October 1, 1971
Page 34485
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, the issue today is quite simple. In the words of Senate Joint Resolution 157, it is to "assure that every needy schoolchild will receive a free or reduced price school lunch" as required under the existing school lunch act. It is unfortunate that such an assurance is necessary.
On August 13, pursuant to Public Law 91-248, the Department of Agriculture issued regulations which in the opinion of the State directors section of the American School Food Services Association poses a very real threat to the national school lunch program. In many parts of the country, a nutritious lunch costs as much as 60 cents in preparation and service. Under the 35-cent reimbursement rate required by the August 13 regulations, the States operating such programs will be faced with a multimillion dollar deficit. Obviously, on such short notice, the States cannot make up this loss. Their only alternative is cancellation or reduced participation.
The Department of Agriculture in refusing to modify its August regulations has not only ignored the intent of the law, but also the needs of many schoolchildren in the country now participating in the school lunch program.
The facts cannot be ignored. Many local school officials have complained that they will be unable to continue their lunch programs for the needy under present regulations. In Kentucky alone the breakfast program will be canceled unless more money is allocated.
Through the untiring efforts of many of my colleagues on both the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human needs and the Agriculture Committee, we can today rectify this situation.
Very simply, Senate Joint Resolution 157 provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may provide additional funds to assure the continuation of feeding children, who through no fault of their own, are undernourished and hungry.
Mr. President, 44 Members of this body have, by a letter to the President, gone on record as supporting this measure. For the benefit of my other colleagues I ask unanimous consent that this letter urging the President to require the Department of Agriculture to withdraw the August 18 regulations be printed in the RECORD.
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.,
September 9, 1971.
The PRESIDENT
The White House
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We are writing you out of a deep concern regarding the purpose of proposed school lunch regulations issued by the Department of Agriculture on August 13, 1971.
The proposed regulations concern the use of federal funds to carry out the mandate of Public Law 91-248 which provides 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." Thus, the real test of the adequacy of the proposed new regulations is whether or not they will make it possible for the states and localities to meet the obligations and requirements which Public Law 91-248 imposes upon them.
After careful study and analysis, it is our judgment that the proposed regulations will not meet this basic test. Therefore, we find ourselves in agreement with the unanimous conclusion of the State Directors Section of the American School Food Service Association that the proposed regulations in their present form pose a very real threat to the continued progress of the National School Lunch Program.
If these regulations are not altered we believe the following events will occur. Many schools will be forced to eliminate Child Nutrition Programs. There will be further hardships to the nation's economy through unemployment and reduced consumption of raw resources such as food and equipment. Absenteeism, dropouts, and apathetic students will negate the benefits of the multi-billion dollar investment for public and private schools. And finally, and most important, there will continue to be hungry children in America's schools.
The adverse effect of the proposed regulations is compounded by the fact they were announced only three weeks before school was to open, creating chaos in the states. The anticipated loss to the states in the 1971-72 school year under the 35 cent reimbursement rate set by the proposed regulations, as compared to what the states would have received under the rates instituted by the Department of Agriculture last March, will run into millions of dollars. For example, the state directors have estimated Missouri will lose $4,000,000; California $9,000,000; Massachusetts $3,240,000; Ohio $5,565,000; Oregon $1,476,175; Tennessee $2,772,000; Georgia $4,100,000; West Virginia $2,661,300; and Florida $6,916,668. The States cannot make up this loss from state or local funds and will have no alternative but to reduce planned participation to stay within the limitation of available funds. Therefore, many needy and eligible children will go without school lunches.
Certainly, this was not the intent of Congress when it passed Public Law 91-248, nor your intent when signing it into law on May 14, 1970.
In regard to the School Breakfast Program, the proposed regulations have not only placed a limitation on the expansion of this program but have also precipitated a situation where several states will be forced to cancel the School Breakfast Program this school year. In the past, the Department of Agriculture has set a precedent in that many states in 1970-1971 used Section 32 funds for breakfast expansion. These funds were provided as a bloc grant to be used where needed in the individual states for expanding food programs to eligible needy children. However, the proposed regulations have made no provisions for continuing the authority to transfer such funds from Section 32 to the School Breakfast Program.
