Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, indeed.

Mr. PASTORE. How is the State of Rhode Island affected?

Mr. MILLER. I can only answer the Senator's question this way: I do not have a tabulation, but if he knows what the State of Rhode Island received last year under section 4, I could answer that question. If last year the State of Rhode Island received 6 cents, and it is going to be cut to 5 cents by the regulations of the USDA, 1 cent for every meal served in the State of Rhode Island is going to be unbudgeted by the school districts.

I would guess, because of the cost of living in that part of the country, that probably they had a reimbursement substantially in excess of 6 cents under section 4. There are 37 States affected; I would certainly guess the Eastern Seaboard States are in that category, but I do not know.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa was out of the city, unfortunately, when this resolution was considered by the committee. He left his proxy with me, with the instruction that the 6.5-cent amendment be submitted to the committee. I did so. The committee rejected the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa.

Under the regulations that existed last year, the average contribution from section 4 funds this year would be 5.2 cents. That would be the average nationwide. The Senator's amendment would raise each State to 6 cents.

Section 4 funds, for the information of the Senate, is money made available by the Government to the various States and school districts for every meal that is served, whether that meal be at the full price, whether it be at a reduced price, or whether it be totally free to the needy children. So it would be applicable across the board, to all the children, regardless of their income and regardless of the price they pay for the meal.

Under normal conditions, I might be tempted to vote for the Senator's amendment; but as chairman of the committee and floor manager of the bill, because our committee rejected the amendment, I cannot support it at this time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

As I have stated two or three times today, I think the Appropriations Committee is in a much better position to find out these facts than we are on the floor of the Senate.

I understand that under the new regulations, some States will get more, some will get less, but the money will be all gone and more is needed. I think we should get it in the regular way. I understand that if we have a 40-cent rate, the additional funds required probably will be about $150 million, which I will gladly support, but I cannot vote for this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. MILLER. I am pleased to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. TALMADGE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa (putting the question).

The ayes appear to have it.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I ask for a division.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All Senators in favor please stand and be counted.

All Senators opposed please stand and be counted.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a sufficient second.

The Chair is not sure about the result of the division.

All Senators in favor please stand and be counted.

All Senators opposed please stand and be counted.

On a division, the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, let the RECORD indicate that the Senator from Rhode Island stood up in the affirmative.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The RECORD will so indicate.

The joint resolution is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.

58-854-71-pt. 7-16

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?

On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Harris), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Washington (Mr. Jackson), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. McGovern), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Montoya), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss), the Senator from Maine (Mr. Muskie), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Cannon), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Long) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Barh), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Cannon), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Washington (Mr. Jackson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Long), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Montoya), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss) would each vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allott) is absent because of death in his family.

The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Bellmon), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Dominick), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Goldwater), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Weicker) are necessarily absent.

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Mundt) is absent because of illness. The Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Curtis) was detained on official business, and has announced his position.

If present and voting, the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Dominick), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Scott) would each vote "yea." The result was announced-yeas 75, nays 5, as follows:

So the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 157) was passed, as follows:
The preamble was agreed to, as follows:

Whereas it appears that under the proposed apportionment of funds available for special assistance under section 11 of the National School Lunch Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972 (including funds appropriated by section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, and made available for that purpose), only six States will receive more than 30 cents in such assistance per free or reduced price lunch; and

Whereas it appears that this amount per lunch is not adequate to enable States and schools to continue to participate in the school lunch program and to achieve the objectives of the National School Lunch Act, particularly that of providing a free or reduced price lunch to every needy child:

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table is agreed to.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, on this rollcall vote just completed, I was detained in my office and failed to reach the Chamber before the vote was announced. Had I been able to be present to vote, I would have voted "Yea."

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I was on my way from the committee hearings to the Senate floor. I was unaware of the fact that the vote was going on. Had I been present at the time I would have voted "Yea."

[From the Congressional Record, Oct. 15, 1971]

SCHOOL LUNCH REGULATIONS

Mr. HART. Mr. President, almost 2 years ago, the President pledged that every needy child in America's schools would receive a free or reduced price lunch. Congress took the President's pledge to heart and passed a new school lunch law in 1970 guaranteeing a lunch to every needy child.

When Congress made that guarantee, it also made clear that cost was not to deter us from fulfilling the goal. Feeding our hungry children was now the goal. It would cost what it would cost.

During the last school year, participation in the school lunch program rose from 5.8 million to 7.3 million children. This year, it was fully expected that participation would continue to expand to over 9 million needy children.

It was puzzling to me that the Agriculture Department did not request additional funds to pay for that expansion. In fact, I recommended to the Appropriations Committee that additional funds be made available.

When the Agriculture Department moved to reduce the Federal rate of support for the program just before the 1971-72 school year, my puzzlement turned to shock. I could not believe, after the President's personal pledge and the commitment by Congress, that an executive agency would move arbitrarily through the regulatory process to deprive needy children of lunches.

Following the Department's move to reduce the Federal rate of support, I had the privilege of sponsoring, along with Senator Cook, a letter that was signed by 44 Members of the Senate. This letter urged the President to order the Department to provide more support for the lunch program, not less.

