committee of the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday afternoon. I will incorporate a copy of that testimony at this point in the record. It summarizes the present situation.

My point of view, Captain Gibson, is that no showing has been made to date, in my judgment, by the District Commissioners or anyone else, that would justify on any grounds, moral, health, or educational, the theory whatever that no children, are in fact hungry. I said to the subcommittee and in a speech on the floor of the Senate yesterday afternoon I am satisfied that that number is a minimum of 7,000. And in view of the evidence in the record of this hearing, the burden of proof, so far as I am concerned, is now on the District of Columbia Commissioners to show that that figure is in error. And if it is not in error-I am satisfied that it is not-I cannot understand any basis whatsoever for this community not feeding these children which means, as I said to the subcommittee and the Senate, it is the duty of the Congress to provide the dollars. That is the attitude of the chairman.

If you have information which you think will be helpful to this committee, on either side of this issue, I will be glad to hear you now. (The statement of Senator Morse is as follows:)

PUBLIC WELFARE PROBLEMS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-HUNGRY CHILDREN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Record the text of a statement I made today before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations under the able chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Pastore, concerning the school lunch program and other public welfare problems confronting the District of Columbia.

(There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORSE BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1959

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that 2 years ago I met with your subcommittee upon an errand similar to the one I am on today. My appearance then, and my appearance today, followed hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety on the problems of hungry children in the District.

In preface to my recommendations, I wish to extend to you and your colleagues my commendation for the positive action made possible by the funds supplied by you. Testimony before my subcommittee shows clearly that the assistance given by the Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate has enabled progress to be made in the beginning of an attempt to solve the very difficult and complicated problem of poverty and its social concomitants in the District.

One good measure of accomplishment so far is the table which I now present to you contrasting relief payments and cases in January 1956 with January 1959. Reflected in these figures is the abolition of the 83 percent of need limit which formerly prevailed. This is a significant step forward in ridding our welfare program of extraneous restrictions which have no relationship to what should be our primary concern-prudent but speedy provision of adequate financial assistance to those in our population who are destitute, the aged, the fatherless, the disabled, and the blind.

NOTE. In 1956 grants had an 83 percent of budgetary need limitation. In 1959 grants should reflect 100 percent of need, because of newly adopted standards.

General cost of living in the District increased, according to BLS index, from 115.9 in 1956 to 121.5 in 1958 (November data) or an increase of 5.6 points or 104.8 percent of the 1956 base.

The surplus food distribution program, made possible by funds supplied by your subcommittee, is of major importance to the 44,434 low-income individuals who are eligible.

Because of your interest, and that of your colleagues in the House, it begins to look as though some needy elementary schoolchildren will, next year, be given one square meal a day through the wise use of public funds.

I say this by way of preface, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that credit should be given where and when it is due.

I am sure however, that none of us is laboring under the misapprehension that what has been done is the complete and final answer to the problem, either in terms of quality or quantity. We have but begun to till the soil of social justice for these less fortunate human beings, the harvest of humanity to man is far in the future. Much remains to be done.

It should be a matter of commonsense that a hungry child will be restless and irritable. Every parent knows that. Certainly such was my own observation with my own children when traveling across the country and we missed our regular dinner hour or when for one reason or another dinner was late at home. But in order to document the relationship which exists between nutrition and ability to learn in school, I asked the Library of Congress to search the literature of scientific investigation for published material on the problem. In the space of 2 days the Library had developed some 24 citations plus 4 masters theses devoted to the subject. The conclusions are as might be expected-that there does exist a close relationship between ability to learn and an adequate diet.

Marian C. Behr, in the School Executive, reported, for example: "Achievement tests taken before and after a lunch program was provided in school show great improvements when lunches have become a regular routine. When a county gives its schools achievement tests, the ones serving a balanced lunch to most of their children invariably have the highest scores."

Jane M. Leichsenring, in the Minnesota Journal of Education, stated: "In the St. Paul schools, where nutrition clinics for undernourished children have been a part of the program for many years, the teachers observed greater classroom achievement in 43 percent or more of the children studied, improved scholarship in 53 percent, attentiveness in 56 percent."

House Report 684, 79th Congress, in 1945, reported:

"U.S. CONGRESS-HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE-SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM (Report to accompany H.R. 3370, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945 (79th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 684, pp. 2, 9))

"Statistical surveys, including physical and mental tests conducted under controlled conditions, have shown, as indicated in appendix A, measurable benefit to the children when an adequate lunch is provided at school, not only in their physical development, but in their educational progress. This improvement takes place on all income levels, inasmuch as an adequate lunch at school or adequate nutrition is not necessarily assured by the higher income of the parents or the rise in the national income as a whole. The increase of working mothers, consolidation of schools, greater travel time to schools, and rising scale of food costs, together with fixed incomes for many large groups, make the school lunch program, in which those who can pay are permitted to pay and those who cannot pay need not pay, the appropriate answer. It should be remembered that a child may be malnourished yet not hungry.

