« AnteriorContinuar »
this Act an amount which would otherwise be made available, as determined by the Secretary, to such State on account of such nonprofit private summer youth centers in the State. The Secretary shall disburse the funds so withheld directly to the nonprofit private summer youth centers within such State for the same purposes and subject to the same conditions as are authorized or required with respect to the disbursements to other summer youth centers within the State by the appropriate State agency, including the requirement that any such payment or payments shall be matched, in the proportion specified in section 7 for such State, by funds from sources within the State expended by nonprofit private summer youth centers within the State participating in the special summer lunch program for children under this Act. Such funds shall not be considered a part of the funds constituting the matching funds under the terms of section 7.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
SEC. 11. (a) States, the appropriate State agencies, and summer youth centers participating in the special summer lunch program for children under this Act shall keep such accounts and records as may be necessary to enable the Secretary to determine whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with. Such accounts and records shall at all times be available for inspection and audit by representatives of the Secretary and shall be preserved for such period of time, not in excess of five years, as the Secretary determines necessary.
(b) The Secretary shall encourage, and in cases in which he determines appropriate, require as a condition of eligibility to participate, the use of existing facilities utilized for serving lunches under the national school lunch program.
(c) The Secretary may, during the first fiscal year in which a program is in effect under this Act, make such adjustments as he deems appropriate in order to provide for the effective and equitable administration of this Act.
(d) The Secretary shall incorporate in his agreements with the appropriate State agencies the express requirements prescribed in this Act with respect to the operation of the special summer lunch program for children insofar as they may be applicable and such other provisions as in his opinion are reasonably necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this Act.
(e) For purposes of this Act,
(1) The term “State” means any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwelth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa.
(2) The term “appropriate State agency” means the agency or body of the State designated by the State legislature to administer in the State the special summer school program authorized by this Act.
(3) The term “private nonprofit” as applied to any of the summer child centers described in section 4 of this Act means a summer child center operated by a private school or organization exempt from income taxes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
(4) The term “nonfood assistance” means equipment used by summer youth centers in storing, preparing, or serving food for children under this Act.
Mr. PUCINSKI. One of the things I think is important to add here, and I think my colleagues will concur, is that throughout America more and more young people are beginning to realize that in this busy world and this rapidly changing world, they cannot afford the luxury of 2 or 3 months summer vacation. Indeed, this is a reflection upon the sound and good judgment of most young people in this country.
In Chicago last year, out of a school population of 500,000 youngsters attending public schools in the normal school year, some 285,000 voluntarily enrolled in a summer school program. This included Headstart, it included cultural enrichment at the lower grades, and it included the entire high school experience in summer schools.
So it appears that this is a national trend. It appears that the youngsters themselves are knocking on the doors of our public schools and our private schools to keep them open during the summer, because these youngsters feel that the summer months can be used to great advantage in either advancing and accelerating their educational experience or making up school work or just participating in interesting subjects.
That being the case, it appears that there is great merit to the suggestion made by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Scheuer, that the hot lunch program be extended into the summer school program and be extended into the various other activities that are now part of the overall program of education.
Mr. Scheuer, I would like to congratulate you for this very enterprising and original idea, and I hope that we will be able to get sufficient testimony to explore this idea of yours fully before the committee proceeds to take some final action on it.
I would like to welcome you to the committee this morning as the leadoff witness on H.R. 9339.
Mr. Andrews, do you have any comments?
Mr. ANDREWS. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to look over this legislation. I am simply looking forward to hearing all about it. I will yield to Mr. Scheuer.
Mr. PUCINSKI. If you will be good enough to proceed with your opening statement, we will have a chance to ask questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. SCHEUER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. SCHEUER. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Pucinski, for his kind words of welcome.
I know that the accession of our distinguished colleague, whose reputation for dedication, knowledgeability, and leadership which to the chairmanship of the subcommittee augurs well for the contribution it will make to the 89th Congress and subsequent Congresses.
Mr. PUCINSKI. My colleague is much too generous with his compliments. Thank you very much.
Mr. SCHEUER. I would like to submit my statement for the record, in the interest of brevity, and then just make a few clarifying remarks about the importance of this bill.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Your statement will go into the record at this point in its entirety.
