Senator HOLLAND. But not to make any substantial change in the requirements for State and local cooperation? Senator PROXMIRE. That is right. Senator HOLLAND. I am very glad of that, because it seems to me that when it comes to schoolchildren we have a special field where we should be grateful for such cooperation, that it should exist and will exist, and that ought to be emphasized in the bill. I am glad that you have that in the bill. Senator PROXMIRE. I respect that view, and I think it makes all the sense in the world. If you are going to have the Federal and the State authorities in this, there ought, certainly, in this area to be that cooperation. The passage of such a proposal could kill the school milk program. It would mean that only 1 million needy children would receive milk under the program. Yet almost 5 million school-age children come from families with incomes of under $2,000 a year according to statistics published by the Office of Education. Apparently the remaining 4 million children would either have to pay the full cost of the milk, receive a full subsidy from local school districts whose finances are already badly pinched, or stop taking milk breaks. I predict that the majority will follow the last-mentioned course. Furthermore, the administration's proposal would require children qualifying as needy to pass a means test. This is disputed by the Department of Agriculture, but I have with me today a number of forms used by local school districts to qualify children for free school lunches. Obviously these same forms would be used under the proposed redirection of the school milk program. I will gladly submit these forms, which cover communities with populations from a few hundred to hundreds of thousands for the subcommittee's records. if it so desires. My conversations with officials of the American School Food Service Association indicate that it would be impossible for the homeroom teacher or school nurse to choose those who were to receive the benefits of the school milk program without grave abuses developing. These are the very administrators who run the program. They certainly are in a better position than the Department of Agriculture to discuss the day-to-day problems of program operation on the local level. These administrators say that many schools would simply abandon the school milk program rather than go through the complicated and discouraging task of discriminating between those who were to receive free milk under the program and those who were to receive no milk under the program. Senator HOLLAND. Is it not true that there are two reasons which make it unwise to have the teacher make that selection? The feeling is that regardless of how wise and how capable the selection might be, it is always subject to the charge of discrimination and partiality. Schoolteachers are invariably charged with partiality by some of the parents, and having been a teacher for several years myself, I know that to be true. This is opening the door wide to that situation, is it not? Senator PROXMIRE. Yes, it does, indeed. Senator HOLLAND. And the second point is, is it not true that in many areas, not perhaps in the country schools and not perhaps in the small towns, but in many areas of the urban population, the schoolteacher does not have any way of knowing Senator PROXMIRE. That is so. Senator HOLLAND (continuing). What the financial situation is in the family? Senator PROXMIRE. In the forms we indicated that in some of the smaller cities they feel that it is necessary, in order to do a responsible and honest job, to have the parents state in writing what their sources of income are, how small their income is or how large their income is, where they get it, who their employer is and all of that kind of thing that has to be detailed in the form. Senator HOLLAND. And these, too, are a real barrier to sound administration of this program, if it were enacted in the form that the Budget sent it over? Senator PROXMIRE. Yes, indeed. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you. Please proceed. Senator PROXMIRE. The administration's proposal would mean that youngsters who did not pass an onerous means test would not receive milk under the program. It would bar the sons and daughters of many proud parents whose children need the benefits of the program, and could qualify to receive free milk, because these parents refuse to undergo a demeaning means test-refuse to have their children classified as needy. Many of these children simply could not afford to pay the extra dollar or two a month the withdrawal of Federal support would cost them. Thus literally millions of children would stop taking nutritious milk breaks the very children who need the milk most and can afford it least. Study after study has indicated that, as the price of milk drops, participation in the milk program increases. Some, such as an Illinois study made a few years ago, indicate that as the price of school milk goes up participation drops off substantially. Thus even in families with moderate incomes, there will be substantial reduction in milk breaks at school. Take, for example, a family of six children whose breadwinner earns $6,000 a year. I cite this example because it is a real one-it springs from a constituent letter. This man works in Milwaukee. Because he is from a metropolitan area his expenses are greater than they would be in a small town. The added cost to this man, if the administration's proposal