“M -:.a.;.§saas»+~ ' ,,-.... .~.,.......u..,.....~,.h. i5’99Qao:.eoooonooo-oaooooowenvza-‘-‘.8rao.~¢. o~.-r.r-:..xu.aun~vwwuv.-.vm.-ram»... . CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS | lliniveilsi (TIA Milslsouril 0-1 03861 563 CHILD NUTRITION PRQGRAMS ISSUE BRIEF HUMBER IB79110 AUTHOR: Jones, Jean Yavis Education and Public Welfare Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE HAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 19419479 DATE UPDATED gggggggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORHATION CALL 287-5700 0307 CRS- 1 IB79110 UPDATE-O3/06/80 .I.§§Il§.-2§E.3.3ll.......TI0E The Federal Government provides some $fl billion in Federal food assistance to an estimated 27 million children through a variety of child nutrition programs. host of the issues surrounding child nutrition programs in the 96th Congress have focused on budgetary and program reform. These include budget proposals to reduce the FY80 authorization level from $800 to $7$0v million for the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): reduce the subsidy rate by 5 cents for school lunches served to nonneedy children; change eligibility criteria for the free and reduced meal programs; limit participation in the Special Hilk Program to schools without federally subsidized meal service programs; and provide reforms in the Summer Feeding Program that would result in $fl7 million in program savings. In addition to these budget issues, legislation has been introduced that includes provisions for Federal sanctions against State Administrative Expenses for uncorrected child nutrition program irregularities. A bill has also been introduced proposing that States be offered the option. of consolidating their child nutrition programs. FY80 appropriations for child nutrition programs were enacted on Nov. 9, 1979 (P.L. 96-108). The appropriations legislation did not include some of the savings associated with child nutrition program changes assumed by the Senate and House Budget Committees in their First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. Since the second concurrent budget resolution continued to provide less than the uunts of funding provided in the related appropriations legislation, the reconciliation of differences has been an issue. Authority for the Summer Food Service Program, State Administrative Expenses, and nutrition Education and Traning expires on Sept. 30, 1980. - EAQISEBQEEQ.£.1'D....£QLlSX._§.!A1-..¥§£§ A - Pr99re2-2e§2ri2t.i.9.n§. The National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Amendments provide authority for Federal food assistance to an estimated 27 imillion children through a variety of prograns categorized as child nutrition programs. This assistance is provided through State agencies and is in theiform of cash or commodities to provide for the preparation and service of meals to children while attending schools, residing in service institutions, or participating in organized activities away from home. Food is also made available ‘to low-income pregnant and lactating women and their infants and children through the Special Supplemental Feeding Program (VIC) and milk, in addition to that provided through the School Lunch and Breakfast Program, is made available to children in participating schools and institutions through the Special milk Program. P 1. The school Lunch Program The National School Lunch Program provides cash assistance to the States vto lower the price of lunches served to children in participating public and private nonprofit schools and child care institutions. Federal assistance is available only for those meals that meet nutritional requirements established through regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is provided for all children regardless of family income.v Additional cash grants are also available to provide free or reduced-price lunches to children with family CR5“ 2 IB79110 UPDATE-03/06/80 incomes below 195% of the Secretary of Agriculture's Income Poverty Guidelines ($13,9uo for a family of four for the period 7/1/79-6/30/80_ Free lunches are provided for children with family incomes below 125% of the Income Poverty Guidelines ($8,9n0 for a family of four). Children from families with incomes between 125% and 195% of the Income Poverty Guidelines are eligible for reduced-price lunches. For the last half of 1979, the Federal reimbursement rate for school lunches is 17 cents. An additional reimbursement of 56.25 cents is available for reduced-price lunches, for la total reimbursement oft 73.25 cents per reduced-price lunch. For free lunches, an additional 76.25 cents is provided for a total reimbursement of 93.25 cents per free lunch. In addition to these amounts, the School Lunch Program is supported with commodities having a current value of 15.75 cents per lunch. The daily average number of children served lunches through the School Lunch Program in FY79 was 2u.6 million. In FY79, an estimated $635 million in Federal funds was provided for the School Lunch Program. An additional $1.1 billion was provided for free and reduced price lunches. 