In addition to this matter of transfer of Section 32 funds, there is another important question which needs to be answered in regard to the Breakfast Program. According to Public Law 92-32 (Section 2), the Department of Agriculture is authorized to use $25 million for the School Breakfast Program. Only $18.5 million, however, has been allocated to the states. A memorandum of September 1 from the Department stated that the remaining $6.5 million will be allocated only to those states, "demonstrating the need for these funds to maintain their program at the April level." The response from several state directors has strongly indicated that there is a need for this $6.5 million to be allocated immediately. For example, in the State of Kentucky, the Breakfast Program will need to be cancelled at the beginning of October unless more money is allocated. In the reality that cancellations will occur, we implore that there be a reconsideration by the Department of Agriculture to transfer Section 32 funds to the Breakfast Program and to immediately allocate the remaining $6.5 million of the authorized $25 million to those states who face a possibility of cancelling their Breakfast Programs.
We, therefore, request that the proposed regulations be withdrawn and be replaced with regulations that would provide for a maximum reimbursement rate of 48 cents from Section 11; a maximum reimbursement rate of 12 cents from Section 4 for free and reduced price lunches; and guaranteed reimbursement from Section 4 of 5 cents for generally assisted lunches. We also suggest that the regulations pertaining to the use of Section 32 funds allow an immediate allotwent of these funds for free or reduced priced lunches to all states based on need accompanied by transfer authority. In this way we could be certain that the funds Congress made available to the Secretary under this authority would be fully utilized.
We further suggest that before any proposed regulations are published that they be submitted to the National Advisory Council, created by Public Law 91-248, and the State Directors Section of the American School Food Service Association in order that these regulations could be instituted with the greatest degree of cooperation so that any further delays in the implementation of the intent of Public Law 91-248 may be avoided.
Respectfully,
Marlow W. Cook, Philip A. Hart, George McGovern, Vance Hartke, Alan Cranston, Abraham Ribicoff, Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., Charles H. Percy, Edward W. Brooke, Richard S. Schweiker.
John V. Tunney, Walter F. Mondale, Gale W. McGee, Birch Bayh, Quentin N. Burdick, Howard W. Cannon, Claiborne Pell, Ernest F. Hollings, John L. McClellan.
Henry M. Jackson, Frank Church, Warren C. Magnuson, Clifford P. Case, Robert C. Byrd, William B. Saxbe, Henry Bellmon, James B. Pearson, Mark O. Hatfield.
Edward M. Kennedy, Adlai E. Stevenson III, Lawton Chiles, Edmund S. Muskie, Frank E. Moss, Harold E. Hughes, Thomas F. Eagleton, Gaylord Nelson.
Harrison A. Williams, Jr., Joseph M. Montoya. Alan Bible, William B. Spong, Stuart Symington, Hubert H. Humphrey, Fred R. Harris, Daniel K. Inouye.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, to summarize, the only problem is that the regulations were established on August 13. Not a school system in the United States would have had time to secure the additional funds. The tax rates are set in the spring in our State. Budgets are set. State legislatures do not meet until next year. The breakfast program in my State goes down the drain in October because it has not adequate financing under the regulations.
The real problem is that if they had brought out the regulations a year ago, we would have had an opportunity to look at and analyze it and the situation would not be what it is today. It is chaotic today because regulations were given to the school systems on the 13th of August, when the schools were getting ready to open in 2½ weeks. Their budgets had been set. Their contributions had been set. They had no way to rearrange those matters. They had no way to pick up the additional funds. That is the significance of the problem we face today.
Mr. President, if we can afford F-14's, B-1's, and ABM's, we can afford to feed the needy children in the richest country in the world. I urge the speedy adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 157.