(The statement follows:)
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. SCHEUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman, fellow committee members, there exists today an anomolous situation with respect to the provision of adequate and nutritious mid-day meals for children in our Nation. Under the eminently successful National School Lunch Program, which was originally authorized by Congress in 1946 and has proven its success with each passing year, children attending public and nonprofit private schools are provided with nourishing lunches throughout the school year. The Federal Government assists this program by offering cash assistance as well as food to schools that establish and operate such programs. Last year, 17 million children received nearly 3 billion lunches under this fine program.
But what happens to these same children during the summer months? They are engaged in active play, and it is almost embarrassingly self evident that physical exertion does not diminish in the least their needs for nourishing and balanced diets. To the contrary. However, no program presently exists to assist the public and private organizations which operate health and recreational programs for children during these summer months to provide adequate lunches for these growing youngsters. The popsicle, potato chip, and soda pop diet of many youngsters, both in families below the poverty line as well as those who lack
the incentive or opportunity to do otherwise, is notorious. It is a matter of national concern to see that these children receive, by example and by the experience of obtaining nourishing mid-day meals, an education in healthful eating habits that will build strong Americans.
As the experience of the poverty program has so trenchantly demonstrated, large numbers of our young children suffer from multiple medical problems, many of which have their origins in grossly inadequate diets and poor eating habits. While this is most dramatically demonstrated by children living at the poverty level, the problem exists at every level of our economy. As part of the education of all our children, they should be provided with the proper kinds of food that will nourish adequately their bodies as the schools seek to nourish their minds if they are to have the opportunity to achieve their maximum potential as adults. The ancient aphorism of a healthy mind in a healthy body, mens sana in corpore sano, gives voice to this goal that is as real for us today as it was two millenia ago.
My bill, H.R. 9339, would authorize a Summer Lunch Program along the same lines as the National School Lunch Program. It would provide Federal assistance to States in establishing and operating such a program in public recreation centers, public or private nonprofit day camps, neighborhood child centers, summer camps or any similar public or private non-profit activity organized to promote the health or recreation of children, including a community action pro gram organized for such a purpose and approved under title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.
For States to be eligible to participate under the Program, they would have to enter into agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture and then enter into agreements with public and nonprofit private summer youth centers. The centers, to participate, would have to agree to operate the lunch program on a nonprofit basis, serve lunches that meet the minimum nutritional requirements established by the Secretary of Agriculture, and provide lunches free or at reduced prices to children who are unable to pay the full price.
Cash grants would be distributed to appropriate State agencies to assist in obtaining food and equipment used in storing, preparing and serving food to children. Part of the appropriation might be used by the Secretary of Agriculture for direct expenditure on agricultural commodities and other foods to be donated to States for distribution among participating organizations according to their needs as determined by local authorities. Payments would be made on the condition that States match at least 10 percent of the payment or value of donated supplies.
I urge the Committee to give sympathetic consideration to this bill as legislation which will further the intent, as expressed in congressional action on the National School Lunch Program, of assuring that the Nation's children can obtain the nourishment necessary to build the strong bodies which, along with the educated minds, we need for a strong America.
Mr. SCHEUER. It is almost embarrassing to have to support the purposes of this bill because the need is so painfully self-evident. It almost beggars repetition.
We know what a spectacular success the school lunch program has been. Its existence is not the subject of controversy. It has been accepted on a bipartisan basis by virtually every element of a very heterogeneous Congress. The history of it has been one of success upon demonstrated success.
It is painfully self-evident that children don't eat well for 9 months and then stop eating over the summer. In the summer months, children tend to be more physically active and have, if anything, a greater need for a nourishing midday meal.
I don't restrict this just to children from impoverished homes. We know that these children, because of lack of finances and lack of education in proper eating habits, have a tendency to rely on a soda pop, potato chip diet.
We also know that this is almost as true of middle-class children whose mothers may be too busy with their mah-jongg clubs to prepare an adequate lunch for their children, or may not be fully aware of the need for an adequate, well-balanced diet for their children. So the
need for a well-balanced and nutritious and adequate lunch runs throughout the social and economic scale.
In the last year or two, there has been a new recognition of the importance of health to the effectiveness of the child through the various elements of the poverty program. Examination of participating children from Headstart for the preschool kids, all the way up to the Job Corps for young adults, has revealed that a large proportion comes with a variety of multiple health deficiencies. The health deficiencies which produce malnutrition, underweight, major problems of sight, hearing, and multiple dental problems, without any question interfere with the child's participation not only in physical activities but in his effective social relationships with his friends and companions. A good part of these health deficiencies stem from inadequate diet.
