July 18, 1979
Page 19208
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, subsidized milk is made available to all children, regardless of ability to pay. It is made available even to those children who already are receiving federally subsidized milk included in the school lunch and school breakfast programs.
This program is excessive and duplicative.
Each administration starting with President Johnson has recommended reductions.
The Senate must keep in mind our earlier decision in the first concurrent budget resolution where we agreed to a $300 million reduction in child nutrition programs. So far, the Senate has passed only $100 million in savings. Unless we take on these difficult issues, Congress would not achieve its goal of balancing the Federal budget in the foreseeable future.
Mr. President, the administration proposed the elimination of the special milk subsidy in those institutions which already provide subsidized milk as a part of the school lunch or school breakfast program.
This would eliminate the duplication in benefits of the program by allowing schools to choose between full meal service programs or the special milk program, and would save $100 million.
The full reduction proposed by the administration is needed; however, it is clear that this reduction is politically impossible at this time. For this reason, I am offering an amendment which would make a smaller cut in the program. Rather than eliminating the program, this amendment would merely restrict the reimbursement to 5 cents per half pint of milk. Projections of reimbursement rates under the program in fiscal year 1980 are 7.8 cents, and this slight change would save about $40 million.
This amendment would have minimal impact on milk consumption in the schools, and, therefore, have almost no impact on the milk industry. Unaffected by the amendment would be milk served to lower income children participating in schools which have no other federally subsidized meal service program.
This amendment is prudent and reasonable. I urge you to join me in supporting this amendment. The amendment will not take milk away from poor children or any other children. The only effect of the amendment is to reduce the milk subsidy for non-needy children from7.8 cents per carton to 5 cents per carton.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the manager of the bill yield time in opposition to the amendment? Will he yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I yield all the time on this amendment to Senator PROXMIRE for him to consume or allocate.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator BELLMON's amendment to cut the special milk program by $40 million by reducing reimbursement rates from the projected fiscal year 1980 level of 7.75 cents per half pint to 5 cents per half pint in those schools serving school lunches and/or school breakfasts
I oppose this amendment for the following reasons:
First, this issue — fiscal year 1980 funding for special milk — is one that has been debated and considered exhaustively in the past few months. It went through the complete gamut in the House of Representatives: Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, full Appropriatidns Committee, and House floor. In each case, the result was the same full funding of $142 million for special milk.
And in the Senate, both the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee have approved the same figure — $142 million — for special milk for fiscal year 1980.
Moreover, in May, there was a full-scale debate on the Senate floor concerning the merits and proper funding level of the special program. At that time, an attempt was made to cut the authorizing legislation for this program. During the consideration of that amendment, again offered by Senator BELLMON all aspects of the special milk pro-gram received careful scrutiny.
All national farm groups — all of them — and the PTA — 12 million strong — came out in strong opposition to the Bellmon amendment at that time. Numerous Senators — I think the total number was about 20 — came to the Senate floor to defend the special milk program from attack.
In the face of this overwhelming opposition, Senator BELLMON withdrew his amendment.
Now he has another amendment, for another cut in special milk. This amendment, it is true, would result in a lesser cut than the amendment considered in May.
But my point is this: In all the extensive consideration of special milk in the Congress — both House and Senate — to date, there has been monumental support for this program as it is now constituted.
Let us not tamper with something that is working so well and has so much support.
Second, what the full house and the Senate Appropriations Committee have done hardly amounts to budget-busting when it comes to the special milk program. The figure we are talking about — $142 million — is the same as the fiscal year 1979 funding level for this program. So, special milk has already undergone its "budget cut," inasmuch as it has had to meet all the inflation, and we know how serious inflation has been in the last year and is supposed to be in 1980. The estimates are 8 percent to 10 percent, and it could be much higher than that.
So this program is at the funding level of the previous year, which means there is a cut of about 10 percent in real terms in special milk at the present time. A further cut is not needed or warranted at this time.
Third, the Bellmon proposal would result in a substantial reduction in special milk consumption in our schools. No specific figures are available as to exactly what the cutback effects would be.
But we can use data currently available to project an estimate of these effects.
USDA's special milk program study determined that student prices for a la carte milk service rose by 41 percent when special milk was dropped and that sales dropped by 35 percent.
