SANTA CLARA, CALIF., May 15 1966. Hon. ALLEN ELLENDER, Our committee, representing more than a quarter of a million members of affiliated farmer, cooperative, consumer, church, and labor organizations and individual members, wholeheartedly supports S. 2921, Proxmire and others including California Senator George Murphy, to put the special milk program on a permanent basis. Please have this telegram made part of the hearing records. Mrs. GRACE MCDONALD, California Farmer Consumer Information Committee. STATEMENT OF HON. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as one of the sponsors of S. 2921, I urge prompt enactment of the "Children's Special Milk Act." I believe it will contribute to the nutrition and health of America's children, and thus to the nation's security. The special milk program we started in 1954 will expire June 30, 1967. We possibly should have made it permanent when we started the program, but then it was untried. It has proved its usefulness and value now, along with the School Lunch program, which already has permanent authorization. Success of the program was immediate. But the budget proposals to cut the Fiscal 1967 milk program for $103 million to $21 million, and to cut the school lunch program from $157 to $138 million have brought howls, appeals and arguments from my state that are extraordinarily. We seem to have here two of the most generally popular programs Congress ever has enacted. Pleas for continuing both programs at or above present levels come from everyone-parents as individuals, parents in P.T.A. groups of 200 or more, teachers, volunteer school lunch aids, paid cooks, school superintendents and principals, dairy farmers, poverty program administrators, lawyers and unemployed. Many urge that anything else can be taken away, but not this. "If we are to cut governmental expenses, let us do it in some area where it will not be detrimental to our youth," a small town man writes, echoing the general position of my correspondents. "Since we are putting so much emphasis on physical fitness," he adds, "it would be a fallacy to cut in any way the milk program which guarantees a child at least a portion of an essential health food. As a taxpayer and father of three boys, there is no other program I would rather have my taxes go for." From a city mother, the story comes in pencil, handwritten: "Please don't forsaek these children in the school rooms the afternoon milk program is a great help *** With a Type A Lunch they get a daily requirement of nutrition witch gives them better grads and helps them grow en to heltherly men and women. A small town school superintendent warns: "In my estimation, this (losing food from government surpluses and reimbursement for the special milk program) would endanger the prospect of offering a hot lunch through school facilities unless a substantial increase was placed on the price." A minister explains that the school lunch and the special milk programs "are a very important part of our town's educational program." A widow who says she is the sole support of three children asks if I am "aware of the great benefit nutrition-wise that these lunches as well as the special milk program provide." Out state school lunch administrators agreed with many other of my unofficial correspondents that the special milk program we are considering today and the lunch program should provide an educational program in food and nutrition available to all children rather than just to poor children. Already, in our state, it is provided in each school's contract that they must provide free or reduced cost meals to needy children as defined by each school s local rules and regulations. Oklahoma officials are so convinced that an increased cost for milk and lunches "must be prevented for the sake of all children and not just the low-income children," that they are now making a food survey of 10,000 children. Spot checks have indicated that the children from high-income homes need more help in eating "nutritionally" than low income children do. One woman wrote me that she had worked in school programs for 25 years and had "seen many little weak children develop into strong robust children because of that one well-balanced, nourishing meal each school day.' "Rising costs are already straining the special milk and school lunch programs,' another superintendent writes. "Reduced reimbursement will force us to increase lunch and milk charges which will force the people who are paying for lunches to discontinue using the lunch program. Reduced participatlon will cause a reduced lunch program or force us to close it out altogether," he wrote. Most of my letters, however, were not as detailed as these I have quoted. They say, as one cafeteria manager put it: "Please help us keep our milk program for public schools as it is now for our our boys and girls." I share with my many correspondents the feeling that our present system of making milk available is a good one. I believe we made a wise decision when we made the special milk available, not only to schools of high school grade and under, but to non-profit summer camps, nursery centers and other child-care centers. I believe that this bill's provision for authorizing not less than $110 million for 1967, $115 million for 1968 and $120 million for 1969 and succeeding fiscal years is wise. We must be sure that the milk program accomplishes its purpose, even with a growing population. I hope the subcommittee will approve the bill and that it will pass the Congress and be signed into law. I thank the committee. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I wish to thank you for providing me with this opportunity to appear here before you in support of S. 2921, a bill to provide a special milk program for children. This legislation is badly needed to replace the present act which expires July 1, 1967, and to place the school milk program on a permanent basis. The slight increase in funds for the program over the next few years, as called for in the bill, would just barely take care of the increased number of school children. The American people consider it one of the finest programs in operations to better develop and strengthen the potential of our youth. Last year the milk program reached some 16 million youths who consumed over three billion half pints of milk. In New Mexico over 115,000 school children participated. Most of these children come from low-income families and as a result have improper diets and, therefore, in many instances the milk they receive at school is all they get during the day. The school milk program, however, should continue to be made available for all children and not restricted to those who are not considered able to pay. It would be extremely repugnant and embarrasing for a small child to submit proof that his family was too poor to pay for his school milk. School administrators would be confronted with the problem of snooping into each family's financial status. Congress has made great strides recently in getting rid of discrimination, let's not be a party to creating it. As it properly should, this bill will provide milk for all children regardless of economic background. Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly that the amount requested in this bill is essential to the future success of the school milk program and should be approved by this subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement and request that it be made a part of the hearing record. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. GAYLORD NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony on S. 2921, which would make the School Milk Program permanent and increase the authorization annually to meet the needs of expanding school enrollments. This excellent program was adopted by the Congress in 1954 to increase consumption of dairy products and to improve the diets of children. It is apparent from the reaction to a proposal to cut it back by $80 million that it is a sound and popular program that is fulfilling these objectives. The Congress, in my judgment, should not put itself in the position of having to wage an annual fight to maintain this program. This bill, which I am pleased to co-sponsor, would make that unnecessary. The urgent need to act now on S. 2921 is clearly shown by the attempt to abruptly cut the Federal support for the coming fiscal year. The proposal would cut the support from the $99.4 million required in the current fiscal year to $20.4 million in fiscal 1967. This program has had, and has deserved, strong and consistent support in the Congress since it started. The support this year, both in the Congress and from the general public, appears to be stronger than ever before. The Agriculture Department has noted recently that it is sound policy for the Federal government to participate in the cost of milk for children who do not have access to a school milk program or who are unable to pay for milk at school. I agree. But I do not agree that this should be done at the expense of a 12-year-old program that has wide acceptance and support. I do not agree with the position that it no longer is sound to make it possible for all children to obtain milk for a few cents per half-pint in all our schools. We support physical fitness in our young people as a highly desirable national objective and have little hesitation in investing in it at all levels of government. We support good health and nutritional habits in our young people and our school milk and school lunch programs are major parts of the Federal-State-Local investment in this objective. This program, which makes milk available at a few cents a carton, builds the habit of drinking milk at the same time it helps provide school children with an adequate diet. It is clearly an investment in the health of this county that we should support and expand in line with the purposes of this bill. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. PEARSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. Chairman, we have, through S. 2921, the opportunity to provide a great service to the youth of America. This may sound a little lofty to some, but it is something I sincerely believe. Through establishment of a special milk program for children, on a regular and permanent basis, we are helping to provide sounder nourishment for millions of young Americans. No doubt all of us have received many letters from people concerned about the possible loss of the school milk program. School officials, health officials and interested citizens are seeking assurances the program will be retained. At the same time we must remember the majority of those for whom the benefit is the greatest, the children, must rely on us to act according to their best interests. For the economically depressed child, this program has been a keystone in providing a nutritionally balanced meal-in some cases the only balanced and hot meal the child receives during a day. But let us not be blind to the fact that many other children, who may have the money in their pocket to buy the milk, will often first seek candy or soft drinks instead of the milk. This program has given them the milk, assuring them of some assistance in better dietary habits. There has been some indication the program costs too much, that budget cuts must be made, spending reduced. This is a principle with which few can disagree. However, when this special milk program is assessed on the basis of value received for money spent, there can be no doubt of its tremendous importance, and fiscal justification demonstrating the false economy in such a cutback. Then too we might remember what it would cost states individually to maintain a special milk program for children. For instance, the Administration has proposed to reduce the allocation for the milk program in my State of Kansas by nearly 1-million dollars-which means the state would have to collect about 1-million more dollars in taxes to keep the program going, or else drop the program. It seems to me that the only proper course for us to follow is that prescribed in S. 2921-and I strongly urge the committee's approval of this bill for the welfare of young Americans. I wish to insert in the record, as part of my testimony, a sampling of letters from interested Kansans in support of a sustained special milk program for children. (The letters referred to follow:) Hon. JAMES B. PEARSON, MARCH 29, 1966. DEAR MR. PEARSON: As one very much interested in the welfare of the School Lunch Program, I wish to express to you my objection to the administration's budget recommendations for the 1966-67 school year. I would like to support the reinstatement of the $103,000,000 for cash reimbursement to schools under the Special Milk Program. The $21,000,000 proposed in the new budget would virtually wipe out the Special Milk Program which is playing such an important role in the nutrition of children in the elementary grades and kindergarten. Reducing the appropriation for this program by $82,000,000 would also mean that the program could not be extended to child care centers, nursery schools, summer camps, Head Start projects, and others. This money is certainly well spent. I know what I am talking about because I was associated with a small school in rural Salina before and after special milk was