This bill, in effect, would simply extend the present national school lunch program from the school term to the summer period for any child who is involved in an educational or recreational activity, either in a school, a public institution, or a nonprofit private institution.
We have taken cognizance of the expressed views of the representative of the Department of Agriculture. We would be amenable to administration of the program through the State educational agencies. We think that this is a proper role for the States to play. They have a professionalism and expertise, as well as physical facilities, for the storage and preparation of foods which many municipalities and many local public and private agencies do not have.
We agree with the view of the Department of Agriculture, that administrative funds should be authorized to State educational agencies for supervising and administering this program. We also agree with the Department of Agriculture that this program should extend to preschool children. That was our intent and if any additional clarification is needed we will be glad to supply it.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Scheuer.
Mr. ANDREWS. You speak, Mr. Scheuer, of the program being available only to nonprofit institutions that are operating in the summer. Would that apply to a congregation of children under the OEO program of mothers keeping other children while the wives work? We found, in many cases, where five children were being kept by one mother while the other mother worked. Would an institution such as that, being a form of kindergarten arrangement, come under the heading of this nonprofit institution you are talking about?
Mr. SCHEUER. If it was a public or private nonprofit summer health or recreational activity, including a community action program organized for such purpose and approved under title II of the Economic Opportunity Act, then the provisions of this bill would apply.
Mr. ANDREWS. The essence of the keeping of children is profit, Mr. Scheuer. You can't get away from that. That is what the whole thing is about. We will let you be profitable by keeping our five children, so you may go out and be profitable by getting yourself a job. I don't see how you could call that a nonprofit organization, Mr. Scheuer.
Mr. SCHEUER. Of course, any organization of human beings that has to employ help could be called a profitmaking institution.
Mr. ANDREWS. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. SCHEUER. What I am saying is that normally, for example, a church group that has to employ people to run a program is characterized as a nonprofit group, and we would not say simply because they put members of the community on a payroll to carry out the function of that church, that the activity becomes a profitmaking activity. So long as the group which has been authorized to carry out this program is a public agency or a nonprofit private agency and meets the other conditions, then regardless of the fact that people may be employed and may be enabled to make a living, this program would apply just as all other Federal programs dependent on the recipient agency being a public agency or a nonprofit private agency.
Mr. ANDREWS. I didn't mean to get into an area of just hiring. I wondered how that would work. You speak of private and nonprofit, and you are speaking of institutions having to do with preschool education. That is one of them. There are thousands of people around the country that operate a private kindergarten, five or six children a year, and we would provide free lunches for them; is that right?
Mr. SCHEUER. If the persons were employees of an agency that was approved by the OEO as a nonprofit private agency carrying out a summer program, then the children would be covered.
Mr. ANDREWS. Well, the OEO sponsors this type of program. You would say that they approve of it, and then there are hundreds of thousands of families taking in five kindergarten people a day and they would be accorded free lunches under your bill; is that right.
Mr. SCHEUER. I am not aware of any subsidy or funds that the OEO approves to what is generally characterized as a profitmaking business organization.
Mr. ANDREWS. This is one of the prize community action programs, Mr. Scheuer, throughout the Nation. It is the business of mothers taking their children and putting them in one mother's hands while the mother herself goes out and gets a job.
Mr. SCHEUER. Then the mother who is taking care of those kids may be on a payroll, but I don't think
Mr. ANDREWS. She gets paid by the mother who earns the money.
Mr. SCHEUER. I don't think that this would apply to any private arrangement. It would only go to a public agency or a nonprofit private agency that was approved by the Federal Government.
Mr. ANDREWS. That was the whole question. Was this a nonprofit agency, the mother keeping the children, or not? However, let us go on to one other thing. I am not prepared to go fully into this at this time.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Perhaps you could clarify this question on page 6 of your bill, starting at line 11.
It says, "State disbursement to summer youth centers.”
You do establish some rather specific criteria in that the State agency would disburse this summer lunch assistance to summer youth centers in a Stateto those summer youth centers in the State which the State agency, taking into account the need and attendance, determines who are eligible to participate in the special summer lunch program for children authorized by this Act. Such disbursement to any summer youth center shall be made only for the purpose of