Using this as a basis of comparison, wecan assess the effect of the proposed reduction in the reimbursement rate. It is estimated by USDA that children would pay 16 cents per half pint for milk in the total absence of the special milk program. The present 6.75 cent reimbursement means an average student cost of 9.25 cents. A reduction of this rate to 5 cents means a student cost increase of 1.75 cents per half pint — about 18.9 percent. Applying the findings of the special milk study, this would mean a reduction in milk consumed of 16 percent.
If the reimbursement rate were 7.75 cents per half pint, as it is projected to be in fiscal year 1980, the rollback to 5 cents would mean an increase in student costs of 33 percent. This would translate to 28 percent reduction in milk consumption under the special milk program.
Fourth, it is lower income families which would be hardest hit by this proposed cutback. Why is this so? Because the lower your income, the harder it will be to pay for the cost increase to the student that this cutback would cause. This amendment assumes that anyone who is not in poverty — or at 125 percent of the poverty level — will have no trouble picking up the tab for this additional cost per half pint of milk. This makes no sense. While special milk has been a major factor in equalizing milk consumption among children from all income levels in our Nation, clearly the relative cost increase for lower income families would be greater than for children from more affluent families.
Mr. President, I have addressed some of the key reasons why we should reject this particular Bellmon amendment to cut back special milk.
There are many more reasons as well, and they apply to any attempt to cut special milk, including the Bellmon amendment now before us. Let me briefly cite some of them.
First, children are not receiving excessive milk. USDA figures reveal that even in schools which offer breakfast, lunch, and SMP, children received an average of 1.23 8-ounce cartons of milk per day at school or a total daily average both in school and at home of 2.82 cartons — less than the four 8-ounce servings of milk per day recommended by most leading nutritionists.
Second, special milk is not duplicative. Seventy percent of special milk is consumed by children who do not participatein a school lunch program. These are children who either bring a bag lunch from home, eat away from school, eat a la carte lunches, or eat no lunch at all. Since 1977, children eligible for free lunch or breakfast in schools which operate either of these programs may receive special milk only if it is served at other than mealtimes.
Third, the USDA special milk study shows SMP brought needy children up toapproximately the same level of milk consumed per day as that of non-needy children. Children eligible for free milk depended on SMP to a much greater extent for their daily milk requirements. Needy children received an average of 43 percent more milk at school and 22 percent less milk away from school than non-needy children.
Fourth, special milk is the most cost effective of all child nutrition programs. Administrative costs represent only about one-half of 1 percent of SMP funds; the other 991/2 percent is expended on milk for children.
Fifth, milk is the least wasted item in all child nutrition programs. USDA reports that milk is the least wasted item offered through the child nutrition programs.
Finally, CCC purchases would offset any savings realized by a cutback. The savings to be realized by this cutback in SMP would be partially offset by Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) purchases and would not result in a total savings of $40 million to the U.S. Treasury. Moreover, it seems much better to me to have good, nutritious fluid milk in the stomachs of our children than to pay for powdered milk to sit in our CCC warehouses, which are already overloaded with this same product.
Mr. President, for all these reasons, I oppose the Bellmon amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
I am happy to yield to my colleague from Wisconsin whatever time he requires.
Mr. NELSON. I thank my senior colleague from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, I oppose the amendment proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON). This amendment would reduce the fiscal year 1980 reimbursement rate for milk purchased under the special milk program from 7.75 cents to 5 cents in schools which offer a federally subsidized meal program. The Bellmon amendment would impact 75,000 schools and institutions currently participating in the program and would cut $40 million from the fiscal year 1980 funding level of $142 million which was recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Eighty-nine percent of the schools currently participating in the special milk program would have their reimbursement rates cut and special milk program funding would be reduced by 29 percent. A budget cut of this proportion in a program which has proven over its 25-year history that it contributes substantially to the health and well being of our Nation's children is unwarranted.
The proposed reduction in SMP reimbursement rates would have a substantial negative impact on children and schools in Wisconsin. Based on data provided by the State of Wisconsin, 91 percent or 2,912 schools in Wisconsin would have their reimbursement rates for special milk reduced. Wisconsin's current special milk program expenditures would be reduced by at least $1.3 million, which means that, at a minimum, the SMP in Wisconsin would be cut 28 percent.
Attempts to make cuts in the special milk program are not new. This issue has been before the Congress during the administrations of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. On each occasion, Congress has found the proposed reductions to be unjustifiable and has rejected them.
Just this past May the Senate debated a similar amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma which would have substantially cut the special milk program. At the time there were many Senators who felt compelled to participate in the Senate debate and voice their opposition to reductions in the special milk program. The amendment was subsequently withdrawn.