made available to the children. Also, let's not allow the proposed cuts to be made in the funds for Milk Reimbursement (cut of $9,175,000) and Commodity Procurement and Distribution (cut of $14,325,000) in connection with the School Lunch Program. If there is a rise in the price of school lunches, there is bound to be a decrease in participation among the very children who need this program most. I hardly think the increase of $4,500,000 in the Special Assistance to Needy Districts will benefit enough children to offset the withdrawal of the funds from the regular programs. It has been my experience that the children who might need special assistance most would not be benefitted. Instead they would be deprived because their parents would be too proud to accept a special or free rate and would send a cold, inadequate lunch for the child to eat at noon because they could not afford the higher price. The democratic way would be to keep the lunches at the present low price level for all. This permits even those in very modest circumstances to afford them and feel that they are paying their way and not accepting charity. I believe this kind of a feeling and atmosphere about the school lunches is very important to the children and their parents. Thanking you for your consideration of this matter, I am Yours very truly, Mrs. A. T. LEACH, President, Saline-Dickinson County School Food Service Association. Hon. JAMES B. PEARSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR JIM: I am writing to express concern relative to the President's proposal in connection with the 1966-67 budget recommendations that the Special Milk Program, as it has operated since 1954, would be virtually "dead". Also, according to his proposals, there would be a significant reduction in appropriations for the School Lunch Programs that would in essence require an increase in the price of lunches in local school districts. It is difficult for me to understand the President's reason for this curtailment, because it seems to be completely inconsistent with his overall policy of assisting schools in doing those things which are of particular importance in maintaining the health and education level of the young children and youth of our Nation. It would be my hope that the Congress would not cut back on the appropriations for the School Lunch Program and that it be allowed to continue much as it has in the past and that new programs might be started in schools which do not presently provide this service. I am also concerned with the President's proposal that the Public Law 874 Funds be reduced and some schools be cut off entirely from such funds, when the load they would carry for Federal Aid Impacted Students would be equally great or greater than it is at the present time. There was ample justification for the passage of Public Law 874 when it was initiated. The reason is equally valid today as it was at that time, since at least 65% of the cost of schools in Kansas is still carried by the property tax. The presence of substantial numbers of students in a school district because of Federal Installations throws an excessive load on the taxpayers of that community. Certainly, it is only proper and fair that the Federal Government pay the equivalent of the tax funds that would be forthcoming to the school district if the government installation were on the tax rolls. Your interest and attention to these proposals to reduce Federal Appropriations for both of these programs will be sincerely appreciated by many of the school administrators in Kansas. Cordially yours, CARL S. KNOX, Ed. D., SOLOMON, KANS., April 4, 1966. DEAR SIR: This letter is to enlist your support in defeating the cut in agricultural funds for the School Lunch Program as recommended by President Johnson. While I am in accord with the war effort in Viet Nam, I do not believe it is in the best interests of our country to sacrifice the health of our school children to finance it. The only aim of the School Lunch Program is nutritionally sound lunches for America's school children, many of whom receive only this one adequate meal each day. This purpose will be greatly endangered by this cut in funds. I earnestly seek your support in defeating what I believe to be an unwise and false economy on the part of the Administration. Sincerely, Senator JAMES PEARSON, Mrs. RAYMOND VEAL. WICHITA KANS., March 28, 1966. DEAR SIR: "Lets feed our own children!"-By their heritage, they should be fed first, through these low-cost school lunches, before we give it away to some 50 odd countries. Mrs. J. HIPP. MARCH 10, 1966. Hon. JAMES PEARSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR PEARSON: I am writing you in regards to the President's budget message concerning school lunch programs. But if the We feel the reduction in appropriation for the School Lunch Program and measures which virtually kill the Special Milk Program is not right. We know such measures would have drastic effect on our school lunch program. Our school lunch program is operating at a very reasonable cost. appropriation is cut, our cost will soar and children who need a hot lunch will be unable to afford the raise in cost of a school lunch. We would appreciate whatever help you can give us in this matter. Want you to know we certainly appreciate your support of education in the past and know you'll continue to work for the best interest of the children of Kansas. Very truly yours, CHARLES A. GIBSON, Superintendent, Burlington Public Schools. STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN E. STALBAUM, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Nothing during this, my first term in Congress, has evidenced as wide-spread support as the School Milk Program. For several weeks, speeches appeared almost daily in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by Congressmen from urban as well as rural districts, strongly supporting the School Milk Program. In 1965 nearly three billion half pints of milk were consumed under the School Milk Program in approximately 92,000 schools and child care institutions. Seventy thousand of these units also had a School Lunch Program and consumed about an equivalent amount of milk, that is, three billion half pints. On February 18, Mr. S. R. Smith, Administrator of the Consumer and Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture, was questioned by me on the cut in consumption of milk if we were to pass the Child Nutrition Act. The following is taken from the transcript of our exchange: "Mr. SMITH. They estimate that on a $21 million budget, we would have about a third falloff in the consumption of milk under the school milk program. |