that time it had reached the length of 680 feet with an estimated 26,000 signatures. Mr. Christianson warned the Appropriations Committees that it would have taken 16 hours to read all of the names into the hearing's record.

Thus, I have protested these reductions on the floor of the U.S. Senate on two different occasions and a large number of other Members of Congress have done likewise. I have also had several of the letters I have received protesting these cuts inserted in the Congressional Record.

As a result of the efforts undertaken by many Senators and Congressmen, the reductions will not be approved this year. And this will take care of this year. But unless we want to face an annual battle, we must pass legislation to make the special milk program permanent. Since the threat to the program is by far the most serious at this time, I have joined with other Senators in sponsoring a bill which will not only make the program permanent, but will expand it each year to meet the needs of increasing school enrollments. This legislation is, of course, the legislation being considered by the committee this morning. I am cosponsoring it, and will vote for it in committee and on the floor.

But I think that more can be done, and that, while we face the need to reenact the special milk program, we should consider a more comprehensive package covering the additional recommendations contained in the proposed "Child Nutrition Act of 1966."

Among the new proposals contained in that bill are a pilot school breakfast program in those areas drawing children from low-income areas and in schools whose enrollees travel a long distance; a pilot program to provide some food to children during the summer months in areas of poverty and deprivation and to needy children enrolled in preschool and child-care centers, and settlement houses, summer camps, playgrounds, and other summer community activities; and some form of Federal assistance to the States in providing kitchen and food preparation facilities to schools whose deficiencies in that area prevent them from using the existing school lunch programs.

I believe that these proposals merit careful and close consideration. Children's need for the health and nutriitonal benefits of milk and food programs should not depend on whether they are in school or in a vacation period, or on whether their school happens to have the necessary facilities to take advantage of milk and lunch assistance. The lessons learned from the highly successful Project Headstart point to the fact that children often cannot be disciplined, much less learn to read or write, when they are hungry. It is all the more important that these benefits not be limited arbitrarily.

Although this program started as a surplus removal program for milk and dairy products, it has come to be accepted by the public and by the Congress as a program devoted to the general welfare of the Nation's children. We should not be inhibited by changes in the meaning and direction of programs.

The economic importance of the program to the Nation's dairy farmers has been substantial. The lunch and milk programs, taken together, consume the equivalent of nearly 3 billion pounds of milk production in the form of fluid milk, butter, and dairy products. This is equal to about 21⁄2 percent of the total annual milk production. When it is considered that our surplus production in recent years has

only been on the order of 5 or 6 percent of the total production, the effect of the markets provided by the school lunch and school lunch programs is more than just of fringe importance.

Mr. Chairman, I support legislation to make the milk program permanent, and call for adoption-after consideration of additional proposals to strengthen it-by this committee.

Thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Senator Mondale. You represent a State that not only has important agricultural production, including milk, being the second largest milk-producing State, but you have great city areas, such as Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and many others. Have you noted any difference in the degree of support and enthusiasm behind the school milk program from the areas which are directly affected, in that they are producing areas, and those which are not directly affected, in that they are the city areas, and areas of working people and other nonfarm people?

Senator MONDALE. I have not. Without analyzing the support carefully, it has been my impression that I have heard more from Jsuperintendents of schools and members of school boards in urban areas than I have from farmers, because they know firsthand what this means to the nutrition of the children who attend their classes, and how important it is to their health. It is one of those programs that has been wholeheartedly supported, in my opinion, by everybody. Senator HOLLAND. Were you here when Senator Proxmire testified and when he discussed two of these criticisms contained in the letter to Senator Ellender from Secretary Freeman?

Senator MONDALE. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. The first related to the supply of milk in far-off areas of the Nation, such as American Samoa and the Virgin Islands and the like, and the other related to the method of payment as to whether it should be as now through the State agencies or directly to the various school units and authorities. I do not know whether you have had a chance to check into that as yet, but I hope that you will join Senator Proxmire in consideration of that program, so that we may have at the proper time and for the record an expression from you as a representative of a great producing State and, also, a great milk-consuming State and, also, as a cosponsor of this bill, on those two points which I have already stated for the record, and which seem to me to have considerable merit if they accurately reflect the meaning of the pending bill.

