I want to read from page 2, beginning on line 3, of the joint resolution:

the Secretary of Agriculture shall until such time as a supplemental appropriation may provide additional funds for such purpose use so much of the funds appropriated by section 32 . . . as may be necessary. That does not bypass the appropriations process. As a matter of fact, it is a stopgap measure, waiting until the Appropriations Committee can act. It is important to do so because the regulations that have been promulgated by the Department of Agriculture have created chaos and consternation and confusion in our school lunch programs throughout the length and breadth of this country. Those regulations have provided for payments per meal less than were made available last year and detained and delayed carrying out the program. The law mandates, on the one hand, that it be carried out; the Department of Agriculture regulations, on the other hand, would provide inadequate funds for the purpose of carrying it out.

So it is imperative that the Senate act, and act now. This is not new or novel. The Senate, in 1968, did exactly the same thing in Public Law 90-328, a joint resolution approved June 4, 1968, which originated in the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the statute was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Commodity Credit Corporation is hereby authorized and directed to make advances to the Emergency Credit Revolving Fund (7 U.S.C. 1966) in a total amount not to exceed $30,000,000. Such advances together with interest at a rate which will compensate Commodity Credit Corporation for its cost of money during the period in which the advance was outstanding shall be reimbursed out of appropriations to the fund hereafter made.

Approved June 4, 1988.

Mr. TALMADGE. And on June 30 of this year, 1971, an act originating in the Committee on Labor and Education of the House of Representatives came over here, went to our committee on Agriculture and Forestry, was reported by the committee by unanimous vote, and was passed by a unanimous vote of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that that act, Public Law 92-32, be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the statute was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:*

Mr. TALMADGE. I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for yielding, I wish to pay tribute to the very effective and vigorous leadership he has been providing in this very important matter.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 157, the emergency resolution for full Federal funding of the free and reduced price school lunch program.

California has a special stake in the resolution of this latest school lunch crisis. We have almost 5 million school children from kindergarten through the twelfth grade in California, and 1 million of these have been identified by the State education department as "needy" students. That is, one-fifth of the total elementary and secondary school population in my State is eligible for the free and reduced price lunches available under section 11 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended.

The principal purpose of Public Law 91-248, enacted by Congress in May, 1970, was to facilitate the provision of free and reduced price lunches for all needy children. In fact, the mandate of Congress in Public Law 91-248 is quite clear: all needy children shall be served meals free or at a reduced cost.

The regulations proposed by the Department of Agriculture on August 13 reduce the Federal reimbursement rate per lunch under section 11 to 30 cents, although the actual cost per meal averages around 50 cents—after deducting about 10 cents worth of donated Federal commodities. Unless these regulations are revised to provide a more adequate Federal reimbursement level, the entire

*See p. 1964, subsequently printed in this hearing.

school lunch program in California will be jeopardized. In their present form, the regulations simply do not carry out the intent of Congress that every needy child shall be served a free or reduced price lunch.

The resolution before us today would direct that the Federal reimbursement level be raised to 40 cents for free and reduced price lunches. Dr. Wilson Riles, California's superintendent of Public Instruction, informs me that 40 cents is the minimum Federal reimbursement needed to maintain the gains made in the California school lunch program under his able leadership.

Dr. Riles office has identified 1 million children as meeting the income criteria for the free and reduced price lunches. Last year, 500,000 needy children in some 800 school districts in California were served free or reduced price lunches400,000 of these received free lunches. This year, the State set a goal of providing 750,000 free and reduced price lunches, and next year California hopes to have reached all 1 million needy children. Dr. Riles, who has taken the congressional mandate to heart and has endeavored to provide free and reduced price lunches to every needy child, is extremely concerned about the effect of these regulations on California's lunch program-30 cents is just not adequate to do the job.

With unemployment climbing, school districts in California have no means to raise the additional revenue to continue their lunch programs. Governor Reagan vetoed $6 million from the State budget that was to have provided 10 cents in State funds to assist school districts. Without an increase in the Federal reimbursement, districts may be forced to terminate their school lunch programs. The East Whittier School District has already dropped out of the program. At least a dozen other school districts have expressed concern to Dr. Riles' office that they, too, may be forced to terminate their lunch programs.

I submit, Mr. President, that it is appallingly callous to deny lunches to hungry schoolchildren because of this administration's policies in fighting inflation. Surely our underprivileged, undernourished hungry children need not be sacrificed for those policies. Just what are our priorities? Adequate funds must be made available immediately if the people of this Nation are to maintain any faith in the promises of their elected representatives. It has been more than 2 years since President Nixon declared

The moment is at hand to put an end to hunger in America itself for for all time.

The moment is still at hand. For the sake of the schoolchildren in California and across the Nation, I urge the Senate to approve this resolution.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I believe that one of the finest things we do for the nutritional care of our children is this school lunch program, especially as it affects needy children who cannot afford to buy the kind of food to give then the sustenance that is necessary to allow them to grow into healthy womanhood or manhood.

