October 18, 1971Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that so

much misinformation has been circulatedconcerning this legislation. During thedebate, I tried and tried to get the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) toyield to me for a brief question on hisstatistics, and he made it abundantlyclear that he did not desire to recognizeI was on my feet to try and clarify therather misleading statistics emanatingfrom his office. Just to give one brief ex-ample: A letter circulated from Mr.ERLENBORN dated October 14, 1971, statedunequivocally:

I do want to remind you, however, thatH.R. 9212 carries a price tag or more than $1.2billion.

Then on October 15, 1971, came a sub-sequent letter from Mr. ERLENBORN whichincluded a letter to him from the Com-missioner of Social Security, Robert M.Ball. Mr. Ball's letter discusses both H.R.9212 and H.R. 5702, despite the fact thatH.R. 5702 is not being considered on theHouse floor. Mr. Ball then states:

Taken together, these two measures alonecould add as much as $300 million per yearto the total cost of the black lung program.

How can the gentleman from Illinoiscontend the price tag of HR. 9212 is $1.2billion, when the Social Security Com-missioner himself says that both H.R.9212 plus H.R. 5702 "could" add "asmuch as $300 million per year"?

It is difficult to follow either the logicor arithmetic of this argument. In anyevent, justice and humanity dictates thatH.R. 9212 should be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed writing up thisargument almost as much as I wouldhave appreciated the chance to deliver itpersonally. It is refreshing to contem-plate the fact that coal miners as a classare far above average in their ability torecognize sham or pretense. I know Ican rely on their respect for candor tocounterbalance their disappointment inthe fact that I did not speak this piece.

The SPEAKER. The question is on themotion offered by the gentleman fromKentucky (Mr. PERKINS) that the Housesuspend the rules and pass the bill H.R.9212, as amended.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, onthat I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The question was taken; and there

were-yeas 227, nays 124, not voting 78,as follows:

[Roll No. 302]

AbzugAdamsAddabboAlexanderAnderson,

Calif.Anderson,

Tenn.Andrews, Ala.Andrews,

N. Dak.AnnunzioAspinAspinallBakerBarrettBegichBennettBevillBiaggiBiesterBlnghamBlanton

YEAS-227BoggsBolandBoilingBrademasBrascoBrayBrinkleyBrooksBroomfleldBrown, OhioBroyhill Va.BuchananBurke, Fla.Burke, Mass.Burlison, Mo.BurtonByrne, Pa.ByronCabellCarey, N.Y.CarneyCasey, Tex.Celler

ChisholmClancyClarkClausen,

Don H.ClayCollins, Ill.CormanCoughlinDaniels, N.J.Davis, Ga.DellumsDenholmDentDingellDonohueDornDrinanDulskiDuncanDwyerEdmondsonEdwards, Calif.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSEEilberg KyrosEshleman LandrumEvans, Colo. LattaEvins, Tenn. LeggettFascell LinkFindley Long, Md.Flood LujanFlowers McCormackFoley McCullochFord, McDade

William D. McDonald,Fraser Mich.Fulton, Tenn. McFallGallagher McKayGarmatz McMillanGaydos Macdonald,Gettys Mass.Giaimo MaddenGibbons MahonGonzalez MailliardGrasso MatsunagaGray MazzoliGreen, Oreg. MeedsGreen, Pa. MelcherGriffiths MetcalfeGude MikvaHamilton Miller, OhioHammer- Minish

schmidt MinkHanley MollohanHansen, Wash. MonaganHarrington MoorheadHarsha MorganHarvey MosherHathaway MossHays Murphy, Ill.Hechler, W. Va. MyersHelstoski NatcherHicks, Wash. NedziHogan NicholsHolifleld NixHoward O'HaraHull O'KonskiHungate PattenHunt PepperJacobs PerkinsJohnson, Calif. PickleJohnson, Pa. PikeJones, Ala. PodellJones, Tenn. Preyer, N.C.Karth Price, Il.Kastenmeier Pryor, Ark.Kazen PucinskiKee PurcellKluczynski QuillenKoch Randall

NAYS-124Abernethy FrenzelAnderson, Ill. FreyArcher GoldwaterArends GoodlingAshbrook GriffinBelcher GrossBell GroverBetts HaleyBlackburn HallBow Hansen, IdahoBrotzman HastingsBrown, Mich. HebertBurleson, Tex. Heckler, Mass.Cafery HendersonCamp HortonCederberg HosmerChamberlain HutchinsonChappell JarmanClawson, Del JonasCleveland Jones, N.C.Collier KeatingCollins, Tex. KeithColmer KempConable KingConte KylDaniel, Va. LennonDavis, Wis. LloydDellenback McCloryDennis McClureDevine McCollisterDickinson McKevittDowdy MartinDowning Mathias, Calif.du Pont MichelEdwards, Ala. MinshallErlenborn MizellEsch MorseFish NelsenFisher PassmanFord, Gerald R. PellyForsythe PettisFountain Peyser

RangelReesReid. N.Y.ReussRiegleRodinoRoeRogersRoncalioRooney, N.Y.Rooney, Pa.RosenthalRostenkowskiRoushRoyRuppeRyanSt GermainSarbanesSaylorSchneebeliSchwengelSeiberlingShipleySiskSkubitzSlackSmith, IowaSnyderStanton,

James V.SteedStokesStrattonStubblefieldSullivanTiernanUdallVanikVigoritoWaldieWamplerWareWhalenWhalleyWhiteWidnallWilliamsWilson,

Charles H.WrightYatesYatronYoung, Tex.ZionZwach

PirniePoffPowellQuieRarickRobertsRobinson, Va.Robison, N.Y.RunnelsRuthSatterfleldScherleSchmitzScottSebeliusShoupShriverSikesSmith, Calif.Smith, N.Y.SpenceSpringerStanton,

J. WilliamSteiger, Ariz.Steiger, Wis.TalcottTaylorTeague, Tex.TerryThompson, Ga.Thomson, Wis.ThoneVeyseyWaggonnerWhitehurstWigginsWinnWylieWymanYoung, Fla.

NOT VOTING-78Abbitt Badillo BlatnikAbourezk Baring Broyhbll, N.C.Ashley Bergland Byrnes, Wis.

CarterConyersCotterCraneCulverDanielsonDavis, S.C.de la GarzaDelaneyDerwinskiDiggsDowEckhardtEdwards, La.FlyntFrelinghuysenFuquaGalifianakisGubserHaganHalpernHannaHawkins

Hicks, Mass.HillsIchordKuykendallLandgrebeLentLong, La.McCloskeyMcEwenMcKlnneyMannMathis, Ga.MayneMiller, Calif.Mills, Ark.Mills, Md.MitchellMontgomeryMurphy, N.Y.ObeyO'NeillPatmanPoage

36507Price, Tex.RailsbackRhodesRousselotRoybalSandmanScheuerStaggersSteeleStephensStuckeySymingtonTeague, Calif.Thompson, N.J.UllmanVan DeerlinVander JagtWhittenWilson, BobWolffWyattWydlerZablocki

So (two-thirds not having voted infavor thereof) the motion was rejected.

The Clerk announced the followingpairs:

Mr. O'Neill with Mr. Rhodes.Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.

Frelinghuysen.Mr. Staggers with Mr. Broyhill of North

Carolina.Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Carter.Mr. Miller of California with Mr. Bob

Wilson.Mr. Hanna with Mr. Crane.Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Gubser.Mr. Wolff with Mr. Halpern.Mr. Bergland with Mr. Derwinski.Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Hillis.Mr. Zablocki with Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin.Mr. Mathis of Georgia with Mr. Kuykendall.Mr. Mann with Mr. Landgrebe.Mr. Conyers with Mr. Murphy of New York.Mr. Hawkins with Mrs. Hicks of Massa-

chusetts.Mr. Diggs with Mr. Dow.Mr. Mitchell with Mr. Scheuer.Mr. Ashley with Mr. Lent.Mr. Abourezk with Mr. McCloskey.Mr. Stephens with Mr. Mayne.Mr. Culver with Mr. Steele.Mr. Danielson with Mr. Wydler.Mr. Davis of South Carolina with Mr.

Wyatt.Mr. Galifianakis with Mr. Teague of Cali-

fornia.Mr. Fuqua with Mr. McEwen.Mr. Mills of Arkansas with Mr. Sandman.Mr. Montgomery with Mr. McKinney.Mr. Ichord with Mr. Price of Texas.Mr. Cotter with Mr. Mills of Maryland.Mr. Delaney with Mr. Railsback.Mr. Flynt with Mr. Rousselot.Mr. Baring with Mr. Vander Jagt.Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Hagan.Mr. Roybal with Mr. Badillo.Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Symington.Mr. Ullman with Mr. Whitten.Mr. Eckhardt with Mr. Edwards of Lou-

isiana.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

GENERAL LEAVEMr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Membersmay have 3 legislative days during whichto extend their remarks on the bill H.R.9212.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman from Illi-nois?

There was no objection.

SCHOOL LUNCH AND BREAKFASTPROGRAMS FOR NEEDY CHILDREN

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I move tosuspend the rules and pass the joint res-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE October 18, 1971olution (H.J. Res. 923) to assure thatevery needy schoolchild will receive a freeor reduced price lunch as required by sec-tion 9 of the National School Lunch Act,as amended.

The Clerk read as follows:H.J. BaRES. 923

Whereas it appears that under the pro-posed apportionment of funds available forspecial assistance under section 11 of the Na-tional School Lunch Act for the fiscal yearending June 30, 1972 (including funds ap-propriated by section 32 of the Act of August24, 1935, and made available for that pur-pose), only six States will receive more than30 cents in such assistance per free or reducedprice lunch; and

Whereas it appears that this amount perlunch is not adequate to enable States andschools to continue to participate in theschool lunch program and to achieve the ob-jectives of the National School Lunch Act,particularly that of providing a free or re-duced price lunch to every needy child:Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled, That, notwithstand-ing any other provision of law, the Secretaryof Agriculture shall until such time as asupplemental appropriation may provide ad-ditional funds for such purpose use so muchof the funds appropriated by section 32 of theAct of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), asmay be necessary, in addition to the fundsnow available therefor, to carry out the pur-poses of section 11 of the National SchoolLunch Act and provide a rate of reimburse-ment which will assure every needy child offree or reduced price lunches during thefiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and to carryout the purposes of section 4 of the NationalSchool Lunch Act and provide an averagerate of reimbursement of 6 cents per mealwithin each State. In determining theamount of funds needed and the require-ments of the various States therefor, theSecretary shall consult with the NationalAdvisory Council on Child Nutrition and in-terested parties. Funds expended under theforegoing provisions of this resolution shallbe reimbursed out of any supplemental ap-propriation hereafter enacted for the purposeof carrying out section 4 and section 11 of theNational School Lunch Act, and such reim-bursements shall be deposited into the fundestablished pursuant to section 32 of the Actof August 24, 1935, to be available for thepurposes of said section 32.

SEc. 2. Funds made available by this jointresolution shall be apportioned to the Statesin such manner as will best enable schools tomeet their obligations with respect to theservice of free and reduced price lunches andto meet the objective of this joint resolutionwith respect to providing a minimum rate ofreimbursement under section 4 of the Na-tional School Lunch Act, and such funds shallbe apportioned and paid as expeditiously asmay be practicable.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture shallimmediately upon enactment of this resolu-tion determine and report to Congress theneeds for additional funds to carry out theschool breakfast and nonfood assistance pro-grams authorized by sections 4 and 5 of theChild Nutrition Act of 1966 during the fiscalyear ending June 30, 1972, at levels whichwill permit expansion of the school breakfastand school lunch programs to all schools de-siring such programs as rapidly as practicable.

SEC. 4. Section 11(e) of the National SchoolLunch Act is amended by inserting the fol-lowing immediately after "the full cost ofsuch lunches": "but in no event shall suchamounts be less than an amount determinedby-

"(1) multiplying the number of mealsserved free in the school during such year by40 cents or the cost per meal of providing suchmeals, whichever is less, and

"(2) multiplying the number of mealsserved at a reduced price in the school dur-ing such year by 40 cents or the cost per mealof providing such meals less the highest re-duced price charged, whichever is less:Provided, however, That any school whichrequires a greater amount of reimbursementper meal served free or at a reduced price inorder to fulfill the requirements of section 9of this Act shall receive such greater amountif it can establish to the satisfaction of theState agency that it would otherwise befinancially unable to support the service ofsuch meals. The maximum per meal amountestablished by the Secretary shall in no eventbe less than 40 cents; and the Secretary shalestablish a higher maximum per meal amountfor especially needy schools based on suchschools' need for assistance in providing freeand reduced price lunches for all needy chil-dren."

