947-50, $1 to $1; 1951-55, $1.50 to $1; there-
after, $3 to $1, except that for States with per capita income below the national average
the ratio required is decreased by the percentage which the State per capita income is
below the per capita income of the United States. Lowest matching requirement for
1947-50 was $0.46 to $1; for 1951-57, $0.73 to $1.

Final, based on State reports.

Not available.

6 Less than 0.05 percent.

7 Maximum reimbursements are: Type A, 9 cents; type B, 6 cents; type C, 2 cents. s Includes $128,803 transferred to Commodity Stabilization Service for penalty mail costs.

SURPLUS COMMODITIES AVAILABLE FOR SCHOOL LUNCH

Senator RUSSELL. How about the food products that have been made available or are being made available to the program from surplus foods?

Mr. PAARLBERG. We have available presently not as many of the protein foods for school lunches as we had last year. We formerly, at various times, have had beef and gravy. We have had some pork. We have had some turkey.

This year, with markets as they have been for beef and pork, we have not purchased these commodities and therefore they have not been available as in former years. We have had some inquiries and discussions of this matter and we have tried to explain the reasons why such commodities have not been available this year.

Senator RUSSELL. According to the last figures you have, about what has been the annual value of foods allocated in addition to the cash appropriation?

Mr. LENNARTSON. I have those available.

There is a rather detailed table on page 58 of the notes, showing the total value of foods donated to schools for the past 3 years. As indicated in that table, in 1956 there was approximately $100 million available in terms of donated commodities. In 1957 it was approximately $132 million, and in 1958 we are estimating approximately $77 million.

Senator RUSSELL. Why does this reduction occur? Are you running out of certain types of foods?

Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

PORK AND BEEF

In the fiscal years 1957 and 1956, as you will recall, there were some very severe price adjustments in the livestock field, both in pork and in beef. During those years we inaugurated and had in effect some very substantial section 32 procurement operations, and the commodities procured under those programs were, of course, made available immediately to the school-lunch program, to institutions, and other eligible outlets.

With the change in the livestock price situation, obviously we have not been in the market in recent months, nor at all in this current fiscal year. As a result those types of foods which are essentially what we like to term "main dish items," that is meat items, have not been available for distribution to the schools in this current year.

That is the primary reason for the reduction in the value of foods made available this year below that in fiscal 1957.

FLOUR AND CORN MEAL

Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever make raw flour available under this program?

Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes, flour and cornmeal have been available for better than a year now.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you have substantial requests for those items? I imagine it is rather difficult to handle them in an ordinary school lunchroom kitchen. That is why I asked the question.

Mr. LENNARTSON. During fiscal 1957, we distributed some 46 million pounds of flour, valued at over $3 million, to schools, and better than 17 million pounds of cornmeal was made available, valued at more than a million dollars. It is likely that distribution of these commodities will be greater this year than it was in fiscal 1957.

CITRUS AND OTHER FRUITS

Senator RUSSELL. Have you had any diminution of your supplies of fruits and foods of that nature?

Mr. LENNARTSON. There are two answers to that.

Under section 6 of the School Lunch Act the Secretary withholds approximately $15 million of the $100 million appropriated, and each year we purchase a variety of fruits and canned vegetables with those section 6 funds in order to provide variety to the diet as well as certain protein items.

Under section 32 there has not been too much activity in the fruit and vegetable field. This year we began a rather extensive program for citrus fruits and juices for the school lunch, but in view of the freeze in Florida, it was necessary for us to recall those programs. Otherwise, we would have had substantial quantities of citrus commodities this year.

Senator RUSSELL. In years past you have supplied these citrus fruits?

Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes, indeed.

Senator RUSSELL. So that that is in the nature of a reduction in the Federal contribution to the overall program?

Mr. LENNARTSON. It would have that impact, sir.

Senator RUSSELL. That will grow during the next fiscal year from what you know about conditions now; is that correct?

Mr. LENNARTSON. That is correct.

Senator YOUNG. Could I ask a question before you leave that, Mr. Chairman?

Senator RUSSELL. Certainly.

BUTTER, MILK, AND CHEESE

Senator YOUNG. Are butter and dried milk available to the schoollunch program now?

Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes, all the dairy products that Commodity Credit Corporation has in inventory, butter, cheese, dry skimmed milk, have been constantly available to the school-lunch programs. The school-lunch program has priority on any stocks that Commodity Credit Corporation has available for donation and fortunately, we have been able to keep the schools adequately supplied with butter, cheese, and dry skimmed milk.

Senator YOUNG. About 3 weeks ago, I had a call from one of the Indian reservations in my State which said they got a carload of butter last fall through another Member of Congress, and wanted to know what I could do for them.

I called and they said they could provide a part of a carload, but could not give them a carload.

Mr. LENNARTSON. Senator Young, we have had to withdraw butter from the needy people portion of the distribution program for about a year and a half. However, just today, the Secretary announced

that we do have adequate stocks of surplus butter so that butter will once again be made available to the needy people in the welfare programs. The schools and the institutions have had all that they desired. Senator YOUNG. Under the school-lunch program?

Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Do they use much dried milk?

Mr. LENNARTSON. No, they use it to some extent for cooking purposes and in food preparation. We do not permit them to reconstitute it in this country because of the availability of whole milk. We are desirous of getting the children to drink whole milk.

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DISTRIBUTION PRIORITIES

Senator RUSSELL. When you have a surplus of some commodity but not enough to fulfill all of the requirements that are made from not only the school-lunch program but your other programs, how do you apportion it?

Mr. LENNARTSON. Basically, assuming a surplus, we give first priority to the school-lunch program, then, the institutions, and then the needy.

However, if we assume we do not have enough for all the requirements of the school-lunch program, we would have to allocate quantities to the States on a fair basis, whether it be 1 pound a month or a half-pound a month per person or something of that nature. That would be the only fair way it could be handled nationwide.

Senator RUSSELL. You not only have to apportion between the programs, but as between the recipients within a certain type of program? Mr. LENNARTSON. At times we do have to do that; that is correct, sir.

REQUESTS FROM RELIEF AGENCIES

Senator RUSSELL. Has there been any marked increase in the requests for surplus commodities to be distributed through the relief agencies to the needy?

Mr. LENNARTSON. There have been two types of requests in recent months growing out of the unemployment situation. You might be interested to know that on January 1 the number of recipients of surplus foods among needy families was averaging about 3 million people. As of February 1, for which we have just obtained information, the number had jumped to around 3,600,000 people.

There are two problems there. One is that the requests are more widespread and secondly they desire a greater variety. At one time, the needy people were getting the beef and gravy, pork and gravy, and canned hams, luncheon meats, and foods of that nature. Those were main-dish items which are quite important in the American diet

Senator RUSSELL. But you exhausted your supplies of that?

Mr. LENNARTSON. The supply has run out. The recipients are now impatient about the lack of variety in the surplus foods available. Then, of course, you have this stepped-up interest on the part of additional communities and additional States desiring to participate in the program.

We have added two States to the program in recent weeks. There are, as I understand, about 44 of the 48 States who have agreements