October 15, 1971
Page 36416
SCHOOL LUNCH REGULATIONS
Mr. HART. Mr. President, almost 2 years ago, the President pledged that every needy child in America's schools would receive a free or reduced price lunch. Congress took the President's pledge to heart and passed a new school lunch law in 1970 guaranteeing a lunch to every needy child.
When Congress made that guarantee, it also made clear that cost was not to deter us from fulfilling the goal. Feeding our hungry children was now the goal. It would cost what it would cost.
During the last school year, participation in the school lunch program rose from 5.8 million to 7.3 million children. This year, it was fully expected that participation would continue to expand to over 9 million needy children.
It was puzzling to me that the Agriculture Department did not request additional funds to pay for that expansion. In fact, I recommended to the Appropriations Committee that additional funds be made available.
When the Agriculture Department moved to reduce the Federal rate of support for the program just before the 1971-72 school year, my puzzlement turned to shock. I could not believe, after the President's personal pledge and the commitment by Congress, that an executive agency would move arbitrarily through the regulatory process to deprive needy children of lunches.
Following the Department's move to reduce the Federal rate of support, I had the privilege of sponsoring, along with Senator Cook, a letter that was signed by 44 Members of the Senate. This letter urged the President to order the Department to provide more support for the lunch program, not less.
I believe this letter played a role in the Department's decision last week to raise its support level per lunch from 35 to 45 cents. Unfortunately, at the same time the Department announced that decision, it also announced that it was instituting a new maximum nationwide income eligibility standard of $3,940 for a family of four.
In effect, this new maximum lowered eligibility levels in 44 States and, in one abrupt swoop, knocked out of a million and a half needy children from the school lunch program.
Mr. President, this new attempt by the Agriculture Department, obviously at the direction of the Office of Management and Budget which is, unfortunately, not subject to congressional supervision, to cut back on this program is inexcusable. Indeed I question its legality.
When Congress enacted Public Law 91-248 in 1970, it intended that the national eligibility standard established by the Secretary of Agriculture should be a minimum standard, a floor that States and localities could exceed where individual economic conditions dictated.
The Agriculture Department recognized as much last school year and the beginning of this school year by specifically approving the higher standards in the 44 States. Then suddenly last week, the Department reinterpreted – wrongly and in my view illegally – the law passed by Congress.
For that reason, we have today sent a second letter to the President carefully explaining the meaning of Public Law 91-248 insofar as eligibility levels are concerned. Lest there be any doubt as to what the Senate meant when it voted Public Law 91-248, I want to note that 58 Senators have agreed to sign this letter.
Hopefully this letter to the President will serve to remind the Department of Agriculture that when the Congress says it wants this Nation's hungry school children fed, the Congress means what it says. It does not mean that only some of the hungry should be fed. It does not mean that senseless lines should be drawn between some poor children and other poorer children. It means only and exactly what it says – feed all the hungry and all the poor of the Nation's needy schoolchildren.
I pray this unfortunate controversy is concluded, that no further letters will be necessary. Hungry children do not need any more regulations from the Department of Agriculture or letters from the Senate. They need food.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the following letter to the President sponsored by myself and Senators WILLIAMS, CRANSTON, COOK, and CASE, and signed by 54 Senators.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION AND HUMAN NEEDS,
Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We are writing to you once again out of a deep concern regarding the school lunch regulations which are being issued this week by the Department of Agriculture. On September 9, 1971, forty-four Members of the United States Senate wrote a letter to you objecting to the proposed regulations, primarily because of the proposal to reduce the reimbursement rate for free and reduced price lunches to a statewide average of 35 cents per lunch, and because of the failure to provide for continuing the authority to transfer funds from Section 32 to the School Breakfast Program. Recently, it was announced that the Department would strike the 35 cent requirement and substitute a figure of 45 cents. We think that this is certainly a step in the right direction and the indication that the Department of Agriculture was prepared to follow through on our mutual promise to feed the Nation's hungry schoolchildren brought a reaction of considerable joy and confidence.
Yet, at the same time, we now learn that the Department intends to arbitrarily limit the eligibility of poor children for the program by reversing its past policy by interpreting the national eligibility standard instituted by Public Law 91-248 as a ceiling rather than a floor on participation. Such an interpretation violates both the letter and the spirit of the National School Lunch Act.
The national eligibility standard for receiving free or reduced price lunches was one of the major changes in the National School Lunch Act made by Public Law 91-248. The law states that "any child who is a member of a household which has an annual income not above the applicable family size income level set forth in the income poverty guidelines shall be served meals free or at a reduced cost." (42 U.S.C. 1751 § 9). This eligibility standard was explained on the floor of both Houses of Congress and in the Conference Committee Report on H.R. 515, the legislation which promulgated the requirement.
