April 17, 1968
Page 9891
Mr. HART. For reasons I outlined last week, I do hope that the Senate will not agree to the recommendation of our able Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
What is involved here is an opportunity to insure that a nutritional diet will be available to hundreds of thousands of children who are too young to be in school for the school lunch program or the school breakfast program, or, during the summer recess of school, find the school cafeteria is closed.
The House very wisely authorized a program which will provide nutritional diets for hundreds of thousands of American children who are not old enough to be in school, as well as for those children who are in school and who, in many cases, get their only decent meal of the day through the school lunch program when school is not open.
That is the "meat and potatoes" of the question now before the Senate.
I think it would be tragic for us to reject the sound course the House has put us on. The need for children to eat does not happen to coincide with the calendar of a school year. Nor with the fact they are too young to be in regular school. Parents know that, and so do the children.
The verdict of history will be harsh were the Senate to fail to support the substantial program which the House has proposed, and which our Committee on Agriculture would kill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senator HART's motion to substitute the House-passed language of H.R. 15398 for that reported out by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Assistance under the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act is limited to children enrolled in school activities. The House-passed bill will provide food service to the very young – the preschool-age children – by extending the lunch and breakfast programs on a year-round basis in settlement houses, neighborhood centers and day-care institutions.
The House-passed bill will fill the need of children through the summer months when schools are closed. A growing child needs good food 12 months a year, not just during that period of time when the child is attending class. It will also enable the pilot breakfast program to be operated for 3 more years.
This bill will authorize the States to use up to 25 percent of the apportioned funds to pay 75 percent of the cost of food service equipment. This provision is a must if we expect to get the most nutrition as well as the best taste from the prepared foods.
The House-passed bill will authorize payment of up to 80 percent of operating costs of food service in certain circumstances of severe need.
Today there are 8 million school-age youngsters, 5 to 17 years of age, and 2.3 million 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old preschool children from families at the poverty level – families whose income is less than $3,000. These children must be given adequate and nutritious meals.
In fiscal year 1967, 72,944 schools offered the school lunch program. About 18,456,000 children were provided lunches. During a 1-month period in 1967, 36.5 percent of 50.5 million schoolchildren participated in the school lunch program. Out of that figure about 2 million received free or reduced price lunches due to their inability to meet the cost of the lunch.
The school breakfast program now reaches 116,000 children. This number is expected to increase to 160,000 by the end of this school year.
In March 1965 there were 4.5 million children under age 6 who had working mothers. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that in 1966 there were 3.8 million working mothers with children under 6 years. Bureau projections indicate that working mothers with preschool children will increase to 5.3 million by 1980.
The Office of Economic Opportunity advises that there are a total of 736,000 children in anti-poverty programs, summer and year-round Head Start, Head Start day-care centers, migrant and children in day-care centers operated under title V of the Economic Opportunity Act. It is estimated that approximately 63 million meals would be required to feed these children.
This is a modest proposal, but one which will be of direct help to the poverty-stricken children of our Nation. It is important to the well-being of these children and it is important to the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the proposal of the senior Senator from Michigan [Mr HART].