2. The School Breakfast Program The School Breakfast Program is authorized under Section R of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended, and provides Federal subsidies to the States for the cost of breakfasts served to children in public or private nonprofit schools. Additional‘ assistance is available for free or reduced-price breakfasts served to needy children. For the last half of 1979, the reimbursement for school breakfasts is 13.5 cents;« an additional 25.5 cents is provided for reduced-price breakfasts (total reimbursement ’9 . cents) and an additional 33.75 cents for free breakfasts. The eligibili _ criteria for receiving free and reduced-price breakfasts is the same as that for free and reduced-price lunches, although additional Federal assistance is available for free or reduced-price breakfasts served to children in schools that are in severe need. , For the last half of 1979, the maximum reimbursement rate for meals served in such schools is 52.25 cents for reduced-price and 57.25 cents for free breakfasts. In” FY79, the daily average number of participants served breakfasts.under this program was 341 million children. The Federal contribution to the School Breakfast Program for the same year was $207.8 million. ' 3. Summer Food Service Program The Summer, Food Service Program for children provides for Federal reimbursement for the cost of meals served to children in nonresidential public and private nonprofit institutions and summer camps with school or vacation programs. Sponsors eligible for such reimbursement ‘are those serving an area in which at least one-third of the children are eligible for free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Act. Unlike the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, all meals served to children in participating institutions are reimbursed at a fixed rate without regard to V the family income of the child receiving the meal. The fixed rate of reimbursement roughly approximates the Federal reimbursement «rate for free breakfasts or lunches served to needy children under the regular school meal service programs and includes reimbursement for snacks.Y In the case “f summer camps, only those mealsl served to children eligible for free .; reduced-price meals are] reimbursed" at the fixed rate of reimbursement. . Provision for administrative expenses are included through addition to the fixed reimbursement rate for each meal served and vary according to the type of meal served and whether the meal site is rural and/or prepared its own meals. In FY79, an average 2.9 million children received meals through the Summer Feeding Program at a Federal cost of $133 million. Authorization for cns- 3 11379110 UPDATE-03/06/8N0‘ this program expires Sept. 30, 1980. .0. Nutrition Education and Training Section 19 of the Child Nutrution Act authorizes the secretary of Agriculture to provide grants to the States for nutrition education and training. Funds are distributed to the States at the rate ofv 50 cents for each child enrolled in a school or institution, or a total of $75,000, whichever is higher. The program provides for training and education of food service personnel, as well as nutrition education activities in schools and institutions. At the end of FY78, 06 States had approved State plans and had received $20.8 million. Authority for this program will expire at the end of FY80. 5 5. Special supplemental Feeding Program for women, Infants and Children (WIC) I ‘ Unlike the previously listed child nutrition programs, the Special Supplemental Food Program (WIC) provides Federal cash assistance through State departments of health to local health clinics serving low-income areas. supplemental foods are made available by such clinics to pregnant, post-partum and breast-feeding women, infants and children up to 5 years of age who are judged to be at nutritional risk because of poor nutrition and income. Food distribution is available through retail purchase by food vouchers, home delivery or direct distribution by the clinics. During FY79, an average of 1.6 million persons participated in the program at an estimated st of $550 million. An additional 105,000 persons received commodity’ assistance, valued at a total cost of $19.5. million through the Commodity supplemental Food Program during FY79. This latter program was a predecessor to the RIC program, and provides federally purchased food to States, which in turn donate them to low-income pregnant and breast-feeding women,_ infants, and children up to 6 years of age living in project areas. ! 6- other Child Nutrition Programs Federal funds are authorized under Section 5 of the Child Nutrition Act to provide help to needy schools to acquire” food service equipment. During FY79, 5,593 schools received $20 lmillion in Federal funds for equipment assistance. Cash assistance for food service is also available to non-residential »public or private nonprofit child care institutions under the Child Care Food Program. In FY79, this program provided $106 million in Federal funds for food service to 502,000 children. 1 The Special Milk Program, authorized under Section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act, provides Federal cash assistance to the States to reimburse ithe cost of milk served to children outside of that iprovided through the federally supported school lunch and breakfast programs. In FY79, 1.9 billion half-pints of milk were provided to Ychildren in vparticipating vschools, institutions and summer camps at a Federal cost of $102 million. 