SEC. 5. Section 9 oi the National SchoolLunch Act is amended by inserting after"July 1 of such year" the following: ":Provided, however, That during fiscal year1972 such guidelines shall be considered onlyas a national minimum standard of eligibil-ity and the Secretary shall reimburse duringsuch fiscal year State agencies and localschool authorities for free and reduced costmeals served pursuant to eligibility stand-ards established by State agencies prior toOctober 1, 1971".

SEC. 6. The Secretary shall not lower mini-mum standards of eligibility for free andreduced price meals nor require a reductionin the number of children served in anyschool district during a fiscal year to be effec-tive for that fiscal year. This section shallapply to fiscal year 1972.

SEC. 7. In addition to any other authoritygiven to the Secretary he is hereby authorizedto transfer funds from section 32 of the Act ofAugust 24, 1935, for the purpose of assistingschools which demonstrate a need for addi-tional funds in the school breakfast pro-gram.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a parliamen-tary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman willstate his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, my parlia-mentary inquiry is that inasmuch as sec-tion 7 of this House Joint Resolution 923would under normal circumstances andmethods of consideration obviously besubject to a point of order because itinvolves a transfer of funds in an au-thorization bill, at what point under themotion to suspend the rules could sucha point of order be offered?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will stateto the gentleman from Missouri thatthe motion made by the gentleman fromKentucky (Mr. PERKINS), itself calls fora suspension of the rules, which meansall the rules, and, therefore, there wouldbe no point in the consideration of thejoint resolution under a suspension ofthe rules to make that point of order.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a further par-liamentary inquiry. Does the Chair meanto inform the Members of the House thatthe only way that we could get redressand relief from what would otherwisebe a point of order, would be if the com-mittee moved to suspend the rules andpass the bill with an amendment deletingthat section?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will advisethe gentleman from Missouri that thejoint resolution comes to the floor undera motion to suspend the rules and pa.it with amendments. The amendmentswill be under consideration, but only the

amendments which are embraced in themotion made by the gentleman fromKentucky are in order.SMr. HALL. Therefore, if this motion

passes and we do suspend the rules, un-less the gentleman making the motionyielded for the purpose of an amendmentthere would be no way to seek relief?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will informthe gentleman from Missouri that thegentleman who is making the motion tosuspend the rules and pass this jointresolution cannot yield for the purposeof further amendment.

Mr. HALL. I thank the Speaker. Theinequity of this technique of presenta-tion is again obvious.

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a

second.The SPEAKER. Without objection, a

second will be considered as ordered.There was no objection.Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself 2 minutes.Mr. Speaker, initially I want to com-

pliment the chairman of the GeneralSubcommittee on Education, Mr. Pucnr-suI, for his outstanding work and leader-ship in connection with this resolution.I also want to commend the rankingminority member, Mr. Quiz, and mem-bers of the committee from both sides ofthe aisle for their cooperation and sup-port of this necessary resolution.

House Joint Resolution 923 seeks to en-force the clear mandate of Congress thatno child be denied a school lunch be-cause of his inability to pay. The resolu-tion is necessary because of two recentactions of the Department of Agriculturewhich are in direct conflict with thatobjective. The first action in mid-August was to severely restrict theamount of subsidy for lunches which areserved free or at a reduced price to needychildren. On August 26, I wrote SecretaryHardin protesting the new regulations.On September 10, I again protested thenew regulations in letters to PresidentNixon and Secretary Hardin. Subse-quently, the Department announced arevised policy, the effect of which wouldbe to curtail participation of thousandsof needy children. The committee im-mediately convened public hearings andwithin days House Joint Resolution 923was approved unanimously by the com-mittee.

Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution923 contains two provisions which will, bylegislative action, prevent the Depart-ment from using these two means tothrottle the program for feeding needychildren.

Additionally, the resolution strengthensthe total school lunch program by pro-Viding an average reimbursement rate inany State of not less than 6 cents for alllunches served-to both needy and pay-ing children-and authorizes the use ofsection 32 funds when needed for break-fast and lunches.

The urgency of this matter wasbrought to the committee's attention bya flood of protests from school authoritiesacross the Nation. following the an-nouncement of new guidelines by theDepartment of Agriculture. The Depart-ment proposed a reimbursement rate forlunches to needy children of 30 cents.

36508

October 18, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSEThis action set off a wave of anxietyamong school administrators, becausethey were well aware that they would beunable to find the additional money tofinance the lunch programs to whichthey had already become committed.Local schools planned and programedin expectation of support at, at least, lastyear's level, and in response to encour-agement by the Department of Agricul-ture to expand the programs to reachmore needy children.

May I cite typical expressions of thedeep concern registered with the commit-tee. From the Virginia Congress of Par-ents and Teachers:

The school lunch program in Virginia willbe drastically curtailed if the new formulaproposed by the Department of Agriculturefor fund distribution is adopted this nextFriday, October 1. For example, Virginia willlose $900,000. Not only will many free lunchesnow being served have to be discontinued,but it will mean a loss of supplemental fundsas well.

From Mr. G. Mills Whitelaw, principalof Berrian Junior High School in Nash-ville, Ga.:

We have just been notified that there is apossibility that school lunch reimbursementsmay be reduced. For all of us who are facedwith the problem of feeding those childrenwho are unable to pay it is most disheart-ening to think that the help that we havebeen receiving is going to be reduced. We arehaving a hard time making ends meet withlabor and food costs so high.

From Doris Watts, director of Camp-bell County, Ky., school lunchrooms:

The cost of operating the School FoodService program last year was $300,000. Thecost of operating the School Food Serviceprogram this year is estimated at around$380,000. With the increasing cost of operat-ing our Food Service Program and more freeand reduced price lunches, I feel that theChild Nutrition Program is at stake if reim-bursement cannot be higher. No business canoperate on deficit spending.

And finally, from Dr. Rodney D.Cathey, superintendent of the McAllen,Tex., school district:

My cafeteria system faces immediate bank-ruptcy under the present reimbursementrates which have evidently been set by theDepartment of Agriculture. When this occurs,all children will suffer the consequences.There is no way that my deficits can be takenfrom local tax monies. I would recommendyour study of this serious problem and theultimate consequences which must resultnot only in the destruction of the free lunchprogram, but also the possibility of destruc-tion of the total school lunch program.

The results of a most recent surveyundertaken by the Committee on Educa-tion and Labor support fully these ex-pressed concerns of local officials thatwithout additional funding the progressof the past few years would be arrestedand that in every likelihood, many exist-ing programs would be curtailed.

Returns from the States indicated aneed of at least $511 million in section 11and section 32 funds in order to financethe number of free and reduced pricelunches which will be served during thisacademic year. This is in contrast to the$390,175,000 budgeted by the Departmentof Agriculture to provide lunches forneedy children.

Furthermore, the survey asked eachState to indicate the average rate of re-

imbursement from Federal funds whichwould be required-over and above therate of section 4 reimbursement-to fi-nance the expected service of free andreduced price meals. Thirty-four Statesindicated they will require a reimburse-ment rate in excess of the 30-cent aver-age rate provided for in the new regula-tions. A majority of the States indicateda requirement of 40 cents or more. ManyStates with large programs indicatedneeds far in excess of the prescribed30-cent rate. For example, Pennsylvaniaindicated an average rate of 45 cents willbe required. California will require 40cents; Florida 51 cents; Georgia 43 cents;Indiana 42 cents; Massachusetts 50cents; Texas 40 cents; and Virginia 45cents.

Finally, the States requested a section4 reimbursement rate of more than the5-cent average rate provided for in theproposed regulations. In the face of in-creased costs, an average reimbursementrate of 5 cents in section 4 funds willresult in higher costs per lunch to pay-ing students. As a result, according tomany experts, participation in the pro-gram will decrease with the unfortunateoutcome that there will be less supportat the local level for the entire schoollunch program, including the provisionof free and reduced-price lunches.

In early October, the Department sug-gested a new policy-one which wouldeliminate all children from families withan annual income of more than $3,940from the free and reduced-price lunchprogram. Again, State and local schoolauthorities vigorously protested the newdirection of curtailment-this timeaimed squarely at the children-allthose needy children whose familiesearned between the figure of $3,940 andthe various State income eligibility fig-ures previously approved by the Depart-ment. These range between $3,941 and$6,250. For example, the eligibility fig-ure for Michigan was set at $4,280; inCalifornia at $4,728; in Ohio $4,530; inKentucky $4,530; and in Alaska $6,250.

If the Department's income eligibilityguideline of $3,940 were to go into ef-fect, it would necessitate notification toall children from families above $3,940who have already been certified as eligi-ble that they no longer qualified. I can-not anticipate that Congress, which hadso specifically asserted its intent in Pub-lic Law 91-248, would endorse such areversal.

Last week, the Committee on Educa-tion and Labor, in an effort to determinethe magnitude of the problem confront-ing the Nation's schools, sent out a ques-tionnaire to all 50 States and the Districtof Columbia. Replies from only 44 Statesand the District of Columbia show aminimum total of 1,381,588 children whowill be eliminated if this resolution isnot approved. In my judgment, consid-ering all 50 States, more than 1.5 mil-lion children will be adversely affectedunless we again express through pas-sage of House Joint Resolution 923 ourdetermination that no child be denieda lunch.

Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution923 as amended accomplishes seven im-portant objectives, all of which are nec-essary to make sure that we move for-

ward, and take no steps backward, in ourefforts to feed all poor school children.

The first objective is to assure that allfree and reduced price lunches, that werefederally reimbursable as of October 1,1971, remaih federally reimbursablethroughout this school year. The resolu-tion accomplishes this objective by re-quiring reimbursement to school dis-tricts for all free and reduced pricelunches served pursuant to such districtspresent free and reduced price lunchstandards, as long as such standardswere approved by the respective Statesprior to October 1, 1971. If a local schooldistrict's standards were approved by theState prior to October 1, 1971, then allfree and reduced price meals served bythe district pursuant to those standards.would have to be federally reimbursed.

This part of the resolution would makeit clear-if it was not clear already-thatthe USDA regulations announced onOctober 6 are illegal. School districts,with free and reduced price lunch stand-ards that are higher than the "incomepoverty guideline," will continue to re-ceive Federal funding for the free and re-duced price meals served pursuant tothose standards. Whatever standardswere established by the local districts,and approved by the States as of Octo-ber 1, would still be supported with Fed-eral funds.

The second objective is to make surethat the reimbursement rates are realis-tic, thereby encouraging States and localdistricts to provide all needy childrenwith free or reduced price lunches. Theresolution accomplishes this by amend-ing section 11(e) of the School LunchAct. That amendment would establishminimum reimbursement rates to localschool districts for free lunches at 40cents, or the cost of serving such meals,whichever is less. For reduced pricemeals, the minimum reimbursement rateto the local school district would be 40cents, or the cost of such meals minusthe highest price charged by the schooldistrict for a reduced price meal, which-ever is less. Under this formula, there-fore, a basic minimum floor will be es-tablished for free and reduced pricemeals at 40 cents per meal.

The resolution further provides for re-imbursement rates in excess of the guar-anteed minimum per meal amount-thatis, 40 cents-to school districts that arefinancially unable to continue providingfree and reduced price lunches withoutadditional financial assistance. Theschool districts seeking such aid wouldbe required to demonstrate, to the satis-faction of the State agency, that theyare unable to fulfill their obligationsunder section 9 of the act without suchreimbursement.

The resolution also assures that theaverage reimbursement rate in anyState, for all lunches served, shall neverbe less than 6 cents per meal, not in-cluding special assistance funds madeavailable for free and reduced-pricemeals.

The third objective is a logical exten-sion of the second. That objective is toimmediately provide the States with thenecessary funds so that they can goahead with the job of feeding needychildren right away. The resolution ac-

36509

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 18, 1971complishes this purpose by requiring theSecretary to immediately release section32 funds to the States, so that sufficientfunds are available to feed every needychild. These funds are vitally and pres-ently necessary to subsidize the cost offree and reduced-price lunches to poorchildren.

