Instead of helping as many school children as possible in America to obtain low-cost milk at a cost of a few pennies to them, the President proposes to provide free milk just to some-not all-needy children.

Under the President's proposal, two million children in schools where there is no school lunch program would continue to receive low-cost milk as at present. One million needy children would receive free milk.

Yet the Administration told Congress in connection with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act a year ago that there are five million children in the poverty bracket—that is, in families with less than $2,000 yearly income. So the Administration bill would provide milk only to 20% of the Nation's neediest children. Eighty per cent of America's neediest children would not receive free milk.

MEANS TEST BAD

Another very bad feature of the President's proposal is that it imposes a means test on school children. School children or their parents would have to confess their poverty in order to receive the milk. Administratively, this would be a nightmare for teachers, principals and supervisors already overburdened with non-teaching and noneducational chores.

Only last year, the Administration violently opposed any means test in connection with medical care for 19 million persons over 65, and so the medicare program covers even wealthy people who can afford to pay their own hospital and doctor bills.

Now, the Administration contends we should invoke a means test for school children.

If a means test was bad under medicare, it is worse under the School Milk Program.

The Administration contends that all but needy children can afford to pay the full price for milk. But, as I have already pointed out, the Administration milk plan would take care of only 20% of children in the poverty category. How can the Administration claim the other 80% in the poverty category can pay the full price for milk.

Furthermore, when the Federal Government stops paying its three or four cents per half-pint of milk, the higher price will have to be passed along to local taxpayers through higher local subsidy or to the students and their parents. This will really hit middle-income people hard. Since the cost-of-living is already sharply rising, quite likely a rise in school milk will put this nutritious food beyond the reach of many families who, while not in the $2,000-or-less income bracket, nevertheless find it very difficult to provide even necessities in these times of high-cost living.

WHEN MILK PRICES UP, CONSUMPTION DOWN

Studies have shown that the price of school milk greatly affects consumption of milk. In Chicago, where school milk was increased by one cent per half-pint, milk consumption dropped 40%. In a Denver west suburban area, school milk was raised by one cent a half-pint and milk consumed fell by 13.4 per cent― and this in spite of a four per cent increase in school enrollment.

Conversely, consumption of school milk rose significantly as prices decreased in Wisconsin schools. When the price of milk was reduced 25%, milk consumed rose 40% in Madison elementary schools and 10% in Milwaukee schools. A 50% price reduction brought increased consumption of 69% and 24% respectively. The higher the price of milk to students, the less milk is consumed. Fewer students drink milk and many drink less.

MILK VITAL TO NUTRITION AND HEALTH

The heart and core of the School Milk Program is its vital purpose: to help fulfill nutritional and health needs of America's schoolchildren. Healthy children can learn better, play better, grow better.

The school lunch manager of our Kalanianaole Elementary and Intermediate School recently wrote me:

"To grant milk subsidy to only needy children seems to make a basic assumption that un-needy children's parents understand the importance of milk's nutritional value because of their better financial situation. Higher income does not guarantee higher nutrition. I base this statement on my experience in working with school age children in the past 23 years."

Making milk available to as many children as possible is a very modest investment in the health of our people. Who knows it may even help keep down the

costs of medicare, for healthy children have a better chance to become healthy adults.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the present School Milk Program, designed to bring low-cost milk within the pocketbooks of as many schoolchildren as possible, in the right approach.

The very narrow restrictive approach of the Administration plan, which will not even take care of all children from families at the poverty level, is the wrong approach.

SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM VITAL TO DAIRY INDUSTRY

In stressing the importance of the School Milk Program to the health of America's school children, I do not mean to overlook the importance of this legislation to the health of the Nation's indispensable dairy industry.

Milk consumed under the Special Milk Program in fiscal year 1965 represents 1,600,000,000 pounds of milk—about three percent of the total nonfarm consumption of fluid milk in the United States.

So the milk program is of significant importance as a steady market for fresh milk. With rising school enrollment in coming years and with the President's proposal to export more milk and dairy products abroad, the market will be expanding.

Our dairy farmers and milk producers have been so efficient and productive that all of us tend to take for granted the seemingly endless output of milk and dairy products. But recent events show that dairying has become unprofitable to many dairymen, and they are switching to more profitable farming enterprises. It is of paramount necessity to have at all times a thriving dairy industry. S. 2921 will help materially toward that end.

Should the School Milk Program terminate, milk that would have been consumed by children will probably be bought in times of surplus by the Federal Commodity Credit Corporation in the form of manufactured dairy products. This would

entail substantial cost to the Government not only for the product but also for its storage.

I say, "Let's put milk into stomachs, not into storage."

HAWAII SUPPORTS SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM

I would like the record to show that the School Milk, as well as the School Lunch, Programs have wide community support in Hawaii. My mail protesting the President's proposed cuts in these programs has been running exceptionally heavy.