7. State Administrative Expenses Federal assistance for State Administrative Expenses associated with the delivery of food services is authorized for the School Lunch Program, School aBreakfast”Program, Special Milk Program, Child Care iFood Program, and the Food Service Equipment Program under Section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act. CBS’ H IB79110 UPDATE-O3/06/80 Under this section, not less than 1%, or more than 1.5%, of the program funds used in the second fiscal year preceding the year for which such funds a appropriated, are to be made available for State Administrative Expenses. Administrative funds for the Child Care Food Program are separated out and provided under a different percentage distribution -- 20% of the first $50,000; 10% of the next $100,000; 5% of the next $250,000, and 2.5% of the remaining funds. ' Under the Special Supplemental Feeding Program (WIC), the Secretary of Agriculture is required to make 20% of the appropriation available for grants to the States for State agency and local agency administrative costs. This authority exists under Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act rather than asga part of the Section 79 State Administrative Expenses. Administrative Reimbursement for the Summer Feeding Program is also authorized under its ow program authority (Sec. 13 of NSLA). 7 In FY79, an estimated $32 million in Federal funds for child nutrition programs was provided to the States for State administrative expenses. An estimated $109.5 million in Federal funds was provided for grants to States for WIC administrative costs during the same year, under authority of Section 17. Approximately $2 million in Administrative costs for the Summer Feeding Program was provided in FY79 under the authority of Section 13 of NSLA. 3- Eregramand Budget 1. Special Supplemental Feeding Program for women, Infants and Child: (WI C) Authorized under Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act, the WIC program ‘provides Federal cash assistance through State departments of health for the provision of food to pregnant, post-partum, and breastfeeding women, and to infants and children (up to 5 years of age) who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate income and nutrition. In the 1978 amendments to the Child Nutrition Act (P.L. 95-627), Congress provided an increase in the authorization level for this program to $800 million for FY80. This represented an increase of $250 million over the FY79 authorization level. In addition, the 1978 amendments provided that for fiscal years 1979 and 1980, the full authorization level was to be appropriated. Thus, WIC became an entitlement program, within the confines of the authorization level for those 2 years. These changes were a result of a complicated early program funding history which included a series of impoundments, lawsuits, and court orders to spend funds which remained in effect through FY78. Regular 9 authorizations in the amount of $900 million and $950 million are provided for FY81 and FY82. To avoid a veto of the 1978 amendments, an agreement was reached between the White House and congressional leadership to reduce the 1980 authorization level from $800 million to $750 million through legislation in the 96th Congress. In response to that agreement, 5. 292 was introduced in the Senate to reduce the RIC authorization level to the agreed upon $750 million for FY80. This bill, with amendments passed in the Senate, has been referred » ‘the House Committee on Education and Labor where no action has yet been < taken. The $50 million reduction in the VIC authorization was assumed in the “Administration's budget proposal, as well as in the Budget Resolutions of the House and the Senate, and enacted through appropriations legislation (P.L. - 96-108). CBS— 5 1379110 UPDATE-O3/06/.80 FY 1980 appropriations provided an appropriation level of $736.2 million and the availability of at least $13.8 million in priorryear balances for the . C program. This method of including prior-year balances as part of the new funding level may raise the issue of whether 1979 carryover funds may be used to finance the 1980 program. This question has been raised by some WIC advocacy groups who assert that unused FY79 funds should continue to be made available in addition to, rather than as a part of, 1980 appropriations. ‘ Given the large increase in funding provided for the WIC program (from $550 ~ million in FY79 to $750 million in FY80) and the fact that States were unable to use all of the funding available in during FY79, it seems unlikely that eligible agencies will have difficulty obtaining WIC program funds 2. Summer Food Service Program The Summer Food service Program provides Federal assistance for meals in schools or institutions, served to children in poor areas during the summer months. In 1977, the GAO issued a report that highlighted a number of problems in the Summer Food Program. GAO reported evidence of fraud and abuse that included indications of kickbacks and bribes, improper bidding procedures, overpayments, food waste resulting from inadequate storage, disposal and deliberate dumping of food and failure to monitor food standards and persons consuming meals. In response to these criticisms of the program, and to a later GAO report which showed some improvement but continuing A‘prob1ems, the Senate agreed to an amendment to S.. 292 which included Administration-supported reforms of the Summer Feeding‘ Program. Since findings indicated that most of the problems occurred in programs operated by l ’*rge private nonprofit sponsors contracting