The fourth objective of this resolutionis to assure an equitable distribution ofthe section 32 funds amongst the variousStates. This is accomplished by requir-ing the Secretary to apportion suchfunds in a manner that would bestachieve the purposes of this resolution.

The fifth objective is to prevent theadministrative chaos that we witnessedat the beginning of this school year dueto the Agriculture Department's in-tended regulation changes. This part ofthe resolution would forbid the Secre-tary to change the standards of eligi-bility for free and reduced-price mealsduring any fiscal year where such ac-tions are to become effective that samefiscal year. Moreover, the Secretary isprohibited from taking any actions thatwill reduce the number of children to beserved in any school district.

In short, the first five provisions thatI have just set forth would assure abso-lutely no cutbacks in the provision offree and reduced price lunches to needychildren. Sufficient funds would be madeavailable to State agencies and localschool districts so that all free and re-duced-price meals served pursuant tostandards formulated by the districts,and approved by State agencies as ofOctober 1, 1971, would be federally re-imbursed. We, therefore, would only takesteps forward, not backward, in ourefforts to eradicate classroom hunger inAmerica.

The remaining two parts of the reso-lution relate mainly to the school break-fast program and the expansion of theschool lunch program in areas presentlywithout school food services. First, theSecretary is required to report to theCongress about the need for additionalfunds to expand the breakfast programto every school that needs the program;the Secretary should also report to theCongress about the need for nonfood as-sistance funds so that necessary facilitiesand equipment can be obtained in eachschool district to operate child feedingprograms.

Mr. Speaker, before closing may I dis-cuss the costs involved in this resolution.First of all we are talking about the useof section 32 funds-funds already avail-able for the lunch program, because ofPublic Law 92-32, approved by the Houseunanimously earlier this year. Passage ofthe pending resolution forces the De-partment to utilize this authority morefully. Obviously more will be spent thanhad been planned. The added costs arenot unreasonable-they are necessaryexpenditures ordered by the Congress inprevious actions.

The increase from 5 to 6 cents as pro-vided in the resolution for cash reim-bursements for all lunches served will re-sult in an expenditure of approximately$25 million more than the Departmenthas committed itself to spending for fis-

cal year 1972. The requirement of a 40-cent minimum for every free and reducedprice lunch will, according to the De-partment, result in no increase overpresent planned levels of expenditure ifthe States reimburse all meals at thatrate. If the States, however, determinethat there are schools in need of a'reater rate of reimbursement, then thecommittee estimates expenditures mayincrease by approximately $60 million.On this point the Department providedthe committee with estimates rangingfrom no increase to $176 million. Thecommittee's estimate of a possible $60million increase is based on the commit-tee survey and on information from thehearing record showing the level of pro-gram operations planned by the States.

The need for action to allay the uncer-tainties of children, parents, school ad-ministrators, and school lunch directorsis urgent. The school year is already wellunderway. The Department's regula-tions on the use of funds have not beenissued. School districts are being requiredunder law to provide lunches to all needychildren, but the districts have scantknowledge of where the money will comefrom to pay the cost. The resolution be-fore you would remove the uncertaintyand confusion which is seriously jeopard-izing our efforts to feed hungry chil-dren, and would add much needed sta-bility to the program of providing a nu-tritious lunch to all children in school Istrongly urge the House to adopt thismeasure.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. PERKINS. I yield to the gentle-man.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman for yielding.

I understand that this resolution pro-hibits the Agriculture Department fromrequiring a school district to reduce thenumber of children in its section 11-free- and reduced-price-program dur-ing the current school year.

Mr. PERKINS. The gentleman is cor-rect.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, in my dis-trict, the Minneapolis Board of Educa-tion was forced to cut back the numberof children in its program 3 weeks afterschool began in September. This reduc-tion was required as a result of the Ag-riculture Department regulations issuedin August.

I understand that the resolution be-fore us today would enable the Minne-apolis Board of Education to restore eli-gibility to those children who were in theprogram at the beginning of the schoolyear but who are now out; is thatcorrect?

Mr. PERKINS. That is correct.Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, I think the

chairman and the members of the sub-committee for this help to our school-children.

The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.Quiz).

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself5 minutes.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentle-man from Kentucky (Mr. PERKINs), saidthat under the terms of this proposal,no child would be deprived of a schoollunch because of inability to pay. I won-der if the gentleman meant unwilling-ness to pay?

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to thegentleman from Kentucky (Mr. PER-KINS) to tell the gentleman from Iowawhat he means by that.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, we meanwhere a child is unable to pay.

It is the clear intent of Congress thatevery child in need receive a free lunchor reduced-price lunch.

Mr. GROSS. Does not the legislationprovide that any child may have a freelunch regardless of ability to pay for it?

Mr. QUIE. No, no-I would say tothe gentleman that there are eligibilitystandards and the bill provides for theeligibility standards set by the State asof October 1, 1971, will be the eligibilitystandard for this year.

Next year the Secretary will be able toset up, if he wants to, a standard of eligi-bility criteria across the Nation.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield further?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentlemanfurther.

Mr. GROSS. Page 3 of the reportstates that:

This increase will allow the States tocontinue operating present programs for allchildren, needy and non-needy alike.

Mr. QUIE. That is talking about adifferent thing. The free or reduced-costlunches are available only to those whoare below that income criteria which isthe eligibility standard set differently ineach State under regulations in effect inprevious years.

The Department of Agriculture want-ed to set a standard across the Nation,but because the announced standard be-gan after the school year began, thisresolution provides that State standardswill apply this year. However, all childrencan receive school lunches.

Under section 4 of the act an averageof 6 cents for each child to each Statewill be made available for the lunches ofall children. So there are two supportprograms. There is the provision of sec-tion 4 which provides assistance forlunches served to all children, whetherthey are the children of wealthy or poor;then there is section 11, for just thosewho are poor. Now, the 40 cents will bethe minimum amount for reimbursementfor section 11 lunches that is availableto the States, and a higher rate can be setfor individual school districts whichhave great financial need. But whateverthey set, the 6 cents in section 4 will bein addition to that.

When you think of the free and re-duced-cost lunches, the actual level ofsupport will be 46 cents or more, and sofar it has not been determined how muchmore it will be.

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-tleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Indiana.

36510

October 18, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSEMr. MYERS; Is there any provision in

the bill that provides that a school-maydecide whois eligible as needy? The ref-erence here is to cases where parents areso indifferent that they will not providetheir schoot with the authorization. Mywife does some work in the District ofColumbia schools, and she has told me ofinstances where many children or quitea few are not served because their par-ents will not give consent to feed thosechildren. Who makes that determina-tion?

Mr. QUIE. There is a provision for self-certification. If the parents will not cer-tify for one reason or another-some par-ents are too proud to give their consent,and there are instances where otherchildren do not receive the food-butthat does not exist as a major problem.I have heard criticism in which it hasbeen said that some certify that theymeet the income limitation or eligibilitybut who do not.

There is provision for spot checks onthat to determine whether the informa-tion is accurate or not. That is some-thing that will have to be worked out inthe school districts as best they can doso. There is a provision in the law tomake certain that every child from afamily with an income below a certainlevel will be considered for free or re-duced-cost lunches.

What parents must do who do notqualify is pay the 40 cents themselvesrather than receive the 40 cents free,and that 40 cents is quite an induce-ment for the parent to certify that theyare below that income criteria.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agri-culture this morning submitted its newrules and regulations in which, it seemsto me, it has agreed with all the provi-sions of this bil which we have before usexcept for one, and that one provisionis that with reference to section 11, un-der the regulations, they will provide the40 cents on an average to each State,and the number of free or reduced-costlunches that are paid for in that State.

This bill provides that the maximumshall not be less than 40 cents. What itreally means is that for every child thatit has been determined comes from afamily below the standards in that Stateand in that school district, a 40-centpayment will be made. As has been thecase before, the State makes the deter-mination which school districts are moreneedy, and therefore a higher paymentcan be made.

The reason the Department of Agri-culture would like to have an averagerather than a minimum is that it wouldthen impose the responsibility on theadministrator in the State that when-ever the payment was increased to moreneedy school districts, he then wouldhave to reduce the payment to the lessneedy school districts, and it has a self-policing effect.

We did adopt the amendment I offeredas it applies to section 4--the 6 cents for'the regular lunches-and that self-po-licing factor will be available to eachlState.. However, the committee felt stronglythat a minimum of 40 cents ought to be

CXVII--2297-Part 28

made as a payment for each needy childfor free or reduced-cost lunches, whetherthe school district was needy or not, andthat adjustments in the program afterthat would have to be made in accord-ance with= regulations of the Secretaryand agreements between the Secretaryand the State board of education. Thepresent law does not provide Departmentstandards or language to give the Secre-tary of Agriculture the authority to bedefinite in determining which school dis-tricts are needy. This is left to the Statedepartment of education to determinewhich school district is needy. I thinkthere might be a tendency of the Statedepartments of education to feel that ifthe Federal Government will pay it any-way, they might as well consider theschool district needy.

SSo the Department of Agriculture Imaintain is going to have difficulty inthis coming year. It is something we canfind out in the coming year. The gentle-man from Illinois (Mr. PucuicSI) is incharge of the subcommittee which han-dles this legislation. After a period oftime he will have hearings to determinewhether this is effective or not-and any-way he will have oversight hearings.

In the bill which came out of the sub-committee, the part which we changedwas the requirement that the so-calledgrandfather clause maintaining the eli-gibility standards in the States, thestandards that were in existence prior toOctober 1, 1971, be also made availableto the local school districts, because insome States the local school districtsmake that determination rather than theState. We struck out that language, soit will only be the States eligibilitystandards as they vary from State toState which will be utilized in deter-mining which students can receive freeor reduced-cost lunches. In those cases-as in a few instances-where the localschool districts have higher standardsthan the State, it will be necessary forthem to comply with the State standard.This amounts to less than one-half of 1percent of all the moneys for the chil-dren in the country anyway, so I do notbelieve this will cause any hardshipat all.

House joint resolution is intended tohelp end the uncertainties that now existin the level of Federal school lunch as-sistance in fiscal 1972 and in the rulesunder which that assistance wil be pro-vided. Schools have been operating formore than a month. So it is importantthat these uncertainties be ended as soonas possible.

This resolution deals with the concernsthat were first expressed by State schoollunch directors and by local schools fol-lowing the August 13 issuance of pro-posed school lunch regulations by the De-partment if Agriculture. Those regula-tions spelled out the proposed rules un-der which the $615 million in Federalschool lunch cash assistance paymentswould be expended in fiscal 1972. Thatlevel of cash assistance payments was au-thorized in the Department's appropia-tion act for 1972.

The Senate has already passed SenateJoint Resolution 157 which deals withthese 1972 cash assistance payments. The

Department of Agriculture itself an-nounced a revision in its original pro-posals, after considering the many re-sponses to proposed regulations. It an-nounced that it was planning an addi-tional $135 million in Federal cash as-sistance payments, bringing the totalpayments to $750 million for 1972. Thatis $214 million more than was spent forcash assistance payments last year, anincrease of 40 percent in a single year.

The USDA announcement of October6 continued its original proposal to placea floor under statewide average section 4cash assistance payments at 5 cents perlunch. Section 4 assistance is paid on allunches served by participating schools.In the absence of this Department pro-posal, up to 17 States would have had anaverage section 4 rate of less than 5cents in 1972.

In this October 6 announcement,USDA also liberalized the average mini-mum statewide payment it would guar-antee in additional section 11 paymentsto the 50 States and the District of Co-lumbia. These additional section 11 pay-ments are made for free and reducedprice lunches.

The minimum average payment wasincreased by 10 cents--from 30 to 40cents for each such lunch. But, USDAalso announced that these liberalizedpayments would be limited to those freeand reduced price lunches served to chil-dren from families with poverty-level in-comes.

It was this last action-changing therules under which section 11 funds wouldbe available after the school year hadbegun-which is now of deep concern toState and local school officials and tomembers of the committee.