During the Senate consideration of this legislation it was made clear that the intent of the "minimum eligibility standard" (emphasis ours) was to "clarify eligibility for all schools. Children and parents would know precisely where they stood. Yet, within the minimum standards set, state and local school districts would still make the determination of eligibility." (Congressional Record; vol. 116, pt. 4, 4319.) The Conference Committee Report on H.R. 515 also made clear the intent of Congress that this eligibility level be a minimum when it stated that "the conference amendment to the eligibility standard for free and reduced price lunches makes it clear that every child from a household with an income below the poverty level shall be served free or reduced price meals ... It should be clear that, although the poverty guideline is the only mandatory national standard, children from a family meeting other criteria shall also be eligible for free or reduced price school lunches." (Conference Report 91-1032).
In explaining the Conference Report on the floor of the House, Representative Quie, a member of the Conference Committee, explained that "the local school authorities retain their authority to provide free or reduced cost lunches for children who come from a family whose income is above the poverty lines." (Congressional Record; vol. 116, pt. 10, p. 13991.) In a colloquy with Senator Talmadge during Senate consideration of the Conference Report Senator Javits also made this clear when he said "... and very important, the poverty level standard is a minimum level and is not a ceiling. Therefore children who meet the poverty level criteria in a state like New York where the poverty level is above the national level, would still get free and reduced price lunches." (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD; Vol. 116, pt. 10, p. 13603.)
In addition, it must be clear that USDA in the year following the passage of Public Law 91-248 very well understood this intent of Congress. The school lunch regulations for the school year 1970-71 provide eligibility levels over and above the minimum standard in this way:
Any criteria included by a school food authority in addition to the minimum criteria specified in this section shall relate to providing free or reduced price lunches to children who would not be eligible for such lunches under such minimum criteria. In no event shall any such additional criteria operate or be applied so as to deny free or reduced price lunches to children who qualify for such lunches under the minimum eligibility criteria required by this section. (Federal Register; Title 7, Chapter II, Part 245 § 245.3 (b) .)
The purpose of the regulation cited above was to make it clear that all children under the minimum level would be served a free or reduced price lunch and that any additional criteria could be used only if it served to increase the participation rate and could not be used to deny a lunch to a child who would be eligible solely on the basis of income and family size. Thus in its regulations the Department has clearly made provision for local authority to adjust the minimum eligibility standard upwards based on variations in such things as cost of living, geographical peculiarities and so on.
It is well established, then, that the intent of Congress in providing a minimum national eligibility standard was to see that all children under this level shall be served a free or reduced price lunch and that those who may require such a lunch because of any of a number of other circumstances, as determined by the state or local school authorities, shall be covered by the program as well.
An interpretation of the eligibility standard as a ceiling rather than as a floor will serve to eliminate from the program at least one million children who would otherwise be eligible under the standards established by the states. This in itself may be conservative in view of earlier reports from some of the states. For example, California estimates that 25 percent of the eligibles or 175,000 would be eliminated under these regulations; Michigan estimates that 150,000 would be eliminated; and New Jersey estimates that 50 percent or 75,000 would be eliminated.
In conclusion, Mr. President, we urge you to intervene in this situation immediately and to prevent what we must consider an unlawful interpretation of Public Law 91-248 which was passed by the Congress and signed by you as a fulfillment of our pledges to put an end to hunger in America's schoolrooms. Sincerely,
PHILIP A. HART, ALAN CRANSTON, HARRISON A. WILLIAMs, MARLOW W. COOK, CLIFFORD P. CASE.
LIST OF SIGNERS
Clinton P. Anderson, Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen, Alan Bible, Quentin N. Burdick, Robert C. Byrd, Howard W. Cannon, Lawton Chiles, Frank Church, Alan Cranston.
Thomas F. Eagleton, J. W. Fulbright, Mike Gravel, Fred Harris, Philip A. Hart, Vance Hartke, Ernest F. Hollings, Harold Hughes, Hubert H. Humphrey, Daniel Inouye.
Henry M. Jackson, Edward M. Kennedy, Warren G. Magnuson, George McGovern, Thomas J. McIntyre, Lee Metcalf, Walter Mondale, Joseph M. Montoya, Frank E. Moss, Edmund S. Muskie.
Gaylord Nelson, John O. Pastore, Claiborne Pell, William Proxmire, Jennings Randolph, Abraham Ribicoff, Wm. B. Spong, Jr., Adlai Stevenson, Stuart Symington, John V. Tunney.
Harrison A. Williams, Jr., Howard H. Baker, Jr., Glenn J. Beall, Jr., Henry Bellmon, J. Caleb Boggs, Edward Brooke, James L. Buckley, Clifford P. Case, Marlow W. Cook, Robert P. Griffin.
Mark O. Hatfield, Jacob A. Javits, Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., Bob Packwood, Charles Percy, Richard S. Schweiker, Hugh Scott, Ted Stevens, Robert Taft, Jr.