with private food vendors, the t-endment would prohibit participation by such sponsors :that serve 500 or more meals a day, or have more than three meal service sites and that obtain 5 meals from a food service management company. . The prohibition would not apply to nsponsors serving migrant children,. private nonprofit service institutions that use on-site facilities to prepare meals or obtain meals through a public facility, or private nonprofit schools. . Provisions also include funding for administrative and auditing costs and requirements for state outreach efforts. ’The Senate estimates that the changes would result » in savings of $37 million, $10 million less than Adminstration estimates. Appropriations legislation (P.L. 96*flO8) included a provision similar to that in S. 292, limiting eligibility for the Summer Food Service program. However, an amendment to the appropriations bill provided some exceptions to the prohibition on large private nonprofit sponsors using private vendors. .-The exceptions are for situations where there are no other food service institutions available to operate a program, and when the sponsor, has ;a record of reliable service as determined by the Secretary. The’ conference wreport concurred in the Senate provisions, and maintained a cutback of $47 million for FY80. The $u7 million reduction was initially estimated has the saving that .would. result from implementation of the prohibition on participation by large private nonprofit sponsors using private vendors, without exceptions.v However, the conferees maintained the full reduction, directing that the Department of Agriculture use its existing tauthority to 1 reduce fraud, abuse and waste in the Summer Feeding Program, rather than ask c ngress to restrict sponsor eligibility to the point that large numbers of } Jgram beneficiaries would lose benefits. ? V The Senate—passed appropriations bill also included 1anguage prohibiting the use of Federal fundsi for direct administration‘ of the Summer Food » Program. This language was deleted in the conference report because of the concern about whether States would have sufficient time to implement their CRS- 6 IB7911O UPDATE-03/06/80 own administration of the program in FY80. However, the conferees agreed to give this matter attention in the future. The concern over direct administration of the program relates to the issue of States turning bat, administration of their programs to the Federal Government to avoid assuming administrative costs. .Authorization for this program expires Sept. 30, 1980. 3. State Administrative Expenses Two bills (P.L. 95-166 and P.L. 95-627) were enacted in the 95th Congressi that targeted increased Federal funds to States for the costs of administering the School Lunch and other child feeding programs. The legislation was in response to the marginal growth in funding for State administration in proportion to the significant growth in the programs being administered. The allotment formula included in the new law established ‘a. stable funding level for administrative expenses that was based on ‘a percentage of each of the program's total expenditure. As a result of changing the law, funding for administrative expenses to the States increased from $19.2 million in FY78 to $32 million in 1979. In the 96th Congress, the Department of Agriculture testified to evidence of program abuses and unsatisfactory administration of school lunch and other child nutrition programs on the State level. In audits of school meal programs, the Department of Agriculture found widespread carelessness in reviewing applications for free and reduced-price lunches, non-compliance with required meal patterns, and Federal reimbursements that exceeded meal costs. Given the significant increase in funding for State administration, and continued problems, the Department has proposed a new accountability system (Assessment Improvement and Monitoring System - AIMS) that will require the States * monitor their programs more closely. To assure State cooperation in implementing the AIMS, the Department requested that Congress authorize the Secretary to withhold all or any portion of a State's administrative funds if serious program deficiencies exist and remain uncorrected.A While authority, to withhold administrative funds for program deficiencies exists under the WIC program, there is no such authority under the School Lunch, Breakfast, or Child Care Food Programs. In response to Administration proposals to include such a sanction, H.R. 4136, reported out of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and S. 292, passed in the Senate, include provisions that would grant such authority to the Secretary. ‘ The 1980 Agriculture appropriations provided for sanctioning and an administrative review system for the child nutrition programs and pmade the availability of State administration expenses contingentx upon State cooperation in studies directed by Congress and requested by the Secretary. The American Food Service Association has opposed sanctions against administrative funds contending that it would result in Federal intrusion and was insulting to those program sponsors and State agencies that have been doing a good job. In addition, they suggest that this kind of sanction twill force States to implement the requirement of the AIMS, which they consider unworkable. Proposed regulations relating to the new AIBS were published