The resolution before the House to-day would:

Direct the Secretary of Agriculture toutilize funds available under section 32to maintain adequate rates of reimburse-ment under section 4 and section 11. TheDepartment's section 32 account could berepaid from any supplemental appropria-tion made available for 1972.

The resolution provides that the 50States and the District of Columbiashould have sufficient section 4 funds toaverage out at a 6-cent rate in fiscal1972. Not all States will need additionalfunds to maintain a statewide averagerate of 6 cents for the year.

A minimum section 11 rate of assist-ance of 40 cents for free lunches wouldbe mandated by amendment to the Na-tional School Lunch Act. The minimumrate mandated for reduced price luncheswould be 40 cents minus the highest re-duced price charged in the school. Ifneeded, schools could receive payments inexcess of these minimum rates. The Sec-retary of Agriculture would spell out con-ditions of special need and the rate forsuch school.

The Department is required to dis-tribute additional funds to States in anexpeditious manner. The committeewould not want schools to have to waitfor payments due them because Federalpayments were late in arriving in theState. It is not the intent, however, thatunneeded funds be earmarked for use in

36511

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE October 18, 1971States -early in the fiscal year, as wasthe case last year.

Section 5 of House Joint Resolution923 makes it clear that the Departmentmust make section 11 payments forlunches served in accordance with thestandards State educational agencieshad in effect on October 1 of this year.In effect, the standards mandated or rec-ommended by State educational agencieswould replace the USDA-proposed pov-erty income standard for section 11 pay-ments.

The resolution authorizes USDA to usesection 32 funds for the school breakfastprogram in 1972 and requires the Secre-tary to report to the Congress on thecurrent status of school breakfast andnonfood assistance funds. It is contem-plated that the Secretary would includein that report his planned use of section32 funds for the school breakfast pro-gram in 1972.

In spite of the widespread concernsthe USDA August 13 proposals generated,I believe the Department should be com-mended for the policy it now follows inproviding concerned public and privategroups full opportunity to participate inthe school lunch rulemaking process.This policy was first adopted under Sec-retary Hardin, after more than 20 yearsof operation under the National SchoolLunch Act.

The adoption of this policy, alone, isevidence of this administration's commit-ment to child nutrition programs. Its ac-tions to substantially increase Federalfunding is still stronger evidence of thatcommitment.

Under the appropriations originallyauthorized for 1972, Federal support forchild feeding programs totaled more than$1.1 billion. This was double the level ofFederal support provided in 1968.

Most o. this increase in Federal sup-port has been used for the nationalschool lunch program.

In addition to $750 million which willbe spent under sections 4 and 11 in fiscal1972, about $300 million will be availablein commodity assistance for schools, $16million will be available to help needyschools buy equipment, and $3.5 millionwill be available to help States with theiradministrative expenses.

The commitment of this administra-tion, backed by those tremendous in-creases in Federal funding, have resultedin more progress than has ever beforebeen recorded. More than 80,000 schoolsare now participating in the nationalschool lunch program. These schools en-roll 84 percent of all elementary andsecondary students.

By the end of the last school year,nearly 25 million children were beingreached with a school lunch. The num-ber of children being reached with a freeor reduced price lunch increased by 82percent during the course of the lastschool year. In September, 4 million chil-dren were being reached. By April, thenumber being reached has increased to7.3 million.

In the past 2 years, over 20,000 schools,already participating in the program,upgraded their grossly inadequate equip-ment with Federal help. In 1970 and1971, a total of over $40 million was made

available to already participating schools.In the same 2-year period, nearly 2,000needy schools received Federal help inpurchasing the equipment they neededto start a food service program.

As these actions were taken to reachneedy children with a school lunch, fam-ily food programs were improved andexpanded to improve the home diets ofthese same needy children. The Federalbudget for all food programs in 1972 willbe about $4 billion. Less than $1 billion-in fact, less than $900 million-was de-voted to food programs in 1968.

I believe that House Joint Resolution923 should be regarded as only an in-terim action. I will. urge the Committeeon Education and Labor to undertake adetailed review of the national schoollunch program. The substantial increasesin Federal funding, alone, would dictatesuch a review.

We need to look at the method of Fed-eral funding and the apparent complex-ities of that funding structure. Section32 funds do not represent a soundmethod for funding the program on acontinuing basis. Once the current $300million annual carryover in section 32funds is tapped, other funding sourceswill need to be found.

Currently, there appears to be noagreement as to what level of programfunding is necessary to insure that prog-ress continues, nor how Federal, State,and local sources should share in thatfunding. When the committee developedmajor legislative reforms in 1970, for ex-ample, we provided for increased pro-gram support from State tax revenues,beginning in the fiscal year 1972, anddirected that these tax revenues be con-centrated on assistance to needy childrenand needy schools. Yet, it is clear thatthe Federal Government accepts almostall, if not all, of the cost of providingfree and reduced price lunches to chil-dren they determine in need of a freeor reduced price lunch.

The National School Lunch Act nowmandates that children from poverty-income families are unable to pay the fullprice of the lunch. It may well be thatCongress should consider developingmore definitive guidelines for determin-ing need, if the Federal Government isto pay the full cost of such lunches. Itwas brought to the committee's attentionthat some local school districts have es-tablished eligibility standards of up to$6,000 for a free lunch for a family offour-or up to $7,500 for a reduced pricelunch. Such standards would have to bebrought into conformance with Statestandards under the provision of HouseJoint Resolution 923.

I wish to make perfectly clear thecommittee action with respect to the useof State eligibility standards under sec-tion 11. The committee was informed bythe Department of Agriculture that the50 States and the District of Columbiahad all announced State standards as ofOctober 1. It is those State standards,whether announced as required, recom-mended, minimum or suggested stand-ards, that the committee intends to berecognized as mandatory by the Depart-ment of Agriculture in expending sec-tion 11 funds in 1972.

The subcommittee had suggested mak-ing it mandatory for the Department torecognize any local school standardsthat had been announced. But, I foundthat in a few instances school systemshad announced standards in excess ofthat recommended by the State-as highas $7,500 for a family of four. The com-mittee action sustained my view that weshould use only the State-establishedstandards.

I believe the Congress can place reli-ance on the recommendations of experi-enced State school lunch directors-whoshould be in the best position to judgethe needs of the program. Only a verysmall proportion of lunches would be af-fected-less than half of 1 percent.

As the Federal Government moves tofinance a greater and greater share ofthe cost of providing school lunches toneedy children, there is a need to assurethat reasonable measures of ability to payare used by the States and by the schools.

This resolution will provide Federalspecial assistance for free and reducedprice lunches to all children the Statesbelieved to be in need of such lunches thisschool year.

I believe our committee and the Houseneed to make a more detailed review ofthe national school lunch program. But,in the interim, it is essential that we fi-nalize the 1972 program. I believe we mustrecognize the State decisions that weremade in good faith by October 1, 1971.This resolution will do that without alsoapproving local options to move abovethose State recommendations.

Nonetheless, timely action is now nec-essary. Approval of House Joint Reso-lution 923 will permit us to move-forwardwith the Senate and with the Depart-ment of Agriculture to finalize the 1972school lunch program. -

I believe this is a good piece of legis-lation. I think the regulations the De-partment has now adopted, as I said,come practically to the point where theyaccept this, and the difference is notenough to cause anybody to vote againstthe legislation. I urge all my colleaguesto support the legislation.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield tothe gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Pv-cINSKI) such time as he may consume.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise insupport of the motion to suspend therules and pass House Joint Resolution 923which has been unanimously reportedfrom the Committee on Education arndLabor.

This resolution is the response of theCommittee on Education and Labor tothe Department of Agriculture's an-nounced plans to drop 1.3 million chil-dren from the national school lunch pro-gram by reducing reimbursements formeals served by local school authoritiesand by restricting eligibility for the re-ceipt of free and reduced-price lunchesto children from families whose incomesdo not exceed the USDA income pov-erty guidelines. Such changes in the pro-gram by the Department would severelycripple the program and would clearly,contravene the intent of Congress. I ammost grateful for the bold leadership thegentleman from Kentucky (Mr. PbR-KES) has provided to correct this intol-

36512

October 18, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-I-HOUSEerable denial of free or reduced-pricelunches to needy children of America.

I am aware that the Department an-nounced additional regulations todaywhich parallel this resolution but I be-lieve formal action on the resolution be-fore us today is still necessary becausethe language in the Department's an-nouncement is somewhat fuzzy and Iwant to make sure we have legislationto precisely spell out the intent of Con-gress that no child goes hungry in thisNation. This resolution is only for theremainder of the fiscal year. I under-stand the administration is about to pre-sent to Congress an entire rewrite of thelunch program for 1973 and thereafter.

The 1970 amendments to the actcharged the Department with the duty ofinsuring that no poor child in Americawould go without lunch. By so doing,Congress made a, commitment to theneedy children of America that it hasreiterated as recently as last June whenit passed Public Law 92-32 which re-quires the Department to transfer asmuch as is necessary from section 32 tofeed every needy school child.

On August 13, 1971, the Departmentpublished in the Federal Register a no-tice of proposed rulemaking that wouldhave had the effect of reducing reim-bursement payments to the States fromapproximately 48 cents for each free andreduced-price lunch to something lessthan 35 cents. Reimbursements for fullypaid lunches would have been loweredfrom 12 cents to something less than 5cents. The Department offered a con-fusing explanation saying that, in effect,these reductions were a step forward to-ward "management integrity." The re-sponse from State school lunch direc-tors, local school districts, individual citi-zens knowledgeable in the program, andnewspaper editors across the county, in-dicated that the Department was alonein its view.

The Senate Agriculture Committee re-sponded by proposing a joint resolutionthat would forbid the Department fromsetting maximum rates of reimbursementat less than 5 cents for general assistancelunches and at less than 40 cents forfree and reduced-price meals. The Sen-ate considered the measure on October 1i;1971, at which time Senator MILLER, ofIowa, successfully amended the resolu-tion to set the maximum reimbursementat 6 cents for general assistance forschool lunches. The Senate adopted theresolution the same day by a vote of75 to 5.

The response of the Department was toset the rates at 40 cents for free andreduced-price lunches and 5 cents forgeneral assistance lunches, but also tochange the income poverty guidelinesestablished as minimum eligibility cri-teria for needy children across the coun-try to maximum criteria. In other words,Federal reimbursement was to be with-drawn from lunches served to childrenfrom families whose incomes exceeded$3,940 per year for a family of four.

The Department was apparently de-termined to reduce expenditures, If Con-gress were going to require reimburse-ment levels of 40 cents and 6 cents, then

the Department was going to requirethe elimination of a large number ofneedy children from the program. Someestimates of this proposed rule's effectplace the number of children affected atmore than a million.

The Department does not have the au-thority to transform the income povertyguideline from a national floor into a na-tional ceiling. At the time of the passageof Public Law 91-248 Congress madeclear that the intent of establishing anational income eligibility standard wasto set a floor under the discretion thatlocal districts have had in determiningeligibility since the creation of the pro-gram in 1948. The Department is obli-gated under present law to provide Fed-eral reimbursements to States andthrough them to local school districtsfor lunches served to needy children whoare eligible under the local criteria thathas been approved by the State.

Presently 'all local school districtsestablish, with the approval of the State,such standards as they deem necessary tocarry out their obligations under the act,which requires them to see to it that noneedy children are denied a lunch simplybecause they are unable to pay.

These local districts have been, in fact,encouraged by the Department to setstandards higher than the USDA mini-mum. In the summer of 1971 the Depart-ment issued a document entitled "BasicGuidance" which suggested that Statesand local districts consider establishingan eligibility standard of $4,530 for freelunches for a family of four having threechildren in school:

Eligibility scales were established bythe local school authorities with the ap-proval of their respective State agencies.Many exceed the Secretary's incomepoverty guideline because the local au-thorities determined that such levels ofincome eligibility were necessary to reachthe needy children in their districts.

