The effect of it all, I'm afraid, is that the Department of Agriculture is turning its back on the overwhelming weight of studies across the country and around the world that have documented unquestionably the strong relationship between adequate nutrition and the desire and ability to learn. There are an estimated ten million hungry people in the United States today, despite all our affluence, and study after study links malnutrition with anemia, brain retardation, and stunted physical growth among children. And even if the hungry child is lucky enough to escape these kinds of crippling problems, his ability to learn is severely diminished even before he walks into a school. To quote just one Philadelphia school teacher: "Kids would come to school without eating. They'd go home for lunch and not be fed. After this non-lunch, they were completely lost, without energy, lethargic, virtually uneducable. Some of them were in so much pain that they were tempted to go to sleep. I was so depressed by the situation that I told the Board I wouldn't teach in a school where the children weren't given lunch." Gentlemen, I think that one quote ties it all together more eloquently than I ever could. It says that kids can't learn when their bellies hurt. It says that kids in the ghetto have a tough enough time learning without having to fight hunger pains, too. It says that the Nation's teachers recognize only too well what the Department of Agriculture would like to forget. To what the classroom teacher says, the Philadelphia Inquirer adds in an editorial, and I quote: "Now, budgetary discipline is all very well, but what about the discipline of an empty stomach? The department looks at the school lunch program and sees dollar signs. Why can't it see hungry children?" Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the very same question, and I challenge the Agriculture Department to come up with an answer. Thank you. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Congressman ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Education Subcommittee, House Education and Labor Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI: I am writing to indicate my deep concern for the future of the National School Lunch Program. It is my understanding that you will be holding hearings during the week of October 4 in the General Subcommittee on Education on H.J. Resolution 889. I would like to submit the attached information as an indication of the degree of concern and hardship which the present funding will create for the schools of New Mexico. Thank you very much for your consideration of this very serious threat to the health and well-being of the needy children of our nation. Sincerely yours, (Mrs.) GRETCHEN Y. PLAGGE, Director, School Food Services Division. PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. GRETCHEN Y. PLAGGE, DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF NEW MEXICO I am Mrs. Gretchen Y. Plagge, Director of School Food Services, Department of Education, State of New Mexico. I sent a letter on September 1, 1971, to 22 representative districts of New Mexico asking specific questions of superintendents as to the outlook for the current school year in light of present funding regulations. As of September 10, we received 15 responses. The statistics given here will give an indication of the scope of the problem for the State of New Mexico. The 15 schools who responded to this request are: Albuquerque. Belen, Bernalillo, Carlsbad, Shiprock, Clovis, Grants, Gallup, Las Cruces, West Las Vegas, Lovington, Penasco. Santa Fe. Socorro and Springer. These 15 districts represent a broad cross section as to size, number of needy children, geographical location, and particiaption in the program. This represents about 12 percent of the total number of participation districts (public and non-public) in New Mexico. The following questions were asked and the answers represent the totals for these 15 districts: 1. Q. How many school lunches do you estimate will be served this year? A. In the 15 districts, 17,556,000 meals will be served. 2. Q. How many needy children will be served this year compared to last year? A. An estimated 47,490 needy children will be served this year in these districts. This represents an increase of 9,243 children over last year. The primary reason for this increase is because of the liberalized guidelines issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. In addition, some increase should be due to the fact that the program has been in operation for one year and increased publicity would bring in more applications. 3. Q. How much do you estimate total reimbursements will be decreased this year under the proposed funding compared to last year's total? A. In these 15 districts a total decrease in funding will come to $610,000. 4. Q. Using May prices for food, what do you estimate each lunch will cost this year? A. An average food cost for the 15 districts is $.45 for the current school year. 5. Q. How long do you estimate the district can continue the lunch program under the proposed funding? A. Most of the 15 districts indicated that they could operate the program until December or January of the current school year. One district indicated that they thought they could "barely" complete the current school year, without any funds left with which to open the operation a year from this fall. The earliest termination dates given were December of 1971. These dates were given by Albuquerque and Santa Fe. 6. Q. If the lunch program ceases, where would the children eat or would they have lunch? A. The districts answered that the large number of needy children in their district would probably go without any lunch at all. They also said that provision of snack bars and a la carte service would provide some food service for those who could afford to buy. Most of the districts indicated that long bussing distances would make even the sack lunch impractical because of the long period which the lunch would have to sit in an unrefrigerated area before the noon hour period. 