in the Federal Register on Oct. 30, and the period for comment has been extended to Feb. 1, 1980. Authority for State Administrative Expenses under Section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act expires Sept. 30, 1980. I 4. Special Hilk Program (SHP) The 1980 Administration budget proposal recommended changing the Special Milk Program to limit participation~ tow those schools and‘ other eligible outlets that do not have a federally reimbursed meal service program. The effect of this proposal would be to discontinue the availability of SUP milk CRS- 7 IB7911O UPDATE-03/O6/80 in those outlets having federally subsidized meal service programs. Fstimates indicate such schools constitute approximately 90% of the schools rrently operating the Special milk Program. The Administration estimated a reduction in spending from the FY79 level of $1u2 million to $32 million in FY80 as a result of the proposed change. Both the House and the Senate Budget Committees assumed savings associated with this proposed change in their First and Second Concurrent Resolutions on the Budget (for a detailed description of the status and issues involved in the budget resolution, which includes Special Hilk Program changes, see Section C(2) of this brief). However, in related Appropriations legislation (P.L. 96-108), the spending level of $1fl2 million was maintained for FY80. Thus far, most of the legislative activity related to changes in the Special Milk Program (outside‘ of that involving the budget resolutions) has been in the Senate, where two efforts to cut back the program failed. The first of these efforts was in the form of a proposed amendment to S. 292 (RIC authorization bill) which was offered and then withdrawn because of lack of support and which would have limited SHP participation to schools with no other meal service programs. Two months later, an amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill (H.R. H387) to reduce the SHP reimbursement rate to a flat 5 cents for non-free milk served in outlets with meal service programs was rejected by the Senate. Although the Senate Agriculture Committee initially supported the Budget Committee's efforts to. cut back the special Milk Program in their recommendations on the First Concurrent Budget Resolution, the continued rejection of cutbacks in the SHP in .the senate has resulted in changed expectations by the Agriculture Committee related to similar assumptions in the Second Concurrent Budget Resolution. ’ C - §n.<1<.I9.1:....3;§§L1.s§ 1. Administration Budget Proposals In their FY80 Budget, the Administration recommended changes in several child nutrition programs. These included a proposal to reduce the Federal reimbursement for school lunches served to non-needy children by 5 cents (from approximately 17.2 cents to 12.2 cents). The Administration estimated that such a change would result in savings of $1ua million. In addition, the Administration proposed a redefinition of the income eligibility limits for determining Federal subsidies for free and reduced-price meals. Currently, households may exclude "special hardship expenses" (e.g., unusually high medical expenses, disaster or casualty losses, excess shelter costs, etc.) from income used to determine eligibility. The Administration proposed fa flat $780 annual standard deduction to replace the hardship deduction and {a lowering of the current income cutoff levels from 125% to 100% of poverty for free meals and from 195%w to 175% of poverty for reduced-price meals.‘ Estimated savings associated with this proposal were $113.8 million in the tfree and reduced-price lunch program, $12 million in the School Breakfast Program and $9 million in the Child Care Food Program. The Administration estimated an additional savings of $27.5 million in commodities to the States resulting from the reductions in meals associated with the proposed changes. In addition to these changes, the Administration proposed savings of 3a? rillion by restricting participation in the Summer Food Service wProgram by l rge sponsors contracting out to private vendors for food service. The Administration also included a $50 million reduction in the RIC authorization level (from $800 million to $750 million} which was informally agreed upon by House and Senate authorizing committee members to avoid a veto of the WIC extension legislation (P.L. 95-627) enacted at the end of the 95th Congress. The Administration also reduced the budget request from $1fl2 million to $32 cns- 3 1379110 UPDATE-03/06/8‘O million for the Special Milk Program assuming implementation of an intended limitation on participation in this program to schools and institutions that have no other meal service program. Total Child Nutrition Program saving associated with the Administration budget and proposals amounted to $517.6 million. T 2. Actions by the Congress a. Authorizations and Appropriations A T ‘ Legislation to implement the Administration's proposed reduction for school lunches for non-poor children and to change the eligibility criteria for free and reduced—price meals has not been introduced in either House. The House Committee on Education and Labor held hearings ton the Administration Budget proposals on Mar. 15, 1979, and in making recommendations to the House Budget Committee on the First Budget Resolution, indicated that except for the VIC cutback they were not persuaded by Administration justifications for child feeding program changes. The Senate Agriculture Committee, in making recommendations to the Senate Budget Committee on the First Concurrent Budget ‘Resolution, agreed to Administration-proposed changes in the Special Hilk, Summer Feeding and VIC Programs but not to changes in School Lunch reimbursements or eligibility. Legislation (5. 