Section 5 of this resolution requires theSecretary to continue to provide Federalreimbursement for free and reduced-price lunches served pursuant to eitherstatewide eligibility scales established bythe State agency or local eligibility scalesapproved by the State agency that arehigher than the Secretary's income pov-erty guideline. These higher scales musthave been established or approved by theState agency prior.to October 1, 1971, toreceive such Federal reimbursement.Thus, where a State agency established amandatory income eligibility scale for allits local districts at a level higher thanthe Secretary's "income poverty guide-line," all the free and reduced-pricelunches served under that higher scalewould be federally reimbursed. And, fur-ther, where a State agency allowed alocal district to set its own scale higherthan the statewide scale-that local dis-trict would also receive Federal reim-bursement for the free and reduced-pricelunches it served, provided only thatthese scales were established or approvedby the State agency prior to October 1,1971.

I would like jo insert in the REcouR atthis point a table showing the incomecriteria established by State agencies andthe number of children who would be

deleted if the changes proposed by Agri-culture are not defeated:

State Number opoverty children

State guideline' eliminated

AlabamAlaska.ArizonaCalifon

ConnecDelawa

DistrictFlorida

GeorgiaHawaiiIdaho_IllinoisIndianalowa--KansasKentucLouisiaMaine.

Maryla

Massac

MichigMissouNevadaNew H

New JNew YNew M

North

Ohio_.

Oklaho

PennsRhodeSouthSouth

Tenne

Texas.Vermo

Virgini

Washi

West

WiscorWyomi

a.-.......-..--------- $3,940 . ............. . 6,250 I6.000

----------- 3.941 1,290lia-----------.. ----------. 3,940 ............

4,728 l,000ootict-..--------------- 4,400 20,000re---------------------- 3,940 953

5,020 .- .......of Columbia.-----.---- 4,830 12,000

-- 3,40 22,0004,530 ..........-3,940 45,0004.530 ---.-----

---.... ...-....... 3,940 1,448...........-.....- . 3,940 40,0003-- ---- --- --- ---- -- - -- - --- -- -- --- --- ---- .................. 3,940 8,187

4,530 ----_.... .-.....- 3,940 1,500

cky_..----------.------- 4,530 I6,00Cna-----------...........------......--. 3,940 .---.------------------------ 3,720 10,000

4,530 -----nd .------ ----. . ---- 4,040 30,000

4,440 ----------..chusetts-.---------------- 4,182 101,250

4,857 .....----an------ ----------------.. 4,280 100,000ri-----... ...-- ------- . 3,940 19.990a ...............-----------. 3,940 750ampshire-------.... -. 4,100 5,600

4,200 .......--ersey ---------. . ------. . 4,900

5,500 75, 000ork---------------------------- 410,000lexico_________ _______------ --- - 3,940 7,500Vlexic~...................... 3), 940 75

4,530 .-....---Dakota-. --- --- 3,940 .-_ .--- -

4,530 _.....--.----.--------.....-----------..... 3,940 ............

4,530 ...-- ....-oma.---------------.------. 3,940 12,000

4,530 ...........-lvania--...- --------- - 4,000 12 000Island-------------------. 4,220 21,000

4,750 ............Carolina-----. -------. 3,940 ............Dakota -------- 3,940 5,000

4,400 .. ........-ssee -----------. 3,940 10,000--- --- --- --- --- --- -- 4, 530 ------------3........ . 3,940 25,0004,530 ............

nt-----...............----------.....------ 4,000 6,0005,999 ............

ia-------- ----- 3,940 30,0004,530 ............

ngton-------------------- 3,940 23,1804,320 -.--.- ....

irginia------------------- 3,948 20,0004,872 ------......

sin--------------------- 4,280 5,500in----------.---.----.------ 3,940 -......----.

4,530 ..-...-.----Tota-------------------- 1,314,148

' Where 2 eligiblity figures appear, the upper one is for afree lunch, and the lower one is for a reduced price lunch.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 min-utes to the gentleman from New York(Mr.PEYsER).

Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Speaker, from timeto time we have all been painfully awareof what is termed a crisis of confidencein our Government, especially amongour young people.

The Congress in particular has beenscornfully described as too insensitive,too unyielding, and too slow. WhileI do not subscribe to this point of view,I do believe that today we have an op-portunity to demonstrate to our criticsthat we can be timely, enlightened, andhumane.

Twelve days ago the Agriculture De-partment announced its ill-consideredplan to eliminate over a million childrenof low-income families from federallysubsidized school lunch programs.

Just 6 days ago I, together with Mr.MEDS, of Washington, introduced an

36513

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSEamendment to the General Subcommit-tee on Education designed to reverse theAgriculture Department's decision andrestore Federal school-lunch subsidiesfor all who were receiving this aid as ofOctober 1,1971.

Today-less than a week later-we willvote on this motion and I am confidentthat we will vote favorably. In so doingwe will have acted incisively, compas-sionately, and with exemplary speed.

A democracy is by design a slower,more deliberate form of governmentthan is a totalitarian system where oneman's word is law. This in fact is democ-racy's strength. Nevertheless, our dem-ocratic government can act with speedand sensitivity when circumstances war-rant, as we are demonstrating here to-day. It is a lesson which should not belost to those who profess to have nofaith in democracy.

For this reason and for the good ofover a million of our children I hope thatthe program will be passed by an over-whelming majority.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from NewYork indicated that the administrationwas in some way negligent in its dutiesand stingy with the money for the school-lunch program.

I recognize the problem of eligibilitystandards, which has caused a difficultyin providing school lunches in some ofthe schools throughout the Nation, forsome schools have set eligibility stand-ards up to $7,500. That is not exactly theincidence of hardship in a family we wereexpecting.

Let us look at what has happenedthrough the years. In 1968 the amount ofmoney provided for the school-lunch pro-gram was $159.6 million. In 1970, 2 yearslater, it was nearly doubled, to $300 mil-lion. Then between 1970 and 1971 the as-sistance program increased another 79percent to a total of $536 million and forthis fiscal year the Department has al-ready announced its intention to spend$750 million under section 4 and sec-tion 11.

When we add what has been requiredin this bill, on which the administrationchanged its rules, they asked for fiscalyear 1972, $615 million and we are addinghere at least another $171 million, bring-ing the total up to $791 million. This is,I believe, a substantial increase in theamount of money.

When we look at the total child-feed-ing program, we have over a billion dol-lars being expended by the Federal Gov-ernment at the present time. Let us notconsider the administration as unwillingto go along in providing assistance toneedy children. That is not the case atall.

The argument was over the eligibilitystandards as set by the States. That real-ly came about because so many schooldistricts did not take part in the school-lunch program until the improved assist-ance was made available, under this ad-ministration. It really got into trouble inthis year.

All of us realize there ought to be somekind of standard across the country, sothat a child of one income level in New

York should not be able to receive as-sistance when a child across the line,with the same family-income level, inPennsylvania cannot receive assistance.We should have standardization, and itshould not be done in such a way thatwe hurt the financial situation of schooldistricts, which are in trouble.

That is why we passed this legislation,in order to protect the interests of theschool districts.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. MEEDs).

Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, after Con-gress passed the School Lunch ReformAct of 1970, President Nixon affixed hissignature to the bill and called for "anend to hunger in the Nation's class-rooms."

With or without the President's con-sent, officials in the Department of Agri-culture and flinty-eyed cranks in the Of-fice of Management and Budget have at-tempted tc undercut the will of Congressand render meaningless the President'sremarks of last year.

House Joint Resolution 923 is theproper response to the actions of thesecoldhearted officials. On August 13 theyannounced that the Government wouldtrim its school lunch reimbursement tothe States by 7 cents. They would do thisby furnishing 5 cents for general cash-for-food assistance and another 30 centsfor free or reduced price lunches. Lastyear's combined figure was 42 cents.

Educators observed that not only weremore children being served by the pro-gram every year, but there had to be anincrease in Federal funding simply tomaintain pace with the 1970-71 schoolyear. Many school districts viewed theAugust 13 announcement as the deathknell for child feeding in their area.

The Mukilteo School District nearEverett, Wash., illustrates vividly the im-pact of a depressed economy on theschool lunch program. Ted Knutson,food services director, wrote to me onOctober 4 and pointed out that theschool district served 5,600 reduced-pricelunches in the 1968-69 school year. Bythe 1970-71 school year, reported Mr.Knutson, the district was serving 62,196free or reduced price meals.

Following the national uproar over theAugust 13 announcement, a momentaryfeeling of guilt and shame may haveentered the hearts of administration offi-cials. On October 6 they reversed- theirdecision and said that the reimburse-ment level would be 40 cents and 6 cents.I applauded their turnabout.

But to these officials hungry school-children count less than figures in theGovernment's ledgers. In conjunctionwith their reversal on funding, they an-nounced that no child could qualify fora free or reduced price lunch if familyincome exceeded $3,940 for a four-mem-ber family.

The impact of this give-and-take-away-again policy would be staggering.As many as 1,500,000 children now eligi-ble would be denied participation in theschool lunch program. In WashingtonState 40 percent of the youngsters beingfed last year would become ineligible.

Mr. Speaker, during the general sub-

October 18,i 97lcommittee's work on the resolution be-fore us this afternoon, I offered anamendment to prohibit the Departmentof Agriculture from changing the in-come guidelines in effect as of .October1. It was accepted and is included inHouse Joint Resolution 923. Joining meas a sponsor of the amendment was mycolleague from New York, PETER PEYSERa

Our committee has not taken pleasurein requiring a fixed level -of support andin cementing income eligibility rules. Iregret deeply that we have been forcedinto a confrontation with the adminis-tration.

Yet there is no alternative. Nutritionand learning ability are inseparable. TheCongress has on numerous occasionsexpressed a commitment to the children;the National School Lunch Act must beexpanded and administered properly. Weare not going to fail the children andare not going to let distant bureaucratssacrifice their nutrition to the idol offalse economy.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. MINK).

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,I rise to express my strong support forthis urgently needed legislation. HouseJoint Resolution 923, which was unani-mously reported by the Education andLabor Committee, would assure that thecongressional commitment to feed theNation's hungry schoolchildren is notsubverted by budget cutting administra-tors. It would prevent cuts in the schoollunch program contained in new guide-lines recently issued by the AgricultureDepartment. As Dr. Jean Mayer, notednutritionist and chairman of the WhiteHouse's 1969 Conference on Nutritionand Hunger, said last week:

We ought to find better ways to save ourmoney than to take food out of the mouthsof hungry children.

This legislation would guarantee thatfurther attempts to trim the Federalbudget are not undertaken at the expenseof this country's hungry children.

Over the past 3 months, the adminis-tration has consistently tried to trim theschool lunch program; first, by imposingan arbitrary and totally unrealisticspending ceiling and then, when thatattempt was thwarted by Congress, byseeking to reduce the number of eligiblechildren. Under the terms of the first setof regulations issued on August 13, eachState would have received an.average of5 cents in general cash-for-food assist-ance for each lunch served and 30 centsin special cash assistance for each freeand reduced price lunch served. The re-sponse from local officials responsible forthe program was overwhelmingly nega-tive. It was clear that the new guidelineswould not only prevent program expan-sion to feed an estimated 1 million addi-tional students but would have the effectof denying lunches to many needy chil-dren who received free or reduced pricelunches in the last school year as well.

In response to this public outcry, boththe Senate and House moved to remedythis situation, and the Senate passed aresolution on October 2, 1971, guarantee-ing a Federal support level of 40 cents forall free lunches served to children under

36514

October 18, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSEthe National School Lunch Act and man-dating a proportionate contribution forreduced price lunches. This provision isincluded in House Joint Resolution ,923.Realizing that their August 13 proposalwas about to be overturned, the Depart-ment of Agriculture liberalized paymentsto the States but issued at the same timenew restrictions which would have de-prived an estimated 600,000 children ofa school lunch. I ask my colleagues toremember that for many of these chil-dren the lunch which they receive atschool is the most substantial and oftenthe only hot meal they receive during theday. No one can reasonably condone de-priving these children of a school lunch,yet this is exactly what the administra-tion wishes us to do.

The regulations which the Departmentof Agriculture sought to implement onOctober 11 would have barred reimburse-ment for meals to any needy child witha family income of over $3,940. Thiswould have been a rigid nationwidestandard and would have completely ig-nored regional variance. In some ruralareas, $3,940 would have encompassedmost of the needy families, but in mosturban areas this figure would have ex-cluded thousands of deserving children.House Joint Resolution 923 prevents theSecretary from changing State eligibilitystandards adopted prior to October 1,1971, and in addition prevents the Secre-tary from changing income levels or eligi-bility standards after the commencementof any fiscal year. If changes are war-ranted local school authorities must beallowed adequate time to adjust to them.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is animportant step in our continuing effortsto end hunger in this country. It cannotwait to be solved in the long run, for asHarry Hopkins noted more than 30 yearsago-

People are not hungry in the long run;they are hungry today.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thedistinguished gentleman from New York(Mr. RYAN).

