Слике страница
PDF
ePub

program and just got reimbursed for the milk itself, they would get 3 cents for the milk.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Are you in a position to express the views of the Department as to whether or not it would prefer that the program be made a direct integrated part of the school lunch program and just increase the school lunch appropriation earmarking a certain portion of it to milk?

Mr. Davis. I believe, sir, the Department's position would be that they are recommending an appropriation of $100 million for the national school lunch program, which the Department feels is sufficient for that program and $75 million for the school milk program which they feel is sufficient.

Nr. ABERNETHY. Do you have a breakdown of these funds in the school milk program as between the States ?

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. I have a table here which shows for fiscal year 1957 by States the number of outlets participating, the number of half pints of milk for which they have received reimbursement and total.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you have a copy of that?
Mr. Davis. I have just three copies, I believe.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Can you leave a copy of it with the reporter for the record ?

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. We, also, have a table which shows the number of schools participating by States, and some additional information on the amount of the Federal —

Mr. JOHNSON. Does it show the number of schools in the State and the number that participates in arriving at a percentage or just shows the ones that participate?

Mr. Davis. Just the ones that participate on this table, sir.

(The tables referred to are as follows:)

TABLE I.—Special milk program, preliminary report of special milk program

operations, fiscal year 1957

[graphic]

$952, 842

6,800 321, 863

610, 771 5, 411, 500

501, 800 570,000 179, 077 348, 278 914, 235 793, 878 150, 469

174, 128 4, 622, 680 1, 370,000 1, 437, 530

683, 998 1, 058, 331

445, 751

306, 980 1, 117, 836 2, 416,000 3, 686, 684 1, 798, 271

827, 275 1, 711, 800

142, 255 363, 207

54, 491 162, 268 1, 472, 789

511, 703 7,720, 360 1,082, 681

206, 325 3,622, 071

647, 922

381, 815 2, 731, 745

269, 344 403, 326

297, 925 1, 392, 419 1, 835, 000

174, 070

122, 449 1, 139, 046 1,008, 520

350, 280 2,388, 315

128, 840

Total.

71, 239

1,752.7

61, 031, 943

TABLE II.Special milk program, estimated obligations, fiscal year 1958

State

Total avail

able

To State agencies

To individual outlets

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Alabama.
Alaska
Arizona.
Arkansas.
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida.
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana.
Iowa.
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana.
Maine
Maryland.
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi.
Missouri.
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada..
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico.
New York
North Carolina.
North Dakota.
Ohio..
Oklahoma.
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota.
Tennessee.
Texas.
Utah.
Vermont.
Virginia
Washington.
West Virginia.
Wisconsin.
Wyoming
Unallocated 1

Total.

$1,048, 126

16, 580 354, 049

671, 848 5,952, 650

551, 980 627,000 201, 865

383, 106
1,005, 658

873, 266
165, 516

191, 541
5,084, 948
1, 507,000
1, 581, 283

751, 298 1, 164, 164

490, 326

337, 678 1, 229, 620 2, 657, 600 4,055, 353 1,978, 098

910, 002 1,882, 980

156, 480 405, 028

59, 940 178, 495 1, 620, 068

562, 873 8, 556, 848 1, 190, 949

226, 958 4,020, 594

712, 714

419, 997
3,004, 920

296, 278
452, 925

327, 718
1, 541, 260
2,018, 500

194, 802

134, 694 1, 252, 951 1, 109, 372

385, 308 2, 627, 146

141, 724 7, 727, 923

$998, 800

16, 580 280, 501

627. 650 5,952, 650

479, COO 627,000 187, 422 383, 106 924, 299 866, 800 115, 156

177,079 5,084, 948 1, 507,000 1, 394, 611

751, 298 1, 164, 164

490, 326

268, 400 1, 101, 770 2, 657, 600 3, 415, 023 1,699, 837

910, 002 1,878, 382

127,030 333, 300

49, 500 177, 945 1, 474, 780

294, 473 8,556, 848 1, 190, 949

184, 455 3,393, 695

712, 714

417,878
2,655, 450

296, 278
418, 275

288, 066
1, 461, 902
2,018,500

178, 413

134, 694 1, 176, 822 1,004, 300

363, 000 2,042, 349

141, 724

29, 450 71, 733 10, 440

350 145, 288 268, 400

42, 503 620, 899

2,119 349, 470

34, 650 30, 652 79, 358 16,389

76, 129 105, 072

22, 308 584, 797

[blocks in formation]

1 To be allotted as needs arise during the year.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE Special milk program-Number of schools participating," fiscal years 1955–57

[blocks in formation]

1 March, peak month in terms of schools participating nationally includes childcare institutions in fiscal year 1957) 2 Not participating.

Mr. ABERNETHY. How do you arrive at the distribution of these funds between the States?

Mr. Davis. The first year we used the School Lunch Act formula which is based as you well know on the total number of schoolchildren in the State in proportion to the total for the United States, and the relative income level of that State, per capita level income, as against the total United States. When we switched the program from the historical base used the first year we gave the States what they had the year before essentially-we used that as the basis for making the apportionment among the States, except that where a State had made very little progress the year before, we held back some of the money. The system that we have now is based on historical use of the funds in each State, and this past year we gave each State 115 percent of what they had actually spent the year before. In other words, giving them 15 percent as a cushion for expansion.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Suppose you reached the point of spending the entire $75 million of your authorization, and in State A you were distributing, or let us say there two States, A and B, they both have 100,000 students in their schools—State A was receiving a quantity of milk that would supply 75,000 of their 100,000, and State B was receiving a quantity of milk that would supply 50,000 of its 100,000. And by next year we would say State B had reached the position it could and would participate in the program, on a per capita basis, equivalent to State A-what would you do about it?

Mr. Davis. What we have done in addition to this 115 percent apportionment in the first instance, that allowed us to hold back about 10 to 15 million dollars which we kept for just the instance that you mentioned.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But you have plenty of money. You only expended in 1957 $61,031,943. This year you anticipate $68 million. Let us say next year you would reach $80 million which, of course, you won't, but if this program goes on over the years you will. You mean you could reach that much, and there would be a def money, and here is State A getting a quantity of milk sufficient to supply all of its chldren, but State B would not be able to get a sufficient quantity if you continued to adhere to the present method of dividing your funds. That is what would happen, isn't it?

Mr. Davis. From a practical matter

Mr. ABERNETHY. In other words may I interrupt—you are now distributing more or less on a historical basis?

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. The quantity of milk they have used in previous years?

Mr. Davis. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But some of the other States might come alongand I think they will—I think they are doing it, they are expanding their operations under this program and the day will come, I have no doubt but what they would reach a level of distribution equivalent to that in the States which now have a very high distribution ! What I am getting at is, would you distribute it on a per capita basis or would you distribute it on the basis which you now have established ?

Mr. Davis. Up to now we have felt that the historical base is adequate to the situation. I think in the case that you are referring to, the basis for your question, rather, it might very well be necessary for us to in future years go to a per capita basis to enable each State to realize its fullest potential.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That would be the fair thing to do, would it not

Mr. Davis. I think-
Mr. ABERNETHY. To distribute it on a per capita basis?

Mr. Davis. The apportionment in the first instance could very well be on that basis. It would require, however, that we devise some way of holding back funds from some States that were not, and we had reasonable assurance would not reach their full potential based on per capita; in other words, we would be penalizing, we would not be using the total funds wisely, if we put it out there and they didn't use it and nothing happened.

« ПретходнаНастави »