292) reducing the WIC authorization level from $800 million to $750 million has been passed in the Senate and referred to the House. This legislation also included the Administration-supported reforms associated with the Summer Feeding Program by including a prohibition on participation by private nonprofit institutions serving more than 5009 meals, or operating at more than three sites, that obtain meals from a food servir management company. Savings associated with both of these changes have bee- included in the FY80 Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-108)., P.L. 96-108 does .not include any of the Administration-proposed savings associated with the changes in School Lunch Program reimbursement or eligibility criteria or the Special Hilk Program. The following table provides a comparison of the FY80 Administration budget proposal with savings anticipated by legislative changes and the appropriations levels agreed upon by the House and Senate conferees. P CRS- 9 IB7911O UPDATE-03/O6/80 §bild-22rriti2n-bm§9e:.2r229§el§-en§.222r22-iaii9n§ FY80 Appropriations conference report FY80 Administration budget with proposed changes (H.R. 0387) 1. Child nutrition programs $2,ao3,7o1,ooo $3,11u,3o1,ooo a. School lunch 586,700,000(1) 730,700,000 b. Free 8 reduced price lunch 1,27u,600,000(2) 1,388,000,000 c. School breakfast 212,800,000(3) 224,800,000 d. Equipment assistance 20,000,000 20,000,000 e. State Administrative Expenses 30,867,000 34,867,000 f. Summer food 88,800,000 88,800,000 g. Child care food 20fl,800,000(n). 213,800,000 h. Commodities to states 359,034,000(5) 387,230,000 i. Nutrition studies 8 education 21,700,000 21,700,000 2. Special milk program 32,000,000 142,000,000 ,3. Special supplemental feeding (WIC) and commodity Supplemental 771L500£999-..-_-_---Z§lLZQQLQQQl§L TOTAL $3,607,201,000 $u,o1u,oo1,ooo Indicates savings of $108 million resulting from proposed 5 cents reduction in reimbursement rate. Indicates savings of $113.8 million resulting from proposed revision in eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches. Indicates savings of $12 million resulting from proposed revision in eligibility for free and reduced-price breakfasts. Indicates savings of $9 million resulting from proposed revision in eligibility for free and reduced-price meals. Indicates savings of $27.8 million resulting from proposed changes leading to reductions in meals served. 3 Appropriations provide additional $13.8 million from prior year balances for a total of $771.5 million. CR5-10 IB79110 UPDATE-03/06/BO b. Budget resolutions 1 Briefly, the Budget Act requires Congress to adopt two budget resolutions each year. The first is to be adopted by Hay 15 and.is to specify a budget level to be implemented through subsequent congressional action. The second resolution on the budget is to be adopted by September 15 and deals with reaffirmation or revision of budget decisions in the first resolution. “ The First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget assumed many of the savings in child nutrition programs recommended by the Administration. These included the $50 million reduction in the WIC authorization level and savings associated with reform of the Summer Feeding Program, the 5 cents reduction in reimbursement for school lunches for non—needy children, and the limitation on participation in the Special Milk Program. Since the First Concurrent Resolution, appropriations have been enacted which provide for the ~$50 million reduction in the WIC authorization level, and provide a $47 million reduction in the Summer Feeding Program. No legislation, however, has been enacted providing for changes in the School Lunch or special Milk Programs. The Second Concurrent Resolutions, S.Con.Res. 36, initially passed by both the House and the Senate, supported recommendations made in the first resolution which assumed savings associated with the 5 cents school lunch ‘ reimbursement reduction and the limitation on participation in the Special uilk Program. The House—passed version of S.Con.Res. 36 reaffirmed the position taken by the First Concurrent Resolution with regard to these two. child nutrition programs. The Senate version, however, also included language instructing the appropriate committees to take‘ action to reduce spending (or reconcile the differences). Since the Budget Committees do n have authority to mandate particular legislative changes, the language in this reconciliation instruction to the committees does not specify where such saving should occur. Rather, it specifies that certain amounts of savings be accomplished by appropriate committees. Thus, the Senate version of S.Con.Res. 36 instructed the Senate Agriculture Committee to accomplish $100 million in savings through changes in programs under their jurisdiction. As examples of areas in which such savings might be accomplished,. the senate Budget Committee suggested cutting the reimbursement for school lunches for nnonneedy children by 5 cents. The Appropriations Committee was also instructed to reduce spending by $2.9 billion in budget authority and 12.5 billion in outlays. Included among the examples of areas where such savings may be accomplished, “the‘ Budget Committee suggested elimination of the Special Milk Program in schools that have school lunch and breakfast programs.