7. Q. If the lunch program ceases, how many employees would be affected? A. In the 15 districts responding, there are 1,427 employees who would face unemployment and possibly return to welfare assistance in some form. 8. Q. If the lunch program ceases how will this affect the economy of your community? A. The 15 districts answering this inquiry stated that the annual input into the local communities would amount to $7,076,543. This money then would be taken out of the community economies and would cause a severe threat to the stability of many businesses now depending upon this income. Many further observations and conclusions could be drawn from the additional information provided by superintendents in their letters; however, the statistics given should indicate the gravity of this current situation. It is obvious from the information given that school districts cannot possibly meet the $.45 food cost with a $.06 reimbursement from Section 4 and $.30 reimbursement from Section 11 and 32 monies. I hope this information will be of assistance to you in considering further action to appeal for reconsideration of funding plans for the 1971-72 school year. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., October 1, 1971. Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write in support of your proposal, H.J. Res. 889, which is designed to assure that every needy school child receive a free or reduced-price lunch as required by section 9 of the National School Lunch Act. The Department of Agriculture's new regulations, proposed August 13, governing the national school lunch program, endanger Maryland's ability to meet the school lunch needs of its needy children. The all too likely consequence of these new regulations is that thousands of needy children in Maryland may go hungry despite Federal and State promises that they would have at least one good meal per day. There can be little doubt of the need for your proposal. The August 13 regulations provide for the apportionment of funds available in 1972 for general and special cash assistance for school lunches in such a manner that each State would receive approximately 5 cents in general assistance for each lunch served and 30 additional cents in special assistance for each free or reduced-price lunch served. The combined 35¢ total for free and reduced-price lunches is less than many schools were receiving at the end of the last school year. The national average cost per school lunch is estimated at 52.6 cents per meal, and I would note that in Baltimore the average cost per lunch is greater. Given the cost of producing these lunches, a reimbursement rate of 30 cents under section 11 for each free and reduced-price lunch is simply not adequate to assure that all needy children receive free or reduced-price lunches. The 40 cent figure proposed in your bill would certainly more nearly attain this goal. Your proposal would also make it clear that Congress expects the funds provided in the resolution to be apportioned in that manner which will best enable schools to provide lunches to needy children and not in accordance with the section 11 formula. It would also require the funds to be apportioned and paid out as expeditiously as possible. Finally it would require the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress on the need for additional funds for the fiscal 1972 school breakfast and non-food assistance programs. Through your previous leadership, Congress has made an effort to provide an effective school lunch program capable of feeding every needy child. Due to increases in the size of the program, among other things, the funds available for fiscal 1972 are inadequate to provide sufficient reimbursement per meal to assure the program's continuation. This inadequacy has resulted despite the fact that Congress appropriated $33.8 million more than the Administration requested. Emergency action is now clearly needed. H.J. Res. 889 would provide that action by drawing upon section 32 funds until the Appropriations Committee can begin work on a supplemental appropriation. A precedent for this kind of approach was established this summer when Congress enacted H.R. 5257, which also provided for the use of section 32 funds for free and reduced-price lunches. Mr. Chairman, in May of last year, 349,010 children were participating in Maryland's school lunch program. The State served 14,533,800 free and reducedprice lunches. Today Maryland is serving 97,000 free and reduced-price lunches per day and the Maryland Food Committee predicts that that number could go far beyond 125,000 lunches per day. These thousands of needy Maryland children received a promise from the State and Federal Government that they would receive at least one nourishing meal per day. Your bill will make it possible for the Federal and State governments to keep their promise. I therefore strongly support your resolution and am anxious to cooperate with you in securing passage of this proposal by the House of Representatives. With best regards, Sincerely, PAUL S. SARBANES, Member of Congress. WELLSVILLE CITY SCHOOLS, Wellsville, Ohio, October 7, 1971. Hon. ROMAN PUCINSKI, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am writing in regards to bill H.J. Res. 889, which was recently passed by the Senate. This additional reimbursement for milk and needy lunches is needed very much to support our cafeteria program. The additional revenue in equipment assistance should be approved. The Wellsville City Schools, at the present time, are building two new elementary buildings with new cafeterias. We were told that we would get federal assistance for equipment, but due to the fact that the equipment assistance was cut, it will be impossible to furnish these cafeterias. Your support in the passage of this measure will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, DONALD LOWE, Superintendent of Schools. Congressman ROMAN PUCINSKI, WAHCONAH REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: We would like to persuade you and your sub-committee to act favorably on House Resolution 889 which calls for a reservation of proposed restricted regulation governing the appropriation of the National School Lunch Child Nutrition Program, and which would also provide additional monies for the purchasing of needed equipment for schools not now participating in the program. Congressman ROMAN PUCINSKI, JAMES T. O'CONNER, MARBLEHEAD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Marblehead, Mass., October, 7, 1971. Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, DEAR MR. PUCINSKI: I am writing to urge you and your committee to act favorably on House Bill 889, which calls for a revision of present restricted regulations governing National School Lunch Programs which also provide for additional monies for the purchase of needed equipment for schools now not participating in the program. The proper nutirition of children is essential to their education and well being ROBERT FILBIN, Superintendent of Schools Hon. ROMAN PUCINSKI, MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF PTA's, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, DEAR CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI: The Minneapolis Council of PTA's being an organization primarily concerned with the welfare of children is concerned about the possible additional changes in the USDA guidelines for federal support of the school lunch programs. We are deeply concerned that the proposed eligibility changes in the regulations will eliminate many children, particularly AFDC children, from the free and reduced lunch program. That would mean approximately 15,000 children in Minneapolis alone would be affected by the change. We recognize the need of adequate nutrition in a child's physical and mental development. The proposed regulations in the USDA's guidelines would be an additional financial burden to the Minneapolis Public Schools by making up a deficit based on last year's participation and reimbursement in the school lunch program. Sincerely yours, Mrs. LAWRENCE DAVIS, Legislation Cochairman. WAHCONAH REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, Congressman ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee of Education, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: We would like to persuade you and your sub-committee to act favorably on House Resolution 889 which calls for a reservation of proposed restricted regulation governing the appropriation of the National School Lunch Child Nutrition Program, and which would also provide additional monies for the purchasing of needed equipment for schools not now participating in the program. JAMES F. FARMER, Business Manager. WELLSVILIE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Hon. ROMAN PUCINSKI, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PUCINSKI: I am writing in regards to HJR889 which contains a measure to increase the School Lunch Reimbursement from the present .04 (four) to .06 (six) cents. Also, it is my understanding that Section II increases the "needy" reimbursement from .30 (thirty) to .40 (forty) cents. In a time when costs are rising our reimbursement for the lunch program has been decreasing. Last year, for instance, we were paid .34 cents from the State for each needy lunch served. This school year we are being reimbursed .30 cents for needy lunches served in our High School and 15 cents for needy lunches served in our Elementary School. Need I say that with rising food costs and increased labor costs that we need more money to operate and not less. Any help that you can give us in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, KEITH E. NIXON, Clerk-Treasurer. MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS, INC., Congressman ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, DEAR CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI: The changes in the federal support of school lunch programs has been very disturbing to the Minneapolis Council of P.T.A. Associations, Inc. Since September 2, 1971, each school has had to change their regulations in collection of monies for the hot lunch programs twice. Now we understand a possible third change in the regulations is being considered. Each additional change has cost money in sending out information to parents about the new changes, not to mention the clerical time involved. By increasing the eligibility limit to $4200, many Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in our target area schools will still be forced to pay the full amount or be forced to send "potato chips and candy bar" lunches with their children. Just when the Minneapolis Public Schools are succeeding in their plans of providing a hot meal each noon hour for every child in Minneapolis, changes take effect which push the providing plans backward, instead of forward. It seems like help for other areas in the nation are taking effect, but our children are the last ones to receive it. Why is this so? Please, Congressman Pucinski, help the Minneapolis administrators move forward in providing the children in our schools with "hot lunches". Sincerely, Mrs. WILLIAM MCCABE, President. Corresponding Secretary. Mr. ROMAN PUCINSKI, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., October 9, 1971. Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PUCINSKI: I am writing to you because I am deeply concerned about the consequences of the additional proposed U.S.D.A. regulations. As a parent of six children and a member of the Minneapolis School Lunch Committee, I am aware of the need and value of the hot lunch program for school students. The schools, citizens and the committee members have worked diligently to bring the hot lunch program to as many of the elementary schools requesting the program as the restricted school budget would allow. They developed innovations and shared ideas in setting up a successful lunch program in old and outdated school buildings. The community and parents actively assist in implementing the lunch program on a daily basis. |