Senator MONDALE. I appreciate those comments, Mr. Chairman. I am not familiar with the objection dealing with the availability of fluid milk in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the other outlying territories. The second point relating to the administration of the milk program seems to have great merit. Having served as attorney general of my State for some 5 years, I know that the administrative procedures have been worked out very satisfactorily and that the school districts and the State administration dealing with this program know exactly what they are doing and how best to administer it. I do not see any point in changing those procedures now.

Senator HOLLAND. I want to suggest one other thing that I think the record should reflect. Everyone knows that milk production in many areas now is down, although even at this time, as I understand it, the Federal Government is still purchasing surplus milk. I

wondered if, in connection with the other points that you and Senator Proxmire are looking into, you could furnish us with a showing of the need for the bill even in such a time as this. I hope that you will explore that problem and cover it in a joint statement which I expect you and Senator Proxmire to furnish.

Senator MONDALE. I will be glad to do that, but, of course, the reduction of the production of milk in this country is a problem which concerns all of us. Our fluid milk production in Minnesota is down nearly 7 percent. Indeed, in January and February it was down nearly 15 percent from the previous year. We are losing about 12 dairy farms a day. We are very, very concerned about providing adequate incentives to maintain a decent dairy herd. I think that has to be considered in relation to this problem. But I think that the basic and fundamental point with regard to S. 2921 is that it is a minimum program-it is very well received by all parties-and it is a worthwhile and inexpensive investment in the health of our children.

Senator HOLLAND. As between providing milk for hungry children and turning that same milk into processed form for storage by the Government as a part of the surplus supply, would you think that the Nation would prefer to have the fresh milk go to the children? Senator MONDALE. Certainly.

Senator HOLLAND. I realize that the present deficit situation in production can be quickly corrected, because that is the way the American system works. Whenever there is a void in any area, it is very shortly filled with additional production. However, I would like the record to show, if that is the case, that at this time, with deficit production in some areas, the Federal Government is still being required to spend its money in acquiring surplus products. We should like to have your comments on that.

Senator MONDALE. Perhaps the staff could supply us with the current figures on the surplus milk purchases. I was under the impression that they did not amount to very much right now.

Senator HOLLAND. It does not amount to nearly as much as it did in the past, but my impression is that there was still some continuing purchases. It is the American way for business to try to build a producing machine, the largest amount that the demand will take; and I am sure we will soon be back to heavy production. There is no question in my mind that that will be the case in the dairy industry, just as it is and always has been in other industries. So I think that it would be helpful for the record to show, if this is the case, that even at this time of relatively low production, as compared to normal, the Federal Government still is being required to put out money for the acquisition of processed milk, which might better be used as fresh milk to supply our children with more of this very fine product.

Senator MONDALE. It might be in order to include in the record at this point the figures from the Department of Agriculture for the year 1965-66 in the purchase of milk and various dairy products. (For information above, see p. 24.)

Senator HOLLAND. So some purchases are still being made, but not in any such amount as before.

Senator MONDALE. It has been sharply reduced.
Senator HOLLAND. But it is still being purchased.

63-201-66- -3

Senator MONDALE. There were no cheese purchases at all in March. But butter purchases for the month of March were 2.2 billion.

Or, rather 2.2 million pounds.

Senator HOLLAND. 2.2 million pounds?

Senator MONDALE. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. And dried milk?

Senator MONDALE. 46.7 million pounds. The milk equivalent purchased for the year 1964-65 was 8,967 million pounds of milk. In 1965-66 it was 3,699 million, or a reduction of, roughly, in the neighborhood of 21⁄2 times.

Senator HOLLAND. So it shows that the Government is still making purchases?

Senator MONDALE. Is still making purchases.

Senator HOLLAND. Yes. And when they are reducing the special milk program, that becomes particularly auspicious, it seems to me. Senator MONDALE. I agree with the chairman on that point. Senator HOLLAND. You might want to expand on that point in the statement which will be made a part of the record. Thank you very much. You have made a very fine statement.