‘ The major issue of disagreement in the conference on S.Con.Res. 36 was ‘the reconciliation language included in the Senate version. After failing to get conference agreement on this issue, an original measure, S.Con.Res. 53, was ordered reported by the Budget Committee to the Senate. This new Second Concurrent Resolution on the Budget reflected the same budget levels agreed upon in the conference on S.Con. Res. 36; however, the reconciliation language was deleted.. In its place, a “sense of Congress“ statement was included expressing hope that the legislative savings associated with the Second Concurrent Resolution should be achieved and that there will be no Third Concurrent Budget Resolution to compensate for failurei to enact su ‘savings. S.Ccn.Res. 53 was passed by the Senate on Nov. 16, 1979, and by the House on Nov. 28. The budget levels approved in the Second Concurrent Resolution are such that the 5 cents reduction in reimbursementl for. school lunches wserved to .non-needy children and the limitation on the special nilk Program remain as cns-11 1379110 UPDATE-103/O6/80 The legislative authority for the Summer Feeding Program, Nutrition Education and Training, and State Administrative Expenses expires Sept. 30, 1980. P.L. 96-108 (H.R. H387) _ Makes appropriations for FY80 for agricultural, rural development, domestic food and international programs of the Department of Agriculture. Introduced June 7, 1979; referred to House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Reported by House Appropriations Committee June 7, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-2&2). Passed House, amended, June 19. Reported, amended, by Senate Appropriations Committee July 12, 1979 (S.Rept. 96-2&6). Passed Senate, amended, July 19. Conference report (96-553) filed in House Oct. 24, 1979. House agreed to conference report Oct. 26. Senate agreed to conference report Oct. 31. Enacted as P.L. 96-108 on Nov. 9, 1979. (See Section C of this issue brief for summary of child nutrition program appropriations.) ; H.R. 27 (Perkins) I ; Proposes extension of authorizations through FY85 for the Summer Food Service Program, Commodity Distribution Program, ‘Food Service Equipment Assistance Program, State Administrative Expenses, Special Supplemental Feeding Program for women, Infants and Children (RIC), and Nutrition ucation and Training. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. Referred by the full committee to the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education on Feb. 2, 1979.. Hearings held Oct. 17, 1979. I ' A H.R. U136 (Perkins et al.) f Proposes extension of authorization through FY82 for Section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act, which provides administrative funds to the States for the operation of their Child Nutrition programs.: Proposes changes in Section 7 to permit the Secretary of Agriculture to withhold all or part of a statefs administrative funds if there are serious program deficiencies that remain uncorrected;.and to allow-States to combine funds received for each of the separate feeding programs (except the WIC program) into one allocation. Introduced May 17, 1979. Reported, amended, to the House by the Committee on Education and Labor June 1, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-229). 1 S. 292 (acsovern et al.) ' % Proposes to reduce the WIC authorization to- $750 million for FY80; extend the HIC program to eligible overseas dependents; permit the Secretary to withhold administrative funds from States 7with serious deficiencies in child nutrition programs that remain uncorrected; and eliminate participation pin the Summer Food Service Program by private nonprofit institutions serving more than 500 meals or operating at more than three sites, that obtain their meals from a food service management company. Introduced xJan. 31, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Passed Senate, ended, May 23, 1979; referred to Committee on Education and Labor June 5, 1979. I S. 605 ¢Bellmon et al.) A Proposes that States he offered the option of consolidating and reorganizing their Federal food assistance programs. These would include the Food stamp Program, child feeding programs authorized under the National cns-12 11379 no UP1)ATE-O3/O6/80 School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Amendments of 1966, and the expanded food and nutrition education program provided under the Smith-Level Ac States choosing to consolidate would receive the same amount of money as they" would without consolidation, but, in addition, they would be eligible to receive a bonus amount up to 10% of total funding if they matched the bonus amount. States consolidating their programs would be required to account for all programs in a Comprehensive State Plan, approved by the Secretary. The bill would include audit and evaluation requirements and permit the Secretary authority to penalize States that do not perform according to their State plans. Introduced Mar. 8, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture. Referred to Subcommittee on Nutrition mar. 15, 1979. Hearings held Dec. 11, 1979. - ‘ S.Res. 90 (McGovern et al.) Requests that the Secretary of Agriculture conduct a study of the programs administered under the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act. Agreed to in the Senate, with amendments, June 20, 1979. 