*

"EXHIBIT A-WAR FOOD ADMINISTRATION, COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION

(OS)

"Effects of school lunch upon scholastic status, Camden, Mo.

"Effect of school lunch upon attendance, Camden, Mo.

"A system of grade points was used in determining scholarship. An excellent mark was given 4 points; superior, 3; average, 2; poor, 1; failure, 0.”

I do not wish unduly to prolong this line of testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I shall conclude with a citation from a study carried on in an adoining State. "Todhunter, Elizabeth Neige. 'Everyday Nutrition for School Children.' University of Alabama, Extension Division, 1949, pages 42-43.

"Dr. Ruth Harrell of Columbia University studied the learning ability of a group of children in Virginia. The children all lived in an orphanage where the diet was not adequate. The children were divided in two groups, matched as evenly as possible for age, height, weight, family background, and IQ. Group A received a nutritional supplement in tablet form each day. Group B were also given a tablet each day but it contained no nutritive value. None of the children knew which ones were receiving the added nutrient material. In a series of objective tests, in arithmetic, word matching, writing, etc., carried out over a period of weeks, group A in every instance had the higher average score. In this carefully controlled experiment the children with the dietary supplement showed greater learning ability as attested by their scores on all tests. "Diet does make a difference.

"Diet makes a difference in both old and young but more particularly in the growing child."

Having laid this basis, I now pose the question: Granted that an adequate diet will improve the learning situation, to what extent ought the lunch program in the District elementary schools be expanded?

Seven hundred are now being given cold lunches on a pilot program from voluntary contributions. The Commissioners are asking that the program be limited to 1,000 children. The Board of Education asks you for funds to meet the need of 7,000 children. In arriving at your determination, I ask you to be mindful of the fact that there are, according to a study made by Gizella Huber, the economic consultant to the Junior Village project, 11,520 families with 45,775 children living in the District, whose family income is less than $3,000 per year.

A table incorporated in our hungry children hearings is of especial significance in this regard. Of 285 non-public-assistance families certified for surplus food in September, 27 families had no income because both parents were unemployed. In 48 families the mother was the head and she was unemployed and there was no income. I submit the full analysis for your inspection, with the thought that children being cared for by aunts and grandmothers whose own income is about $60 to $69 a month might very possibly need a free lunch at school.

In these matters, I hope that the subcommittee will, as a minimum, provide the funds requested by the school authorities for this program, because in my judgment, far more than public assistance children need and can profitably use the free school lunch.

Average monthly income of 285 non-public-assistance families certified for surplus food, September 1958

110 unemployed fathers are getting unemployment insurance or compensation; 2 are getting veteran's benefits; and 1 is getting a Government pension.

Survivor benefits from deceased husbands or old age insurance of mother's parent living in the home. 1 grandmother is taking care of 3 children while the mother, who was their sole support, is in jail. Another grandmother is taking care of her daughter's 2 children. The latter does not live in the home and makes only sporadic contributions toward her children's keep. The grandmother (42 years old) is unable to work; her boy friend pays the rent.

This couple is caring for 4 children whose mother deserted and whose father is in a veterans' hospital The only income of the home is a $60 monthly veterans' benefit payment to the uncle.

1 aunt, caring for a young nephew, earns around $69 a month, her sole income. (Her husband is in jail.) She applied for public assistance, but was rated ineligible.

Which brings me to the second point in this area. I confess to a bias in favor of the teacher who is in daily contact with the child as being a good judge of whether the child, is or is not, in need of nourishment. I would suggest to the subcommittee that in the procedure established for determining eligibility for the lunch program that the presumption be that a child certified by the school is eligible and that he or she be given the lunches during the period that a social

work investigation is carried on. In matters of this type, it is better to err upon the side of overfeeding rather than underfeeding the child. I think that there is no basic incompatibility between the school and the welfare authorities. Each supplements the work of the other.

I also wish to submit a table prepared by the Department of Agriculture showing the number of free or reduced-cost meals served children in the various States. Particularly, I felt that with this background, no criticism could be leveled at the committee if a full program were financed.

Comparison of free or reduced price meals with total meals served, by States and area, 1957-58

The $813,000 needed to finance the school lunch program is a large item for a tight budget. I understand that the House has approved some $266,000 for the lunch program. I urge that the full amount requested by the Board of Education for the school lunch program be allowed. In addition, I ask that the funds for this purpose be independently earmarked. Certainly any reallocation of funds which will take from the teaching staff teachers needed to reduce the number of part-time classes would be false economy. One major reason for having children well fed is so that they may profit from the education being provided. To nullify this worthy objective by providing fewer teachers is most shortsighted.

Where should the money come from? This question is basic to your work.. My first answer would be from the Federal payment. Here is one Senator who does not believe that the Federal payment is adequate as it has been appropriated in the last decades. I do not share the philosophy that the payment should be geared to real-estate tax equivalents either. As the Senator from