School principals, school teachers, cafeteria officers, food service associations, PTA groups, educational secretaries association, parents and students-all have written urging Congress to reject the Administration plan and provide the necessary funds to continue the School Lunch and School Milk Programs as at present. The Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Hawaii State Food Service Association, wrote me:

"If these cuts are not restored at the Congressional level, it will mean that the State would be called upon to make up what we will lose in Federal subsidy.

"Any chance of getting a bill through our State Legislature to take care of this during the present budget session seems very dim. Consequently, all of the cuts must be made up by the children who buy the lunches at the school cafeterias. "Higher lunch prices would mean lower participation and lower participation would mean higher per capita overhead cost. This will cause a vicious cycle, which will mean the deterioration of the School Lunch Program here in Hawaii, which today is one of the best in the country."

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the State Legislature of Hawaii indicated strong support for the School Milk Program and the School Lunch Program by adopting resolutions this year urging restoration of the President's proposed cuts in these programs. The Maui County Board of Supervisors adopted a similar resolution.

So there is strong support in Hawaii for these programs and there is great concern over the proposed reductions.

CONFIDENT CONGRESS WILL VOTE FUNDS THIS YEAR

I realize this Subcommittee is not an appropriating body. And I also realize that the House of Representatives recently restored the cuts in sending the Agriculture Appropriations bill to the Senate. I am confident the Senate will

also approve the restorations.

through June 30, 1967.

This will take care of funding these programs

Why then is action on S. 2921 needed now?

ACTION ON S. 2921 NEEDED NOW

I am urging action now for two reasons. One, in view of the President's efforts to cut back the School Milk Program and change its approach so drastically, now is the time to express the intent of Congress through the basic authorizing legislation that we want the School Milk Program to continue under its present format and to take care of future growth in school enrollment.

S. 2921 follows the pattern of the existing School Milk law. Further, S. 2921 would make the milk program permanent. In addition, by specifying increased appropriations over the next few years, S. 2921 allows for growth in School Milk Programs as school enrollment rises as it is expected to do. By passing S. 2921 now, the Administration will be put on notice that Congress does not intend the Administration to cut back this Program in its next budget due to be submitted in January 1967.

The second major reason for enactment of S. 2921 is to let school administrators all over the Nation know that the Program will continue. Schools must know well in advance whether they will have to ask their State Legislature for funds to carry on the milk program should it expire June 30. 1967. Most legislatures meet in the early months of each year. Some only biennially. If Congress postpones action on school milk legislation until next year, and if existing legislation expires, this may be too late for action by State Legislatures. Then the added costs would have to be passed along to school children, and I am sure we would then see a sharp decline in milk consumption.

Enactment of S. 2921 is needed this year to keep the School Milk Program running smoothly and avoid disruption and confusion, with all the adverse effects of the children, which that would entail.

Mr. Chairman, on January 12 the President delivered his State of the Union Message to Congress in which he informed us that despite guns for the Viet-Nam War, America could have butter too. Of those who were saying we must sacrifice, he asked, "Are they going to sacrifice the children who seek the learning * * *.” Yet the Administration's Milk bill would do just that.

DON'T SACRIFICE SCHOOL CHILDREN'S MILK

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the costs of the Viet-Nam War should be paid by cutting the heart out of the School Milk Program as this Administration proposes.

I enthusiastically support S. 2921 which will continue the Milk Program on the present basis for millions of school children in America. I strongly urge this Subcommittee to approve it and speed it to the Senate. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to present my views on this vital

measure.

STATEMENT OF HARRY L. GRAHAM, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL GRANGE

The National Grange is pleased to submit this statement supporting S. 2921, introduced by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and co-sponsored by 67 of his colleagues of both political parties.

At its 99th Annual Session in November 1965, the National Grange adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the National Grange encourage every appropriate government agency to purchase dairy products for school lunches, welfare recipients, and other governmental institutions, thus reducing the surplus of dairy products and aiding in stabilization of dairy farmers' income."

The Grange and the rest of the nation were distressed to see the 80 per cent cut in the school milk program in the Administration's USDA budget proposal. We were pleased to see these funds restored by the House and anticipate that the same will take place in the Senate. However, this present program will expire in June 1967. Therefore, we see great merit in the Proxmire bill which will make this program permanent and increase the appropriations.

As was stated in our testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture on April 7, 1966, it is our judgment that the school milk program

is primarily a consumer service and should not properly be charged to agriculture. However, such programs have been under USDA jurisdiction and have served both to stimulate market development programs for milk and also to reduce the reserves of dry milk. Therefore, the Grange vigorously supports them.

Realizing that a healthy nation is a strong nation, we urge your support of this

measure.

Hon. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND,

MADISON, WIS., May 13, 1966.

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

The American School Food Service Association wishes to go on record favoring the passage of S. 2921 known as the "Children's Special Milk Act" sponsored by Senator Proxmire and 67 Senators co-sponsoring. The special milk program is an inexpensive and convenient means for improving the nutritional status of school children. Milk is frequently called nature's most perfect food. Although the special milk program was originally introduced as a surplus removal measure it has proven its worth over the years as a most valuable supplement to the school lunch program in bringing much needed food nutrients to the school children of America. We urge enactment of this measure at the current session of Congress in order to assure uninterrupted continuation of this nutrition service for school children when existing legislation expires on June 30, 1967.

AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION, By GORDON W. GUNDERSON,

Chairman, Legislative Committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of S. 2921 because I believe our school milk program requires stability and permanence. This legislation would provide these essentials by fixing increments to growth needs over a period of years.

The importance of such long-range planning is illustrated by recent proposals to tamper with the funding of this program. There are few activities which have proved themselves more worthwhile than this relatively small Federal assistance provided to the local citizens. Its success is indicated by its growth since its start in 1954 to now when it serves more than 92,000 youngsters. Its practicality is shown by alternatives: It consumes a food commodity of which some, if not all would otherwise go into government surplus to be sold eventually at below cost. Its closeness to the people is shown by the arrangement in which for $103 million a year the government pays three cents per 1⁄2 pint of milk, while the school child pays the remainder, usually from two to three cents. For this investment, the child receives daily the complete food represented by milk. The importance of this arrangement can only be appreciated by noting that because of the warping of tastes through fads and advertisement, many children in our more affluent families receive improper food balances. But much more serious are the many cases of children who come from families where adequate food is not available-children who come to school without breakfast, or children who must go home to sparse or poorly balanced evening meals. Widespread first-hand acquaintance by both parents and by school administrators who are familiar with the service the school milk program provides to youngsters has given it unusual grassroots support. No one in the country, whether from rural or urban areas, whether from a dairy or non-dairy state, has a bad word to say about this program. There are indeed very few government proposals for which

this could be said.

It is, therefore, strange that of all programs this one should be selected for reduction and phasing out. Can present developments be considered otherwise? There is the proposal to reduce the Fiscal 1967 budget by $80 million to a mere $21 million. Since 1965 there have been efforts to tighten and limit expenditures for this program. Recent action by the House in reinstating the $103 million for Fiscal 1967 reflects general repugnance at a move to destroy this program, and I feel the Senate will follow the lead of the House in this protest. Nevertheless, there is the threat.

The basis of this unnatural move is the argument that the money should be used elsewhere. I certainly am not unaware of the unusual demand made on our economy by the war in Viet Nam. Neither am I unsympathetic to the needs of the impoverished segments of our society; in fact I feel this program is a part of these efforts. If the distinction could be made readily between the poor and the not so poor in the classrooms, and if those able to pay could be called to do so without psychic harm to those not able to pay, I would be more sympathetic to this proposal; but this cannot be done with so intimate a thing as providing nourishment within the classroom to the children who need it.

Look at the alternative: It is the "means" test-children who do not have the money would not be required to pay, while those who do would be required to meet the full cost. A determination would be made within the school.

Under this scheme, we would oblige the child publicly to drink in his socio-economic status along with his mid-morning snack. Means test for providing medical care for the aged was found completely repugnant because it destroyed human dignity. Why, now, should this same program be imposed on children?

It is small wonder that school administrators would sooner discontinue the whole milk program rather than subject the child to this humiliation. If money is the item, it should be gotten elsewhere. We spend vast amounts on futuristic programs in science, in exploration-all to find and develop our potential resources. I think these are wise investments. But I must also point out that the child is a natural resource too-the most basic, the most valuable, the most certain natural resource we have. Let's not stint on them.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY M. JACKSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

I am pleased to express my strong support for S. 2921. I believe the bill is important and I believe it is needed. I urge prompt and favorable action so that the special milk program will no longer have to struggle along totally dependent on annual, and sometimes supplemental, appropriations.

Senator Proxmire is to be commended for his persistent efforts emphasizing the need for this legislation. Not only does the special milk program promote the well-being of our children but it also has a salutary effect on the agricultural economy. The special milk program simply encourages children to drink more milk by making it available at a price most children can afford. The program extends beyond schools to summer camps, nursery centers, and other child care institutions.

As the Committee well knows, the House of Representatives recently approved $103 million in the Agriculture Department appropriations bill to continue the special milk program without reduction for the coming fiscal year. But, clearly, that does not remove the need for this bill, which would extend and give permanent authorization for this successful, popular, and immensely useful program. Sometimes we do not fully appreciate the value of a program until the possibility arises of drastically changing or ending it. That is the case with the special milk program. But after the steady flow of letters from children, mothers, and school principals this year, there should be no doubt about the valuable contribution of this Federal program.

I also want to remind the Committee that the existing authority for the special milk program is now scheduled to expire next June. Action will be required next spring if the program is not to end. I think it makes more sense to move forward now, building on the interest in the Congress that now exists, and approve S. 2921. That would remove the need for rush legislation early in the next session. It would also remove an important program from the temporary category by giving it permanent authorization.

As one of 67 co-sponsors of this bill, I am happy to make my views known to the Committee and to recommend quick approval.