I have been requested by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allott, to place in the record a statement he had made, and I am glad to do this. It will be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON ALLOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

COLORADO

Mr. Chairman, the Special Milk Program for school children has been in operation since 1954, and it has been received with the enthusiastic support of school systems and other participating outlets. It is a program of proven worth. At a time when a high percentage of young Americans cannot meet the physical qualifications of the military services because of defects traceable to nutritional deficiencies, recent efforts of the Administration to drastically cut back the funding of the program is, in my opinion, "penny wise and pound foolish". requested budget cut of $82,000,000 in the Special Milk Program would deny supplemental milk to about 80 percent of our schoolchildren who are now benefiting from this program.

The

Last year we enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which authorized more than $1.3 billion in the first year in aid to school systems to feed the hungry minds of the young, and we know that the program will be expanded in subsequent years. It seems incredible that efforts should now be made to seriously cripple a program that is designed to feed the hungry bodies of the young.

The value of this program to the health and dietary habits of school children is well recognized by school authorities. Increased school attendance and an improved approach to learning are among some of the benefits observed by teachers and school administrators. Obviously, a higher rate of school attendance and an improved learning attitude are factors essential to achieving maximum benefits from our expenditures under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is false economy to spend billions to improve the quality of our primary and secondary educational systems and at the same time cut back drastically on a program that has proven its worth in getting the child to school in a receptive frame of mind.

We have heard much about poverty in the past two or three years. In the final analysis, the only truly effective weapon against poverty is education and training, for it is only through education and training that we can hope to achieve lasting results in our efforts to combat poverty. To that end, the Special Milk Program can be an effective tool in helping children obtain basic education, a prerequisite for job training, by improving learning attitudes and increasing school attendance.

The House Appropriations Committee, in its report on the fiscal year 1967 Agriculture Appropriatious Bill, pointed out that the Special Milk Program has been so successful that it has been adopted in many other countries. Dried milk in large quantities has been shipped overseas under Public Law 480, our food-forpeace program, for use in the schools in those countries which we are supplying aid. Should we do less for our own children?

According to Departmental figures, 85,929 schools and 6,076 child-care institutions and summer camps participated in this program last year, and about 3 billion half pints of milk were made available and consumed. In my own State of Colorado, there were 1,200 participating outlets, dispensing nearly 27 million half pints of milk under this program. These figures are mute evidence of the success of the program, and while I am sure that the program can be improved, the fact is that milk, whose high nutritional value has been recognized by physicians and dieticians for generations, has been getting into the stomachs of our children in greater quantities as a result of the Special Milk Program. It is difficult to argue with success, and this program has been a success. Because of the demonstrated success of that program, I was happy to join with 62 of my colleagues in sponsoring S. 2921, a bill which would make the Special Milk Program a permanent program.

While S. 2921 would expand the Special Milk Program to a minor degree, in my opinion it will be money well spent, for who can put a price tag on the health and well-being of our children? I know of no better investment that this country can make it is an investment in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I urge early and favorable action on this important measure. It is my hope that with the early enactment of S. 2921, the Special Milk Program will not be subject to the attacks of the "false economists" in the future.

Senator HOLLAND. Our next witness is Mr. Mehren, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, who is here and ready to testify, and we will be happy to hear his testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE L. MEHREN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. MEHREN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to appear before this committee to discuss Senate bill 2921, which is cited as the "Children's Special Milk Act." This bill is cosponsored by many distinguished Senators. It deals with a matter of great importance the nutrition of our children.

We in the Department of Agriculture agree without reservation that our children are the most precious resources of this Nation. We know that beyond any question proper and adequate diets are an essential condition for development of our children into adults who may achieve their full potential. We have held that in this last third of the 20th century, and in a nation like ours, no child should be deprived of the food he needs. It is morally right that our children should receive enough food, and that this food should meet the nutritional requirements of the child-and it is good economics to invest public funds to assure that these nutritional needs be met.

These are the reasons that for some 20 years we have administered a school lunch program in which 18 million children now take part. These are the reasons that every federally supported school lunch must include a half pint of milk. These are also the reasons that we have sought to expand our child feeding programs under present statutory authority insofar as our resources permit. And, finally, these are also the reasons we have sought legislation authorizing us to widen the scope of our child nutrition programs, and to extend it to children who do not now receive its benefits.

Thus, the Department is, and always has been thoroughly sympathetic with measures intended to improve the nutrition of children