I have received an abundance of mail from my State. I realize that arguments can be made pro and arguments can be made con, but I think that of all the programs that we have, this is one program where there has been less abuse and where there has been less waste than in any other program that I know of. As I say, I have received an abundance of mail from most of our cities and towns-stating that unless we do something, and do it rather quickly, they will have to abandon or curtail their participation in this program. I am afraid that unless we do something as a stop-gap until such time we appropriate the proper amount of money the ones who are going to be the losers in all this will be the young children of America.

I say that even if we make a mistake here today, which I strongly doubt, we are making it on the side of our children, to see that they are fed well, and I hope we will move along with the resolution.

I know there are no more dedicated Members of this body than the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Ellender), my good friend the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Young), my good friend the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hruska), and my good friend the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Aiken), who has been here fighting time and time again for the needy-I remember the great fight he put up on the floor of the Senate on prenatal care. There is no greater humanitarian in the Senate than Senator Aiken, my good friend from Vermont.

I hope if a mistake is made here today, we make it on the side of the children. So let us get on with it, and pass this resolution.

Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the chairman's (Mr. Talmadge) statement was most informative and conclusive and in my judgment made the case for the resolution.

I call the attention of the Senate to the provision in section 9 of the School Lunch Act which refers to the needy children. It says:

Such meals shall be served without cost or at a reduced cost not exceeding 20 cents per meal to children who are determined by local school authorities to be unable to pay the full cost of the lunch.

The point that is made there is that they shall be served. It is mandated. In fact, the Department of Agriculture mandated the school authorities to prepare a program to feed needy children.

When you do that it means that you expand the program, and when you expand the program it costs more. You do not expand the program by reducing the amount of funds that goes for each meal. You may be able to expand the total coverage, but you make it impossible for some of the schools to participate.

The other point I should like to make is that where there is State participation, many State legislatures are already out of session. They cannot make the adjustments that would be required by the present rules and regulations of the Department of Agriculture for the coming school year.

The point has been well made that we are not advancing anything here from the committee that is new. The chairman of the committee has presented two resolutions previously adopted by Congress, one by this Congress and one by a previous Congress, that extended the use of section 32 funds on the principle of reimbursement.

That is one of the reasons for section 32 funds, that it gives some flexibility in emergency situations. Sometimes it was for citrus fruits, sometimes it was for meat. This time it is for school lunches. But the resolution requires the appropriation process to make the reimbursement.

I think it also should be noted that in the last school year the payments were running about 42 cents per lunch for the lunch program. This year, it is 30 cents out of section 11, 5 cents out of section 4, which means 35 cents. This resolution would provide not less than 40 cents-which by the way, would be 2 cents less than last year, at the end of the year, when new programs were offered and advanced.

So under the existing rules and regulations, section 32 would provide the additional amount that would make it possible to have a minimum of 40 cents.

The committee report points out what the committee amendment would do. The committee amendment would make it clear that funds provided by the resolution would be apportioned in a manner that would best enable schools to provide lunches to needy children, and that is required by the mandate of the law.

It would also require that these funds be apportioned and paid as expeditiously as practicable, because reimbursement is necessary for school lunch programs in local schools and school districts. There is not a school district in this country, with a few exceptions, that is not hard pressed. Every school lunch program has been affected by inflation, just as the market basket of the average home has been affected by inflation. If the Senate were filled with housewives, who have to go out every day to do the shopping at the supermarket, they would be laughing at us to think that a school lunch could be provided at 30 or 35 cents. They know that it cannot be done, particularly when last year it required 42 cents.

If anyone can present a scintilla of evidence that the costs of food have gone down since last year, it will be the greatest news flash that has come across the country since the end of World War II. It has not happened. Yet, the administration apparently thinks it has.

What we are saying here, further, is that we would require the Secretary of Agriculture to determine and report to Congress the needs for additional funds for fiscal 1972 for the school breakfast and nonfood assistance programs. Finally-and this is the important provision-this amendment, presented today, provides that the maximum reimbursement rate under section 11(e) of the National School Lunch Act shall not be less than 40 cents.

I repeat: We have not become spendthrifts. We are not just casting the public funds around recklessly. Quite frankly, we have been debating a bill called the military procurement bill in which we have much less certain evidence than this,

by far, on things for which we have been voting. Yet, we are arguing about whether or not we are going to provide an extra nickel, an extra 5 cents per schoolchild, a needy child, for school lunches; and we are going to go through the appropriation process. I have to say, most respectfully, that I recognize the importance of procedure in this body; but may I say that this is all taxpayers' money. It belongs to the people. It does not belong to Congress. We are here to serve the American people and, in this instance, the American schoolchild.

I am amazed that President Nixon and his Department of Agriculture have ignored the advice and, indeed, the protests of hundreds of school administrators in refusing to change the school lunch regulations published on August 13-regulations which will impair the school lunch program.

It was expected that the regulations would be formalized last Friday. But somehow there was a delay. Perhaps it was because, as we have evidenced here today, the Congress will not stand by and allow the President to turn his back on needy children in the name of economy or departmental and budget restrictions. If the President decides to stand by these regulations, he will have ignored the mandate of the law, as well as a lot of hungry children.

This administration has also ignored the advice of school lunch officials around the country.