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I should liketo commend the distinguished chairmanof the committee (Mr. PERKINS) and thedistinguished chairman of the subcom-mittee (Mr. PucINmKI) for the prompt-ness with which they have acted on thisvery important and pressing problem.

I strongly support House Joint Resolu-tion 923 which would assure that everyneedy schoolchild receive a free or re-duced lunch as required by section 9 ofthe National School Lunch Act.

It is extremely unfortunate that 2 yearsafter the President pledged that everydisadvantaged child in America's schoolswould receive a free or reduced pricelunch such a resolution is needed. Butneeded it is, for just 2 weeks ago the De-partment of Agriculture attempted to un-dertake actions that would have forcedsome 1,300,000 poor children out of thisprogram and deeper into hunger andmalnutrition.

That hunger and undernourishmentshould continue to exist at all in a societyas affluent as ours is unconscionable. Butwhat is even less justifiable is the failureof the Federal Government to respond to

the plight of hundreds of thousands ofyoung children trapped in poverty by in-suring that they get enough to eat.. Upon coming, to office, the Nixon ad-ministration. asked that the Americanpeople judge it by its deeds, not its words.Using that as the standard, this admin-istration has demonstrated once again acruel and indefensible indifference to theneeds of this Nation's poor. For while giv-ing lip service last week to the NationalSchool Lunch Week, the administrationwas attempting to slash that program,pushing some 1,300,000 children nation-wide farther into the jaws of hunger andmalnutrition.

This would have been the effect ofthe new Department of Agriculture regu-lation setting the eligibility for the schoollunch program to $3,940 for a family offour. In New York City alone, this deci-sion would have cut off free lunches forsome 350,000 of the 390,000 schoolchil-dren to whom lunches are now being pro-vided.

Previously, the eligibility level for theschool lunch program in New York was$4,250 for a family of four. There is noquestion that a family whose income isthat-or even considerably higher-isvery much in poverty and hard pressedfor children's lunch money. Yet, at atime when eligibility should be expandedconsiderably to meet the problems ofhunger and undernourishment, theNixon administration attempted to cutit back.

Therefore, last week I organized a bi-partisan group of 18 New York Membersof Congress to protest the Department ofAgriculture's decision. We urged thatSecretary of Agriculture Hardin cancelthat decision and insure that no childnow receiving the benefits of the schoollunch program be adversely affected byany administrative decision of the De-partment.

As a result of congressional concern,today the Department of Agriculturerescinded the eligibility ceiling and raisedthe total minimum reimbursement toStates to 46 cents per meal. Previously,on August 13, the Department of Agri-culture had announced an inadequatereimbursement of only 35 cents per meal.Despite the administrative action nowtaken by the Department of Agriculture,the need for the passage of House JointResolution 923 is clear.

It would mandate by congressional ac-tion those measures urged in our tele-gram to Secretary Hardin. It would bylaw prohibit the Department from impos-ing an eligibility ceiling by requiring theSecretary to reimburse schools for mealsprovided needy children eligible underincome standards set by State agenciesas of October 1, 1971. And it would seta 46-cent minimum Federal subsidy foreach meal provided for disadvantagedchildren under the free and reduced priceschool lunch program.

It is indefensible that the administra-tion tried to cut back this program. Thisresolution would insure that it does nothappen again.

At this point I include in the RECORDthe text of the telegram sent to Secre-tary Hardin protesting his action withrespect to the school lunch program.

OcTOBER 14, 1971.Hon. CLIDroRD HARDIN,Secretary of Agriculture,Washington, D.C.

DEsa MR. SECRETARY: On May 6, 1969,Presi-dent Nixon stated that "the moment (is)at hand to put dn end to hunger in Americaitself for all time."

We believe that the recent decision by theDepartment of Agriculture to lower the eligi-bility ceiling for the free school lunch pro-gram to $3,940 for a family of four runsdirectly counter to the President's avowedcommitment to eradicate hunger from thisNation.

This regulation will adversely affect hun-dreds of thousands of disadvantaged childrenthroughout the country. It is estimated thatin New York City alone, some 350,000 of the390,000 school children now receiving theselunches will be forced out of the program.

This regulation cannot be countenanced.It is essential that this program be broad-ened to meet the problems of hunger andmalnutrition, not slashed thus perpetuatingthem. Therefore, we urge you in the strong-est possible terms to cancel the decision tolower the eligibility ceiling and to insurethat no child now receiving the benefits ofthe school lunch program be adverselyaffected by any administrative action of yourdepartment.

Sincerely,WILLIAM F. RYAN, BELLA ABZUG, JOSEPH

ADDABBO, HERMAN BADILLO, MARIO BIAG-GI, JONATHAN BINGHAM, PRANK BRASCO,HUGH CAREY, SHImLEY CHSHOLM,r JOHNDow, THADDEUS DULSKI, SEYMOUR HAL-PERN, EDWARD KocH, JOHN MURPHY,BERTRAM PODELL, CHABLES RANGEL,BENJAMIN ROSENTHAL, JAMEs SCHEUER,and LESTER WOLFF.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from California (Mr. DEL-LUMS).

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, com-pared to the staggering amounts thisNation wastes on subsidies to the richand to major corporations, and for ourabsurd adventurism throughout theworld, it is a tragedy that the adminis-tration and the Congress ever even con-sidered cutting back in the school-lunchprogram.

I support the objectives of this resolu-tion, and the attempts by the committeeto assure that as many children as possi-ble benefit from this program.

Had the administration's misguidedefforts to reduce the school-lunch pro-gram been adopted, who would havegained?

As an example-and I think it is prob-ably a typical situation for many otherlarge cities as well-I would now like toinsert in the debate, a letter I receivedthis morning which outlines what theadministration's proposals would havedone to the exemplary Oakland publicschools free-lunch program:

OAKLAn PunLIC SCHOOLS,Oakland, Calif., October 15, 1971.

Hon. RONALD DELLUMS,Congress of the United States,Washington, D.C.

DEAB CONGRESSMAN DELLUMS: This letterconcerns the new regulations announced bythe U.S. Department of Agriculture onOctober 7, 1971 for the federally subsidizedfree lunches served to needy students.

It was announced that the federal contri-bution for each free or reduced price lunchserved to needy children would be increasedfrom 35 to 45 cents. The US. Department ofAgriculture further stated that the Federal

36515

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE October 18, `1971Income Scale to determine eligibility for freelunches must be used. This scale was partof the 1970 National School Lunch ReformAct to require all districts to serve a free orreduced price lunch to all children fromfamilies who met the poverty income guide-line. Districts were allowed to establish morelenient guidelines.

Oakland has had a free lunch programsince 1966 and our Income scale was devel-oped at that time. Our scale has continuedeven though a federal scale was later madeavalable. The Oakland guidelines have al-lowed free lunches to an children from homesreceiving any form of welfare assistance,children from homes certified to receive foodstamps and children placed in foster homes.The new federal scale does not allow thesecategorical aid families free lunches auto-matically. All families must have a total in-come below the following federal scale:

Gross aeonmty incomeFamily size Federal scale . Oakland scale

_2.-...---. . .------ --. 223 $2683--.----.-.--------- 276 3315 ....................... a37 9454------------------ ------- 328 13945------------------------ 378 4546.--...---.---.--. ..---.. 426 5127----------------------- 470 564...--------...------------. 514 616

The Administration acted wisely in in-creasing the reimbursement for free lunchesfrom 35 to 45 cents. This will mean an addi-tional $30,000 of revenue to this district sowe can do a better job feeding needy studentsand it also nearly eliminates a projected freelunch deficit. However, the Administra-tion at the same time makes it mandatorythat the federal income scale be used toqualify needy students and this will denyapproximately 8,000 students per day a freelunch who are now qualified to receive freelunches and will withhold over $500,000 fromthis district alone for free lunches. Of the27,00O meals per day served last year, 75percent were either free or reduced pricedmeals. This year the district expects to hit3 m ion in free meals. With the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture Income Scale reductions,the number would only be 1.8 million mealsfor 1971-72.

We contend that this denial of free lunchesis not based on fact or even shortage of fundsbut just on political defiance between theCongress and the Department of Agriculture.Further, a drastic change in this program thislate in the schoolyear could disrupt an other-wise very productive school year for Oaklandstudents. We are further convinced that theFederal Income Scale may be appropriate inthe Missisippi Delta or Appalachia but dueto high rent and general cost of living inthe Oakland Bay Area it is not appropriatehere.

Our specific request is for the Congress toprevail on the Department of Agriculture toalow a 25 percent variance in the FederalScale to be decided by the local Boards ofEducation. We are also requesting no furtherdisruption in the free lunch program duringthe school year by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture.

Your attention to this urgent matter willbe appreciated by all concerned.

Respectfully yours,Mabscts A. Posrsa,

Superintendent of Schools.I hope that our action today will pre-

empt the danger that programs such asOakland's would be so seriously re-trenched as the result of a whim by some'Ssupereconomiaer."

However, there is one point about thisresolution which I feel stil is far shortof a desired norm for such an importantnational commitment. Section 5 of the

resolution in its original language stipu-lated that-

During fiscal year 1972 such guideliness•ma be considered only as a national mini-mum standard of eligibilty and the Secre-tary shal reimburse during such fiscal yearState agencies and local school authoritiesfor free and reduced cost meals served pur-suant to eligibility standards established byState agencies and local school authoritiesprior to October , 1971.

Unfortunately in this final form beforeus today, the reference to eligibilitystandards established by local schoolsystems has been deleted, and I thinkthis is a major problem for some schoollunch programs.

Just as we know that poverty sub-sistence levels vary widely among Statesand regions, so do these standards dif-fer between parts of States. The pov-erty line for rural areas may be muchbelow that of a central city. Yet, as Iunderstand the resolution as it is beforeus today, were a city to have eligibilitystandards higher than those of the State,that city school system would be forcedto deny free school lunches to manyneedy children.

As an alternative to the language be-fore us today, I would suggest that pro-visions be made that State eligibilitylevels should allow higher local eligibilitylevels and that this variance be includedas an integral component of the overallState standards.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from New York (Mrs.AsBez).

Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, I rise insupport of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we areconsidering today-House Joint Resolu-tion 923-has my strong support. Itstates, clearly and in detail, Congress'intent to have an effective set of child-nutrition programs. It is necessary inlight of the continued refusal of the ad-ministration to actively and properly im-plement the school lunch and schoolbreakfast provisions of the child nutri-tion acts. It is urgently needed if Con-gress truly wants to see its commitmentto provide meals to schoolchildren ful-filled.

This is an emergency resolution be-cause the Department of Agriculture hascreated an emergency situation all acrossthe country. Not only have they movedto reduce the amount of money goingto these programs and the number ofchildren receiving assistance, but theyhave also kept altering the means of ac-complishing this. Thus, the Senate-passed resolution of October 1 was naideobsolete by a new set of regulations is-sued on October 6; the resolution we areconsidering today, which was draftedonly a few days ago, was partially af-fected under the terms of a press releaseissued by the Department only thismorning.

The Senate resolution sought to setat 45 cents the amount of reimburse-ment paid for the lunches of needy chil-dren; the October 6 switch by the De-Ipartment purported to fix this restora-tion figure, but at the same time wouldhave eliminated between 00,000 and 1

million children from the program bytightening eligibility standards for freeand reduoed-price lunches. Fir New YorkCity, this would have meant droppingfrom the program a majority of the par-ticipating children. For the State of NewYork, this would have meant dropping30 new programs planned for this schoolyear.

This morning's turnabout by the De-partment of Agriculture-and I note thatit was in the form of a press releaserather than final, official regulations-returned to the States the right to estab-lish their own eligibility levels, thoughit failed to permit localities to establishhigher levels, even where those levelswere clearly necessitated by local condi-tions and previously in effect. For NewYork City, this would have meant drop-ping the level from $4,500 to $4,250 perannum, despite the fact that it has oneof the highest cost-of-living levels in theNation. It would. have meant the drop-ping of thousands of needy children fromthe program.