is passed, of providing milk breaks for his children would be equivalent to a pair of shoes per year per child. Yet he has to keep his children in shoes. He doesn't have to give them money for school milk. It is obvious that these children would no longer receive supplementary milk at school. Passage of my bill which is being cosponsored by 67 of my Senate colleagues would eliminate the cloud of uncertainty that the administration's new proposal-the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 has placed over tens of thousands of school administrators. It would enable them to make their future plans with certainty in the knowledge that the school milk program as we know it today would continue. The House of Representatives, fortunately, has dissipated the confusion to some extent by providing $103 million for the school milk program in the fiscal 1967 Department of Agriculture appropriations bill. I'm sure the Senate will take similar action. That depends, of course, on the judgment of the distinguished chairman of this committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, both of whom have been a great champion of this program. I have found in the past that the prestige and power of the chairman of this subcommittee is likely to be followed. Senator MONDALE. It is a good place to begin. Senator PROXMIRE. Very much so. However, additional legislation is needed. Although the legislation authorizing the school milk program does not expire until June 30, 1967, Congress must act this year to foreclose with any certainty the death of this vital activity. Next year may be too late. The housekeeping functions that consume so much time at the beginning of a new Congress could easily postpone fiscal passage of school milk legislation introduced next year until after the June 30 deadline. The time is now. The place is here. And the purpose is the enrichment of the diets and lives of millions of schoolchildren who have grown and prospered under the overwhelmingly popular school milk program. Senator HOLLAND. I want to ask you this question. Recognizing the importance of acting this year, is it your understanding, as it is mine, that this bill would take effect upon its enactment and that the new program, the mandatory one provided by the bill would supersede for last year of the existing program? Senator PROXMIRE. I think that is true. I think that is the way the bill is drafted at the present time. That is something that the committee might want to consider, but I think that is a proper feature of the bill. I think that we can make a sound case that it should be on that basis. Senator HOLLAND. Have you had a chance-I know that you have been quite limited as to time-to examine the letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, to consider two of the objections that he urges to the bill? Senator PROXMIRE. The objection that he has is as to Guam and Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, that it would not be practical to cover them because of the insufficient supply of local fluid milk being available. This would require study, on our part, frankly. Senator HOLLAND. The present law does not include those outlying areas, does it? Senator PROXMIRE. It does not, to the best of my knowledge. Senator HOLLAND. The chairman is inclined to think that that criticism is soundly based, because it would become a matter of very beavy expense to try to ship fresh milk, say, from Wisconsin or Minnesota, or wherever it was produced, in quantity to these outlying areas and that it would be far more expensive than is envisioned under this bill. Senator PROXMIRE. I think that this is a very helpful suggestion. I would not necessarily agree with it-I would want to study what the costs were, and I think that it is obviously something we have to consider. Senator HOLLAND. In considering this bill we should give some attention to that suggestion, and I would appreciate your supplying the committee, before the record is closed, with your reaction to that, whether it is a sound criticism of the bill. Senator PROXMIRE. As to the second suggestion, I will read the subparagraph: Furthermore, S. 2921 raises some question as to the procedure that would be used in making funds available for reimbursement. It would be wholly impractical to allocate these funds directly to schools and institutions, as indicated, rather than to a State agency as is the current administrative practice. As I indicated in my testimony, this surprised me somewhat. There may be a difference of interpretation as to the intention of the bill. As I indicated to the chairman, it was my view that we should follow the administrative practice that we have pursued in the past, since it has been satisfactory. Senator HOLLAND. In other words, the sponsors of the bill feel that the present practice should be followed in having the State handle the matter? Senator PROXMIRE. That is correct; yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. The chairman again urges that the expression of the Senator is sound in that regard. I did not have a chance to study the bill to determine whether or not the Secretary's interpretation of the bill is sound. I think that matter should be studied further, and if there is good reason for his interpretation, I think the bill should be corrected. Senator PROXMIRE. I would be very grateful if the chairman would permit at the time of supplying the information of these outlying areas, such as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, et cetera, to also indicate that in this case. Senator HOLLAND. I hope that the sponsors of the bill will do that, because it seems to me that those two recommendations have merit, provided the interpretation of the bill by the Secretary of Agriculture is in accord with the terms of the bill. Senator PROXMIRE. Very well. (The information is as follows:) Hon. SPESSARD HOLLAND, U.S. SENATE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices, Senate Agriculture Committee. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am submitting this letter for the hearing record on S. 2921 as a response to the Secretary of Agriculture's suggested changes in the legislation. In his letter to the subcommittee, Secretary Freeman says the bill would "extend the program to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. This would not be practical because of the insufficient supply of fluid milk locally available." I understand that fluid milk is available on the island of Puerto Rico in sufficient quantities to meet any needs for market growth. Apparently there is currently a supply of milk which is surplus to present fresh fluid milk requirements and could be diverted for use in an extension of the special milk program for children in Puerto Rico. This milk is currently being manufactured in a government controlled plant into butter and cheese. I have no information that would lead me to believe that the same situation exists in the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa. I would not object to deleting the extension of the program to these territories as well as Puerto Rico if this is necessary to insure speedy progress on this important legislation. However I felt that the subcommittee should be completely aware of the Puerto Rican situation. The Secretary also says "Furthermore, S. 2921 raises some question as to the procedure that would be used in making funds available for reimbursement. It would be wholly impracticable to allocate these funds directly to schools and institutions as indicated rather than through a State Agency as is the current administrative practice." It was not my intention, in drafting this legislation, to bypass the state agencies, which have done a marvelous job in implementing the special milk program. I simply intended to provide permanent continuity for the program because of its very fine record. There is, however, a provision contained in S. 2921 which authorizes the Secretary to recover funds, which in his opinion will not be spent, for re-allocation among states that can use this additional money. In my estimation it would help the Secretary to carry out Congress' intent that these funds be effectively utilized. I would not object to an amendment to S. 2921 which would make the bill's language more exact on this point. Another possibility which your subcommittee may want to consider is the use of language in any report that may be filed on this legislation to clarify the questions the Secretary has raised. Thank you for giving me a chance to comment on the Secretary's criticisms of S. 2921 as it is presently drafted. Sincerely, WILLIAM PROXMIRE, U.S. Senator. Senator HOLLAND. Do you have any questions? Senator MONDALE. No further questions. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much. Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you. Senator HOLLAND. Senator Mondale is one of the cosponsors of this legislation. He is a member of this committee, and has a statement, and I will yield to him now to introduce that into the record. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER F. MONDALE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Senator MONDALE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to state for the record that I am flatly opposed to the cutbacks in the school milk program. I am wholeheartedly in favor of reducing unnecessary Government expenditures, but the special milk program does not fit in that category. It is a modest investment in the health of the Nation, and no place to begin false economies. The special milk program assures that every school child has an adequate diet and encourages them to drink more milk by making it available at a reduced price. Second, this program has expanded the market for fluid milk for dairy farmers in Minnesota, the second largest dairy State in the country. But the most important factor is, of course, the incalculable health and nutritional benefits derived by the children who participate. This has been a very successful program in Minnesota, and I am sure that is the case in other States. In Minnesota alone, some 740,000 half pints of milk are consumed each day. In 1965, for example, schoolchildren drank a total of 133 million half pints of milk of which more than 64 million were served with noon school lunches. The cutback could mean, based on a rough analysis, that anywhere from 300,000 to 350,000 children would lose the benefits of school milk at a reduced cost. I have received hundreds of letters from concerned parents of schoolchildren and school officials in Minnesota, and very few, if any, letters from those supporting the cutback. The Minnesota Farmers Union, under the guidance of its capable president, Mr. Edwin Christianson, circulated a continuous-roll petition across the State of Minnesota. They had to stop circulating the petition in time to present it to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, but by |