11/30/79 -- Proposed rule changes in requirements for the WIC food package published in the Federal Register. Proposed changes affect variety of food available, quantities provided, and nutrient content of total package. Would change iron requirement for cereals for certain WIC participants without iron deficiencies and limit the sugar content permitted in the cereals. Comment period ends Jan. 28, 1980. 11/28/79 -- S.Con.Res. 53 passed by the House. 11/16/79 -- After failing to get conference agreement on reconciliation language included in the Senate- passed version of S.Con.Res. 36, an original measure (s.Con.Res. 53) was ordered reported to the Senate by the Committee on the Budget. The budget figures were the same as those in S.Con. Res. 36, but the reconciliation language was deleted and substituted with a “sense of Congress’ statement expressing hope that legislative savings would be achieved, and declaring that there would be no Third Concurrent Resolution. S.Con.Res. 53 was passed by the Senate. 11/09/79 -- Agricultural Appropriations for FY80 enacted (P.L. 96-108). 1Q/30/79 -- Proposed regulations implementing the Assessment Improvement and Monitoring System (AIMS) published by the Department of Agriculture in the Federal Register. 10/2H/79 -- H.R. H387 (agricultural appropriations bill) conferees 09/27/79 09/25/79 09/19/79 O8/2“/79 07/19/79 07/12/79 07/06/79 06/19/79 05/07/79 06/05/79 06/01/79 05/21/79 05/17/79 04/Q6/79_ OH/13/79 04/12/79 OQ/06/79 cns-13 1379110 UPDATE—03/O6/80 resolve differences. Budget resolution for reconciliation (S.Con.Res. 36) agreed to in the House, with amendment. H.Res. 42?, providing for consideration of S.Con.Res. 36, reported to the House from the Committee on Rules (H.Rept. 96-479). 2 resolution for reconciliation, agreed S.Con.Res. 36, ito in the Senate with amendments. House Committee on the Budget reported H.Con.Bes. Senate Committee on the Budget reported S.Con.Res. 36, Second Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, with written report (S.Rept. 96-311). H.R. E387 passed Senate with amendments. H.R. H387, agricultural appropriations bill, reported to the Senate with amendments (S.Rept. 96-246). H.R. H387 included reduction in WIC and Summer Food Service programs. . U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed new regulations on the sale of competitive foods. H.R. H387 passed the House, amended. House Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. H387 (H.Rept. 96-2&2) S. 292 referred to the House Committee on Educationm and Labor. H.R. n136 reported to House from the Committee on Education and Labor with amendment (H.Rept. 96-229). Conference reports on first concurrent resolution on the budget filed in the House (Rept. 96-211) and in the Senate (Rept. no. 96-192). H.B. 4136, extending authorizations for State administrative expenses through FY82, introduced. Senate agreed to S.Con.Bes. 22, with amendments (Savings associated with Special Milk, Summer Food and HIC Programs were maintained). 107 which included assumed savings in School Lunch, ' Special Hilk, Summer Feeding and RIC Programs. Senate Budget Committee reported S.Con.Res. 22 (included assumed savings in the Special Hilk, Summer Food and WIC Programs (Rept. No. 96-68)). S. 292, RIC authorization bill, reported to the Senate from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, q ! 1 E at 03/15/79 03/13/79 03/08/79 cas-1n 1379110 upnmrz-o3/06/so and Forestry (S.Rept. 96-61). House Committee on Education and Labor rejected recommendations to the Budget Committee which provided reductions on the reimbursement for school lunches for nonneedy children and reforms in the Summer Feeding Program and Special Hilk Program. ‘The Committee recomended a reduction in the HIC authorization only. House Subcommittee on Education and Labor held hearings on the Administration's budget for FY80 relating to child nutrition programs. 5. 605, providing for optional consolidation of Federal food assistance programs by the States, was introduced. 03/06/79 02/27/79 01/3i/79 01/22/79 01/15/79 12/15/78 OH/25/78 rrV:u'r&-1n _ W __ V § -*1 -L‘: ,5-6. m» up.»- ‘kt? U ~.'-'. I-.' hr‘-'~¢'«_ _‘ 39) -)3 N‘ . ‘~53 I?" V ‘:3 ‘ in _- 7' ‘A , us :1 7 r “=5 %l.=."x—-‘~%».€+'£« H :3 GE 5’ xi) N " '1; Y'all’ -.fi:'>~ :=‘.‘u1xr.~._ LI~:=.:.. J a V orwrmmammgh Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry recommended reductions in the WIC authorization. limiting the Special Milk program and reforming the Summer Food Service program as areas of savings for consideration by the Budget Committee. Subcommittee on Nutrition of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held hearing on the FY80 food program budget. 5. 292, reducing the FY80 authorization for the WIC program, was introduced. Administration FY80 Budget recommended cutting back selected child nutrition programs. H.R. 27, extending authorizations through FY85 for a number of child nutrition programs was introduced. U.S. Department of Agriculture withdrew proposed. regulations on competitive foods. .U.s. Department of Agriculture issued proposed regulations on the sale of competitive foods in schools participating in the School Lunch and Breakfast Program. 1' £y ”-w?.sr§'. Lxc-¢t_-. ‘