Fortunately, the pending resolutionclears up this shortcoming by. prohibit-ing the Secretary of Agriculture fromlowering minimum standards of eligibil-ity and from reducing the number ofchildren served in any school districtduring the current fiscal year.

It is tragic that the action outlined inthis resolution is necessary. Last year,Congress passed Public Law 91-248,which required that every needy school-child receive a free or reduced-pricelunch. The intent of Congress in passingthat law made it unmistakably clear thatan adequate set of child nutrition pro-grams, providing meals for needy chil-dren, was a primary goal of this Nation.

Earlier this year, Congress had tocounter the disastrous result of adminis-trative actions by providing adequatefunds for the summer child-feeding pro-grams. Today, we are again forced intoassuring that the administration followsour intent and meets the needs of hungrychildren. I urge the passage of this reso-lution, so that our children may receivethe meals that the Federal Governmentis by law committed to provide.

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in anaffluent society, such as our own, there isabsolutely no excuse for hunger and pov-erty to be prevalent. Our society mustsurely take responsibility for seeing thatits young receive a proper diet. Particu-larly, it is important that young school-children receive nutritious meals. 'With-out proper food, they cannot be expectedto perform up to par in school. They can-not be expected to maintain concentra-tion on academic affairs if they mustkeep their minds on the pain in theirstomachs.

House Joint Resolution 923 remindsus that there is indeed hunger in Amer-ica and that it is prevalent in many ofour schools. To counteract this outrageagainst our young, it is our responsibilityto authorize the appropriation of suchfunds as will guarantee that none of ourschoolchildren will go hungry.

I wholeheartedly support'House JointResolution 923 with its provisions for a46-cent minimum Federal subsidy foreach meal provided for' eedy childrenunder the free and reduced price school

36516

October 18, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSElunch program. Additionally, I opposeattempts on the part of the administra-tion to limit eligibility for these lunchprograms to children from families withan income of less than $3,940.

I urge all my colleagues to supportHouse Joint Resolution 923. In so doing,we will be declaring our opposition tohunger and our support for the well-be-ing of our childrei.

Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, the House has before it todaya most important resolution which cutsto the root of our democratic system, in-sofar as it addresses itself to the all-im-portant question of whether the execu-tive department by administrative decreecan go against the wishes of the peopleas expressed by the Congress of theUnited States and made.law of the land.If this House fails to pass House JointResolution 923, it can only signal anabandonment of a commitment we madeto the future of the Nation when we en-acted Public Law 91-248 which providedfor a school lunch for all needy childrenacross the Nation.

If the Agriculture Department's latestmaneuver to restrict spending on thisprogram one way or another is allowedto go unchallenged, I hope the Houserealizes the harsh implications whichwill follow if eligibility requirements areto be locked in at a $3,940 level for afamily of four. With the stroke of a pen,close to a million needy children, inevery sense of the word "needy," wouldbe eliminated from the free lunch pro-gram.

At a time when this administrationshould be redoubling its efforts to extendand expand this worthy program, we findit being arbitrarily slashed. I, for one, donot want the responsibility of informingover 100,000 children of school age inMassachusetts that they have been elimi-nated from the school lunch programbecause this House did not rescind theDepartment of Agriculture's latest pro-posal. .

In some cases, this meal might havebeen the only nutritional meal some chil-dren could look forward to each day.It can only appear as so much quibblingover what is in the end an artificial dol-lar figure. The very use of the words"national average" indicates that it isthe average poverty level across the Na-tion. It admits that from State to Statethe level does vary.

The action could not come at a worsetime. The Commonwealth of Massachu-setts, for instance, has been making com-mendable progress in its efforts to pro-vide free and reduced lunches to school-children in Massachusetts. State lawsprovide for a mandatory lunch programin all public schools after September of1973. If this new Department of Agricul-ture regulation is allowed to stand, muchof the progress registered in Massachu-setts by this program will be risked.

In effect, there will be a further disin-centive for local communities to partici-pate in the program. Already many localofficials are arguing that the program isgoing the way of so many other Federalprograms and that the Federal Govern-ment is cutting back on its commitment,leaving the States to hold the bag and

bear the increasing financial burdens.These are some of the larger implicationsof the Department of Agriculture's an-nouncement. It is more than a matter ofsaving a few million dollars. It is as ifthe administration wanted to discouragethe program from taking any furtherroot at the local level and wanted to blowthe whistle and discourage further par-ticipation in a most worthwhile, and Imaintain, needed program.SI also want to take strong issue withthe manner in which the Department ofAgriculture has handled the whole an-nouncement. The initial revision of regu-lation came only after Congress went intoits well-publicized summer recess, there-by lessening the possibility of close scru-tiny and inevitable criticism by the ap-propriate committees of both Houses ofCongress.

Furthermore, the announcement of theproposed regulation came only days be-fore the school year was due to commencein most school districts across the Nation,with an effective date after every schoolin every district would be open. The re-sulting uncertainty is difficult to exag-gerate. Every school board hesitated tocommit itself too deeply to a programwhich could be revised considerably oncethe school year was underway. It createdchaos and doubts as school districts werefaced with the task of anticipating costsbefore they adopted their budget andplans for the year. It would have been abrave school district, indeed, that wouldhave been encouraged under the circum-stances to stick its neck out and commititself to a program whose price tag wasvery much up in the air, to say the least.

The resolution we have before us today,in seeking to correct this situation, hasauthorized the Secretary to reimburseState agencies administering the pro-gram of lunches to schoolchildren ac-cording to State eligibility requirementsestablished in good faith prior to Octo-ber 1. 1971.

The resolution also provides that theaverage rate for reimbursement in anyState for all lunches served-free orotherwise-shall not be less than 6 centsper meal, 1 cent over the level presentlybeing permitted as sufficient by the De-partment of Agriculture. The 6 cents re-imbursement level is important becauseit would at least allow the States to op-erate the school lunch program at lastyear's level.

In short, the administration's actionleaves me completely confused and up-set. In changing the rules of the gameafter the school year has started it can-not help but create chaos and confusionin the minds of school boards and parentsalike,One wonders whether this was notthe desired result in the first place. Buteven further, it seems to epitomize a falsesense of economy by opting for a programwhich would save a few pennies todayat the possible expense of the very futureof this Nation. For let there be no mis-take about it, the real wealth of thisNation is in its youth and the schoollunch program is but a modest attemptto try to insure a minimum standard ofnourishment and nutrition regardless offamily means. It also just so happensthat what is good for the health of ourchildren is good for the agricultural sup-

port program and for the farmers of thecountry.

Mrs. GRASSO. Mr. Speaker, if everyneedy child is to receive a free or re-duced price lunch in school, it is impera-tive that the proposed Department ofAgriculture regulations governing theschool lunch program be rescinded.

Along with the other members of theEducation and Labor Committee, I sup-port House Joint Resolution 923 andurge my colleagues to approve this meas-ure for the welfare of ourschoolchildren.Otherwise, this program faces possiblefinancial disaster. Over two-thirds ofthe States have indicated a need for morethan the originally proposed 30-cent re-imbursement on free and reduced-pricelunches. The number of children eligiblefor this program has increased since lastApril and, without the reimbursementrate of 46 cents contained in this resolu-tion, many of the States will be unable tofeed all the children presently entitled bylaw to these lunches.

The need for increased funding is es-pecially pertinent for a State such as myown State of Connecticut which has justwitnessed a decrease in its welfare budg-et. A family with less money to spendmust of necessity buy less food-foodthat is essential for the growth of youngbones and tissue. Also, studies haveshown that hungry children do not reachtheir full potential in school.

It is imperative that the reimburse-ment rate for the school lunch programbe increased to the 46 cents called forin House Joint Resolution 923. Then thechildren of the poor and the near pooracross the country will have at least onenutritionally adequate meal per day inschool.

It is the responsibility of Congress torespond favorably to the clear and press-ing needs of our Nation's children.

Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,I rise in support of House Joint Resolu-tion 923 to prohibit a reduction in thenumber of meals served in the schoollunch program. When the administrationfirst decided to limit the expenditure to35 cents per pupil, the adverse reactionof this body forced the administrationto reconsider its decision. Rather thanreinstate the authorized funding level,however, the administration increasedthe expenditure per pupil and reducedthe number of children eligible for thefunds. This latest move eliminates morethan 1.2 million children from the pro-gram.

I commend the distinguished membersof the Committee on Education and La-bor for unanimously reporting the res-olution to prohibit restricting eligibilityto children from families with an annualincome less than $3,940. In my city ofChicago alone the proposed administra-tion cutbacks would deprive 35,000 needyyoungsters of nutritious meals. A total of39 States across the Nation would ex-perience substantial reductions.

These proposed limitations sacrificethe health and welfare of defenselesschildren in the name of economy. TheWhite House consultant on nutrition, Dr.Jean Mayer, in testimony before a Senatecommittee, suggested:

We ought to find better ways to save our

36517

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSEmoney than to take it out of the mouths ofhungry chtldren.

Surely other areas are more deservingof budgetary reductions. Our commit-ment to provide equal education oppor-tunities for al children involves morethan an adequate number of buildings,books, and teachers. Proper nourishmentis a p•reequisite for an active mind aswell as a healthy body.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I propose that theadministration's cutoff point for eligibil-ity at the legal poverty level is unrealis-tic. Tb limit the lunch program to chil-dren from families earning less than$3,940 for a family of four is to unneces-sarily restrict the interpretation of theword "needy." If I may borrow againfrom Dr. Mayefs recent testimony:

No one who has followed the issue wouldhave expected the administration to interpret"needy" to exclude people who are poor butnot quite that destitute.

I urge my colleagues to regard thisresolution as a humane investment in thecountry's future rather than a costlydrain n its economy.

Mrs. HECKLER of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, economy should not begin withschoolchdren's luhmches.

As well-meaning as the Agriculture De-partment's action may have been inlowering the income eligibility require-ments for free or reduced-fee schoollunches, it was misguided and misappro-priate

It was also self-defeating in threeways:

irst, it violates the clear intent ofCongress.

Second, it does not save that muchmoney, because although the incomelevel for eligibility would be cut back,the individual Federal contribution wouldbe increased from 30 cents to 40 cents.

Third, it frustrates the basic purpose ofthe program, which is to help createhealthy, happy, productive citizens whoseown children someday may have no needof thisprogram.

Federal expenditures in the programmust be regarded as an investment inthe future. It has been demonstratedthat poor diet and malnutrition stunta child, not only physically, but alsoemotionally and intellectually.

The whole idea of subsidising hotlunches for poor children is to help be-come and remain strong and brightenough to escape from poverty. Thenperhaps they can provide a return on theNation's investment with well-adjusted,productive lives.

I am happy to support this resolutionwhich gets this program back on theright track. It tells the Agriculture De-partment in unmistakable language notto cut corners on children's lunches. Itspecifically prohibits arbitrary admin-istrative action that would deprive morethan a million children of the chance tomeet life on its own terms.

The lower income figure of $3,940 is$360 less than the current eligibilitylevel in much of my congressional dis-trict. That is not too high a price to payfor better human beings. The loss ofthem to the future would be more thanwe can afford.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Speaker, It is theclear intent and purpose of this resolu-tion to assure that every needy school-child will receive a free or reduced-pricelunch as required by section 9 of the Na-tional School Lunch Act. Congress is spe-cifically rejecting the-proposed actions ofthe Department of Agriculture whichwould reduce the level and amount of re-imbursement for general and special cashassistance for school breakfasts andlunches. The Department of Agricultureobviously intends to halt the expansion ofthese programs and to cut back on thelevel of assistance provided by the Fed-eral Government.

The committee bill therefore sets spe-cific rates of reimbursement for generalcash-for-food assistance for each lunchserved and for special cash assistance foreach free or reduced price lunch served;requires the Secretary to use as much ofthe funds available under section 32 ofthe act of August 24,1934, as may benec-essary to provide sufficient funds for freeand reduced price meals for every needychild; and forbids the Secretary from re-ducing the number of children served inany school district. All these provisionsare intended, as the resolution states, "toachieve the objectives of the NationalSchool Lunch Act, particularly that ofproviding a free or reduced price lunchto every needy child." The Committee onEducation and Labor was also opposed tothe section of the proposed regulationswhich would bar reimbursement formeals to any needy child with a familyincome of over $3,940 because, and I quotefrom the committee report:

It will deprive thousands of needy chil-dren of a school lunch. It is in conflict withcongressional intent as expressed with theadoption of Public Law 91-248 that all needychildren be proided with aschool lunch .