It has ignored a letter signed by 44 Senators, including myself, as well as individual letters from other Members of Congress.

It has ignored thoughtful pleas of congressional committee chairmen who are responsible for school lunch legislation.

And it has reneged on a promise made by President Nixon in 1969, when he pledged to put an end to hunger among American schoolchildren.

These regulations of the Department of Agriculture will destroy the school lunch programs for many school districts and limit or weaken the program in other schools.

Surely the President cannot ignore the Senate when it adopts today's resolution. Surely he cannot ignore the House when it does the same. Nor can he any longer ignore promises given to American schoolchildren made in the happy glow of promise created by a White House Conference on Nutrition at Christmastime in 1969.

The Conference on Nutrition did not produce the legislation we are now operating under. Despite the administration's flowery promises, it was the Congress that took the leadership and acted.

When the Congress passed the authorization for the school lunch program last June, it gave the Secretary of Agriculture more than he asked for in appropriated funds, and it gave him the discretion to use his customs receipts section 32 funds to supplement the appropriations.

In other words, this Congress did not believe that USDA could operate a bigger program on the same number of dollars. Our action today in adopting Senate Joint Resolution 157 would take away the Secretary's discretion on spending the money and require that he do so. And we have put a money figure in the resolution so that they cannot by regulations ignore our language this time.

In the newspaper accounts of this crisis, we have seen oblique references that it is not the fault of the Department of Agriculture that poor American children will not be fed this year-no, it is some faceless bureaucrat at the Office of Management and Budget who caused all this.

I say that is nonsense. The Office of Management and Budget is under the control of the President of the United States. Let us put the blame where it belongs, on the President and the Department of Agriculture.

Recently I introduced additional legislation to provide a daily free nutritious meal for every schoolchild from the high school level down.

This bill (S. 2593) is designed to end the incredible patchwork of limiting legislation, administrative regulations, and bureaucratic redtape that typifies our present child feeding programs.

This bill would mean increased costs for our child nutrition programs, but the increased expenditures will be repaid many times by the benefits provided and the contributions the bill would make toward the health and educational development of young people.

Healthy, well educated children are more likely to become healthy, responsible adults. But without the assurance of adequate nutrition and nutrition education, we cannot expect to achieve these goals.

Mr. President, I hope there will be prompt passage of Senate Joint Resolution 157. And I hope the Senate will adopt a further amendment to this resolution, which is being submitted by the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Miller). I fully support this additional action to help schools finance free and reduced price lunches, by increasing the minimum reimbursement level under section 4 from 5 to 6 cents. By these actions the Senate can help assure an effective program under which every needy child can be fed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired

Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe one of the unfortunate things about this discussion is that someone may be led to believe that we are arguing about whether children ought to be fed. That is not the case. I look on the other side of the aisle and on this side of aisle, at Senator Ellender, Senator Aiken, Senator Young, and other Senators who have given of their lives to this program; and I join others who have commended them. These are the finest friends the agricultural people have and that the schoolchildren have.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Minnesota has recently introduced a bill which would provide for the feeding of all children, whether from needy families or not.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct.

Mr. AIKEN. I want to remind him that no one has worked more strenuously against putting eartags on our schoolchildren than I have. One thing we strenuously object to is designating these children by class. These are poor kids whose folks cannot properly take care of them. And there are well-to-do kids. As a matter of fact, according to my belief, it is the well-to-do people who pay the taxes that make the meals for the poor children possible.

I am very much interested in the bill which the Senator from Minnesota has introduced.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. AIKEN. But I am also interested in competent management of the whole program.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I think the Senator from Vermont has brought up a point which our committee must look into-the competent management of the program. The Senator from Vermont brought this to the committee's attention, and I would hope that we would pursue the request and the suggestion made by the Senator from Vermont; because a good program like this loses much of its public support if it is mismanaged. We cannot afford to have that.

Mr. AIKEN. Poor children ought not to be pointed at or downgraded in any way.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I could not agree more. I thank the Senator.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking minority member of our committee, the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the problem presented by the new USDA school lunch program regulations with which the pending resolution is concerned is that school districts throughout the country, and particularly in my State, formulated their budgets for fiscal 1972 last spring on the assumption that reimbursement from the Federal Government would be continued at the same rate per meal as for fiscal 1971.

Last year, there was a basic reimbursement of 5 cents under section 4 and 30 cents under section 11-national average. However, some States received a higher rate of reimbursement. In Iowa it amounted to nearly 6 cents under section 4 and 47.6 cents under section 11. The school districts in these States budgeted accordingly. At the same time, the States were encouraged to expand their school lunch programs. Accordingly, there is an estimated growth of 11 percent in Iowa.

The new USDA regulations provide for a reduced reimbursement rate, amounting to 5.4 cents and 31.7 cents in Iowa. This would mean that school district budgets in Iowa will be several thousands of dollars short and, for the State as a whole, at least $1.4 million short.

The problem does not appear to be with the money appropriated by the Congress, because this has been increased from $536 million for fiscal 1971 to $615 million for fiscal 1972, and Iowa as well as other States will receive more money