I believe this letter played a role in the Department's decision last week to raise its support level per lunch from 35 to 45 cents. Unfortunately, at the same time the Department announced that decision, it also announced that it was instituting a new maximum nationwide income eligibility standard of $3,940 for a family of four.

In effect, this new maximum lowered eligibility levels in 44 States and, in one abrupt swoop, knocked out of a million and a half needy children from the school lunch program.

Mr. President, this new attempt by the Agriculture Department, obviously at the direction of the Office of Management and Budget which is, unfortunately, not subject to congressional supervision, to cut back on this program is inexcusable, Indeed I question its legality.

When Congress enacted Public Law 91-248 in 1970, it intended that the national eligibility standard established by the Secretary of Agriculture should be a minimum standard, a floor that States and localities could exceed where individual economic conditions dictated.

The Agricultural Department recognized as much last school year and the beginning of this school year by specifically approving the higher standards in the 44 States. Then suddenly last week, the Department reinterpreted-wrongly and in my view illegally-the law passed by Congress.

For that reason, we have today sent a second letter to the President carefully explaining the meaning of Public Law 91-248 insofar as eligibility levels are concerned. Lest there be any doubt as to what the Senate meant when it voted Public Law 91-248, I want to note that 58 Senators have agreed to sign this letter.

Hopefully this letter to the President will serve to remind the Department of Agriculture that when the Congress says it wants this Nation's hungry schoolchildren fed, the Congress means what it says. It does not mean that only some of the hungry should be fed. It does not mean that senseless lines should be drawn between some poor children and other poorer children. It means only and exactly what it says-feed all the hungry and all the poor of the Nation's needy schoolchildren.

I pray this unfortunate controversy is concluded, that no further letters will be necessary. Hungry children do not need any more regulations from the Department of Agriculture or letters from the Senate. They need food.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the following letter to the President sponsored by myself and Senator Williams, Cranston, Cook, and Case, and signed by 54 Senators.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.*

*The letter to the President was previously printed in hearing record, see p. 1913.

Passage of Senate Joint Resolution 923

[From the Congressional Record, Oct. 18, 1971]

SCHOOL LUNCH AND BREAKFAST PROGRAMS FOR NEEDY CHILDREN Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 923) to assure that every needy schoolchild will receive a free or reduced price lunch as required by section 9 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows:

H.J. RES. 923

Whereas it appears that under the proposed apportionment of funds available for special assistance under section 11 of the National School Lunch Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972 (including funds appropriated by section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, and made available for that purpose), only six States will receive more than 30 cents in such assistance per free or reduced price lunch; and

Whereas it appears that this amount per lunch is not adequate to enable States and schools to continue to participate in the school lunch program and to achieve the objectives of the National School Lunch Act, particularly that of providing a free or reduced price lunch to every needy child: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), as may be necessary, in addition to the funds now available therefor, to carry out the purposes of section 11 of the National School Lunch Act and provide a rate of reimbursement which will assure every needy child of free or reduced price lunches during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and to carry out the purposes of section 4 of the National School Lunch Act and provide an average rate of reimbursement of 6 cents per meal within each State. In determining the amount of funds needed and the requirements of the various States therefor, the Secretary shall consult with the National Advisory Council on Child Nutrition and interested parties. Funds expended under the foregoing provisions of this resolution shall be reimbursed out of any supplemental appropriation hereafter enacted for the purpose of carrying out section 4 and section 11 of the National School Lunch Act, and such reimbursements shall be deposited into the fund established pursuant to section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, to be available for the purposes of said section 32.

SEC. 2. Funds made available by this joint resolution shall be apportioned to the States in such manner as will best enable schools to meet their obligations with respect to the service of free and reduced price lunches and to meet the objective of this joint resolution with respect to providing a minimum rate of reimbursement under section 4 of the National School Lunch Act, and such funds shall be apportioned and paid as expeditiously as may be practicable.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture shall immediately upon enactment of this resolution determine and report to Congress the needs for additional funds to carry out the school breakfast and nonfood assistance programs authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, at levels which will permit expansion of the school breakfast and school lunch programs to all schools desiring such programs as rapidly as practicable.

SEC. 4. Section 11(e) of the National School Lunch Act is amended by inserting the following immediately after "the full cost of such lunches": "but in no event shall such amounts be less than an amount determined by

"(1) multiplying the number of meals served free in the school during such year by 40 cents or the cost per meal of providing such meals, whichever is less, and

“(2) multiplying the number of meals served at a reduced price in the school during such year by 40 cents or the cost per meal of providing such meals less the highest reduced price charged, whichever is less:

Provided, however, That any school which requires a greater amount of reimbursement per meal served free or at a reduced price in order to fulfill the requirements of section 9 of this Act shall receive such greater amount if it can establish to the satisfaction of the State agency that it would otherwise be financially unable to support the service of such meals. The maximum per meal amount established by the Secretary shall in no event be less than 40 cents; and the Secretary shall establish a higher maximum per meal amount for especially needy schools based on such schools' need for assistance in providing free and reduced price lunches for all needy children."

SEC. 5. Section 9 of the National School Lunch Act is amended by inserting after "July 1 of such year" the following: "Provided, however, That during fiscal year 1972 such guidelines shall be considered only as a national minimum standard of eligibility and the Secretary shall reimburse during such fiscal year State agencies and local school authorities