The committee report goes on to saythat:

The proposed regulation comes after theschool year has commenced and thus hascaused confusion and turmoil in local schooldistricts.

The committee clearly intends to con-tinue current practices, whereby higherState or local income standards whichhave been used in the past will continueto be used in determining eligibility forfree or reduced price lunches. While itmight appear that section 5 of the resolu-tion provides for reimbursement formeals provided under income guidelinesadopted by State agencies, this does nottake into account the fact that manycities have higher income eligibilitystandards than the States in which theyare located. In such cases in the past,meals provided to children eligible underthe higher standard have been reim-bursed by the Federal Government.

It is my understanding that this willcontinue to be the case, since this isconsistent with the overall committeeintent, first, to maintain the progressthat has been made in extending theselunch and breakfast programs in thepast few years, and, two, to prohibit a re-duction in the number of children servedin any school district. If there is anydoubt about the impact of section 5, I

October 18, 1971urge my colleagues in both Houses tomake these provisions consistent withthe other sections of the bill ihn con-ference.

The committee -also accepted myamendment adding a new section 7 tothe bill which authorizes the Secretaryof Agriculture to transfer funds fromsection 32 of the act of August 24, 1935,for the purpose of assisting schools whchdemoistrate a need for additional fundsin the school breakfast program. Thecommittee report makes clear that it ex-pects the Secretary to transfer as muchof these funds as necessary to expandthe breakfast program to every schooldesiring to participate.

This school breakfast program, whichI authored in 1968, deserves to be greatlyexpanded. This amendment will allowthat expansion by providing a new,open ended source of .funds, so thatschool breakfasts can be provided to allchildren who need them. These break-fasts are vitally important if these chil-dren are to go through their schooldaysawake, alert and healthy enough tolearn. I expect the Department of Agri-culture to take advantage of this amend-ment and to expand school breakfastprograms all over the country in the verynear future.

Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, this legis-lation answers a pressing need in thecountry's school lunch program. Indeed,the program's very survival may bingeon the passage of House Joint Resolution923.

The Agriculture Department has pub-lished startling new regulations govern-ing funds for school lunches. The regu-lations-pinchpenny measures thatmight threaten the health of an entiregeneration of American schoolchildren-would limit reimbursement funds to 5cents for each conventional lunchserved,to 35 cents for each lunch served toneedy children free or at reduced prices.A survey conducted by the Education andLabor Committee shows that such grimlymeager reimbursement levels would allbut cripple that school lunch program inmany States,. denying sound meals tomillions of children.

The legislation now before us wouldestablish reimbursement rates of 6 and46 cents-adequate rates, but hardlygenerous ones: And it would allow theStates to determine, through criteriadrawn up prior to October 1, 1971, justwhat constitutes a needy child worthyof free lunches or lunches at reducedprices. The Agriculture Department isnow seeking to shut out of this programany children whose families earn morethan ,3,940 a year. Of equalssgnifiance,Mr. Speaker, is the bill's provision to barthe Agriculture Department from stiffen-

Sing eligibility requirements andlrom lim-iting the number of poor children noweligible.

Everyone concedes the success of theschool lunch program. The program, infact, is an exemplar of what Federalassistance projects should be.

We must not endanger it.With permission, Mr. Speaker, Iput in

the Recoan a letter I have received froinJohn C. Stalker, director of the school

October 18, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSElunch program in Massachusetts, point-ing out the need for House Joint Resolu-tion 923

THE COMMONWEALTH OFMASSACHUSETTS,

DEPARTMENT or' EDUCATION,Boston, Mass., October 15, 1971.

Hon. EDWARD P. BOLAND,Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPREsENTAT•VE BoLAr: Confirmingour telegram of October 15th, we are enclos-ing the Statement of Position relative to theproposed changes in the application of theSecretary's Poverty Guidelines for Free andReduced Price Lunches. Since sending thetelegram, we have been informed that Res-olution H.J. 889 has been renumbered toH.J. 923.

To prevent a complete disruption of ourschool food service operations, it is impera-tive-that you support this amended Resolu-tion. Thank you for your continued interestin the Child Nutrition Programs.

Sincerely yours,JOHN C. STALKER,

Director.Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.

Speaker, I rise in support of House JointResolution 923 to enforce the NationalSchool Lunch Act. It is outrageous thatthis House should even have to concernitself with this resolution. Originally theidea to provide needy youngsters a nu-tritious meal as a Democratic pro-posal. As with several other Democraticproposals, the President liked the Na-tional School Lunch Act so much headopted it as his own program. We wereall the more surprised, therefore, tolearn of the stringent cutback in theprogram.

Indeed, the administration tried tosneak this one by. Caught with theirhands in the lunchsack, they first backeddown and agreed to fund the program atthe level originally provided for by theCongress. Not content at one attemptto cheat thousands of children out of theone good daily meal they could get, theadministration has now attempted to re-duce the number of children eligible.

Mr. Speaker, if it were absolutely nec-essary, if we were somehow forced tochoose one of the many good educationprograms, I think the National SchoolLunch Act would have to win out overall the others.

This has been one of the most success-ful education programs to come along indecades. The act presupposes what manyparents have known for years; thatchildren learn better on a full stomachthan on an empty one. But many low-and middle-income children go to schoolevery day without a decent meal. In somecases the families are too poor to providea balanced diet; in other instances bothparents work, or there is only one parentin the home and the children are left tofend for themselves. Whatever the rea-son, for these children, the schoolday isa dismal affair, filled with drowsinessinduced by hunger and empty of anyeducational benefit. These are the chil-dren that drop out in later years. In spiteof their physical attendance in class, theyhad been mentally absent from any reallearning experience.

As if it were really necessary to proveit to us or many parents, a scientific re-search study proved beyond any remain-

ing doubt that students who came toschool with a decent diet or had oneavailable at school fared appreciably bet-ter in their studies than those who hadbeen deprived of a decent meal. Indeed,there was a marked increase in thescholastic achievement of students whowere provided with a nutritious mealafter years of coming to school on anempty stomach.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues tosupport this joint resolution.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no fur-ther requests for time.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, we haveno further requests for time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on themotion offered by the gentleman fromKentucky that the House suspend therules and pass the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 923), as amended.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, on that Idemand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The question was taken; and there

were-yeas 353, nays, 0, not voting 77,as follows:

AbernethyAbzugAdamsAddabboAlexanderAnderson,

Calif.Anderson, Ill.Anderson,

Tenn.Andrews, Ala.Andrews,

N.Dak.AnnunzioArcherArendsAshbrookAspinAspinallBakerBarrettBeglchBelcherBellBennettBettsBevillBiaggiBlesterBinghamBlackburnBlantonBlatnikBoggsBolandBollingBowBrademasBrascoBrayBrinkleyBrooksBroomfleldBrotzmanBrown, Mich.Brown, OhioBroybill, Va.BuchananBurke, Fla.Burke, Mass.Burleson, Tex.Burllson, Mo.BurtonByrne, Pa.ByronCabellCafferyCampCarey, N.Y.CarneyCasey Tex.CederbergCellerChamberlainChisholm

[Roll No. 3031YEAS-353

Clancy GettysClark GlaimoClausen, Gibbons

Don H. GonzalezClawson, Del GoodlingClay GrassoCleveland GrayCollier Green, Oreg.Collins, Ill. Green, Pa.Collins, Tex. GrifinColmer GriffithsConable GrossConte GroverCorman GudeCoughlin HaleyDaniel, Va. HallDaniels, N.J. HamiltonDavis, Ga. Hammer-Davis, Wis. schmidtDelaney HanleyDellenback Hansen, IdahoDellums Hansen, Wash.Denholm HarringtonDennis HarshaDent HarveyDevine HastingsDickinson HathawayDingell HawkinsDonohue HaysDorn HebertDowdy Hechler, W. Va.Downing Heckler, Mass.Drinan HelstoskiDulski HendersonDuncan Hicks, Wash.du Pont HoganDwyer HollfleldEdmondson HortonEdwards, Ala. HosmerEdwards, Calif. HowardEilberg HullErlenborn HungateEsch HuntEshleman HutchinsonEvans, Colo. JacobsEvins, Tenn. JarmanFascell Johnson, Calif.Findley Johnson, Pa.Fish JonasFisher Jones, Ala.Flood , Jones, N.C.Flowers Jones, Tenn.Ford, Gerald R. KarthFord, Kastenmeier

William D. KazenForsythe KeatingFountain KeeFraser KeithFrelinghuysen KempFrenzel KingFrey KlnczynsklFulton, Tenn. KochGalagher KyrosGarmatz LandrumGaydos Latta

Leggett Pepper SkubitzLennon Perkins SlackLink Pettis Smith, Calif.Lloyd Peyser Smith, IowaLong, Md. Pickle Smith, N.Y.Lujan Pike SnyderMcClory Pirnie - SpenceMcClure Podell SpringerMcColllster Poff Stanton,McCormack Powell J. WilliamMcCulloch Preyer, N.C. Stanton,McDade Price, Ill. James V.McDonald, Pryor, Ark. Steed

Mich. Pucinski SteeleMcFall Purcell Steiger, Ariz.McKay Quie Stelger, Wis.McKevitt Quillen StokesMcMillan Randall StrattonMacdonald, Rangel Stubblefeld

Mass. Rarick SullivanMadden Rees TalcottMahon Reid, N.Y. TaylorMailliard Riegle Teague, Tex.Martin Roberts TerryMathias, Calif. Robinson, Va. Thompson, Ga.Matsunaga Robison, N.Y. Thomson, Wis.Mayne Rodino ThoneMazzoll Roe TiernanMeeds Rogers UdallMelcher Roncalio Vander JagtMetcalfe Rooney, N.Y. VanikMichel Rooney, Pa. VeyseyMikva Rosenthal VigoritoMiller. Ohio Rostenkowski WaggonnerMinish Roush WaldieMink Roy WamplerMinshall Runnels WareMizell Ruppe WhalenMollohan Ruth WhalleyMonagan Ryan WhiteMoorhead St Germain WhitehnrstMorgan Sandman WidnallMorse Sarbanes WigginsMosher Satterfield WilliamsMoss Saylor Wilson,Murphy, Ill. Scherle Charles H.Myers Schmitz WinnNatcher Schneebeli WrightNedzl Schwengel WylieNelsen Scott WymanNichols Sebelius YatesNix Seiberling YatronO'Hara Shipley Young, Fla.O'Konski Shoup Young, Tex.Passman Shriver ZionPatten Sikes ZwachPelly Siak

NAYS-0NOT VOTING-77

Abbitt Galiflanakis ObeyAbourezk Goldwater O'NeillAshley Gubser PatmanBadillo Hagan PoageBaring Halpern Price, Tex.Bergland Hanna RailsbackBroyhill, N.C. Hicks, Mass. ReussByrnes, Wis. Hillis hodesCarter Ichord RousselotChappell Kuykendall RoybalConyers Kyl ScheuerCotter Landgrebe StaggersCrane Lent StephensCulver Long, La. StuckeyDanielson McCloskey SymingtonDavis, S.C. McEwen Teague, Calif.de la Garza McKinney Thompson, N.J.Derwinski Mann UllmanDiggs Mathis, Ga. Van DeerlinDow Miller, Calif. WhittenEckhardt Mills, Ark. Wilson, BobEdwards, La. Mills, Md. WolffFlynt Mitchell WyattFoley Montgomery WydlerFuqua Murphy, N.Y. Zabocki

So (two-thirds having voted in favorthereof) the rules were suspended andthe joint resolution, as amended, waspassed.

The Clerk announced the followingpairs:

Mr. O'Neill with Mr. Rhodes.Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.

Gubser.Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Teague of Cali-

fornia.Mr. Bergland with Mr. Wydler.Mr. Chappell with Mr. Kyl.Mr. Mathis of Georgia with Mr. Hills.

36519