Since the Senate floor debate in May, the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee have both recommended that the special milk program be funded at its current level of $142 million. Despite all the other areas of the budget which the Appropriations Committees felt compelled to cut, these committees decided not to make any reductions in SMP spending. It would seem as if these actions would have finally decided this issue and that further debate would not be necessary at this time.
The SMP and other child nutrition programs are intended to encourage sound nutritional habits in our children. These programs represent an investment against future health costs that are certain to occur if our children fail to obtain their minimum daily nutritional requirements.
It has been estimated that the Bellmon amendment would result in a 16- to 28-percent reduction in the consumption of milk served under the special milk program. Most of the reduction in milk consumption would occur because the price children from low income working families would have to pay would increase to a level these children and their families could no longer afford.
These are children who should not have their nutritional requirements compromised.
A $40 million reduction in expenditures on milk for children represents a step backward from the previous commitments the Congress has made to improve the nutritional status of the Nation's children, and it risks undoing what progress we have made thus far.
Mr. President, in my judgment it makes good economic sense for the Federal Government to encourage consumption of products which make a positive contribution to a child's nutritional status. An investment now in adequate and proper nutrition will serve as an insurance policy against future health costs and will help to reduce the Nation's long range health bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bellmon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STEWART) . Who yields time?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, does the Senator from Maine want time in opposition to the amendment or in favor of the amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I want time to give support to my colleague, Senator BELLMON who has ventured into areas where it is very dangerous to venture, and I think he should have some support.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, in the absence of Senator BELLMON, I yield time to the Senator from Maine. I am sure Senator BELLMON will make it up.
Mr. MUSKIE. Two minutes.
Mr. President, I will not belabor this point. I fully understand what the Senators from Wisconsin are saying.
The appeal of milk for children, whether needy or non-needy children, is very great in Congress and, indeed, in the country as a whole.
Mr. President, I support Senator BELLMON's amendment to reduce the average Federal subsidy for special milk for non-needy students by approximately 3 cents.
The amendment is not expected to cause a significant reduction in the amount of milk consumed in schools. This amendment in no way affects the serving of milk in school lunches and breakfasts, including free and reduced price meals. Also, the amount will not affect the price of milk for children who cannot obtain it as part of the federally subsidized lunch or breakfast program.
This amendment would reduce the fiscal year 1980 appropriation for special milk by $40 million. In the first budget resolution the Senate assumed savings of $118 million in the special milk program; none of these savings have been achieved to date.
This proposal will not affect the provision of free milk to needy children. Neither will it limit the availability of school milk for children — they will be able to get milk as often and in the same amounts as they do now. The amendment merely cuts the Federal subsidy for half pints of milk sold to non-needy children from 7.8 cents to 5 cents in schools which participate in another federally subsidized feeding program.
The Federal subsidy for milk for non-needy students would be reduced by 3 cents but not eliminated — so that a maximum Federal subsidy of 5 cents would still be provided. This is not an unreasonable cost to pass on to families with income in excess of poverty levels
The amendment is not expected to cause a significant reduction in the amount of milk consumed in schools Also, the amendment will not affect the price of milk for children who cannot obtain it as part of the federally subsidized lunch or breakfast program.
Mr. President, this is a modest and sensible proposal and I urge my col leagues to give it their support. It will achieve some of the savings in the special milk program that the Senate assumed in the first budget resolution. And it will achieve these savings without affecting the provision of free milk to needy children or reducing the availability of milk in schools.
While this amendment is only a modest step, it is nevertheless a most necessary one. It now appears that the Appropriations Committee may exceed the amount allocated to it in the first budget resolution by up to $5.5 billion in budget authority and $4.7 billion in outlays when both the regular appropriation bills and the 1980 supplemental requirements are taken into account.
We now face the prospect that these appropriations excesses plus the apparent economic slow down may drive the deficit for fiscal year 1980 higher than for fiscal yeas 1979.
It is essential that we achieve savings, however modest, when we can That is a principle that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, my good friend, undertakes to pursue whenever and wherever he can. Often, it means appearing to be unfriendly to programs such as this, which has great appeal.
Senator BELLMON believes in the program as strongly as anyone else, but we do need to find sound proposals which will achieve needed savings with out cutting costs in essential programs. It is in pursuit of that principle that the Senator from Oklahoma has offered his amendment, and I think I owe him the duty of supporting it.