This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
The "child nutrition programs" (National School Lunch Program [NSLP] and certain other institutional food service programs) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) were last reauthorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296). Some of the authorities created or extended in the last reauthorization law expired on September 30, 2015, but the vast majority of operations and activities continue via the funding provided by the FY2016 omnibus appropriations law (P.L. 114-113)because appropriations laws continued funding.
In the 114th Congress, both committees of jurisdiction—the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce—have now completed markups of reauthorization legislationcompleted markups of reauthorization legislation but did not complete reauthorization. (At the final adjournment of a Congress, all legislation that has not yet been sent to the President dies. When the new Congress convenes, the formal legislative process must begin anew.)
Legislative activity in the 114th Congress, though historical, may provide helpful background for the 115th Congress. On January 20, 2016, by a unanimous voice vote, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry voted to report its WIC and child nutrition reauthorization proposal, the Improving Child Nutrition Integrity and Access Act of 2016 (later introduced as S. 3136). On May 18, 2016, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce marked up its reauthorization proposal, the Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016 (H.R. 5003). The committee approved the bill, 20 to 14, largely along partisan lines.
While both proposals extendwould have extended authorities and includeincluded many of the same policies, the House committee's proposal would makehave made three major policy changes to the school meals programs that are not in the Senate committee's proposal: (1) a demonstration project for up to three states to receive a block grant in lieu of funding from a number of open-ended child nutrition programs, (2) a higher threshold for school participation in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), and (3) increased reimbursement rates for the School Breakfast Program.
In other school meal policies, both proposals includeincluded different changes to school meal nutrition standards, including whole grain and sodium requirements. The proposals would both revamphave revamped the current law procedures for the verification of household applications for free and reduced-price school meals.
The Senate and House committees' proposals would pilot or expandhave piloted or expanded a number of alternatives for feeding low-income children during the summer months through the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). Proposals would streamlinehave streamlined SFSP with afterschool meals and snacks and create off-site alternatives to the congregate feeding site model. Both proposals includeincluded a continuation of the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) pilot, although the Senate committee would expandhave expanded it and makemade it permanent.
The proposals are similar in their policy changes for the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Farm to School Grant Program.
Both proposals would expandhave expanded the types of snacks served through the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. They would each expandhave expanded offerings beyond fresh to frozen, dried, and canned, although the Senate committee's proposal doeswould have done so in a more limited way, creating a wider range only for certain schools and then requiring a transition to fresh only.
Both proposals includeincluded a number of changes to Special Supplemental Nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) policy. Only the Senate committee raiseswould have raised the age of child eligibility and increasesincreased infant certification periods. Both makeproposed changes to income eligibility calculation, WIC-eligible foods policy, integrity of benefit redemption, transition to EBT, and competitive bidding for infant formula and foods.
At this time, theThe Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the Senate committee's proposal would increasehave increased the deficit by $1.1 billion over 10 years (FY2016-FY2025) and that the House committee's proposal would reducehave reduced the deficit by $67 million over 10 years (FY2017-FY2026).
In the 114th Congress, the process to reauthorize the child nutrition programs and WIC has begun and advanced, particularly in the first half of 2016. Both committees of jurisdiction—the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce—have now completed markups of reauthorization legislation. Prior to the markups, the committees of jurisdiction held related hearings.1
On January 20, 2016, by a unanimous voice vote, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry voted to report its WIC and child nutrition reauthorization proposal.2 Bipartisan approval of the committee's legislation, the Improving Child Nutrition Integrity and Access Act of 2016, was the 114th Congress's most significant first step toward reauthorizing the child nutrition and WIC programs. On July 6, 2016, Chairman Pat Roberts introduced this approved proposal as S. 3136.
On April 20, 2016, Representative Todd Rokita, chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced the Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016 (H.R. 5003), a proposal to reauthorize WIC and the child nutrition programs. On May 18, 2016, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce marked up H.R. 5003, adopting an amendment in the nature of a substitute as well as five Member-offered amendments.3 The committee approved the bill, 20 to 14, largely along partisan lines.4 As in weeks prior to the markup, committee Republicans applauded and Democrats decried the bill's changes to current law.5
The "child nutrition programs" (National School Lunch Program and certain other institutional food service programs) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) were last reauthorized in 2010. Some of the authorities created or extended in that last reauthorization law (Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296)) expired on September 30, 2015, but the vast majority of operations and activities continue because appropriations laws continued funding. Despite efforts to complete the next child nutrition reauthorization during the 114th Congress, the legislation did not advance beyond committees. Although the formal legislative process must begin anew with the new Congress, 114th Congress child nutrition reauthorization issues, proposals, and controversies may still influence policymaking in the new Congress; thus, background on these child nutrition reauthorization proposals may remain of interest. At the same time, regulations and initiatives implemented during the Obama Administration are a significant dimension to these programs' current law; transition to a Trump Administration may impact how the 115th Congress proposes changes to these laws. The first part of this report ("Current Status of Program Operations") offers some basic background on the last (2010) reauthorization, its expiration, and the current status of program operations. The second part of the report ("114th Congress Senate and House Committees' Proposals") presents an overview of the 114th Congress Senate and House committees' proposals: legislative process, summary of selected provisions, and CBO cost estimates. This report offers some basic background on the last (2010) reauthorization, its expiration, and an overview of many of the policies in the Senate and House committees' proposals. For more background on the programs' operations (such as eligibility rules, benefits, and services) or the 2010 reauthorization, please Introduction
The last section of this report summarizes available Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates. On March 11, 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a cost estimate of the Senate committee legislation's changes to direct (i.e., mandatory) spending (CBO has not yet completed an estimate of the discretionary spending effects of the bill).6 Scored against CBO's March 2015 baseline, CBO estimates that the legislation would increase the deficit by $1.1 billion over 10 years (FY2016-FY2025). Committee leadership has said they will work to revise the proposal;7 this report discusses the proposal that the committee voted to report on January 20, 2016.
On June 30, 2016, CBO published a cost estimate of the House committee's proposal (as marked up on May 18, 2016).8 CBO completed a formal cost estimate of both the direct spending and the discretionary spending provisions. Scored against CBO's March 2016 baseline, CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce the deficit by $67 million over 10 years (FY2017-FY2026).
As formulation and deliberation on the next reauthorization continues, completed CBO cost estimates, changes to committee proposals, and the 2016 elections may affect the path toward the next WIC and child nutrition reauthorization.
|
Acronyms Used in This Report CACFP: Child and Adult Care Food Program CBO: Congressional Budget Office CEP: Community Eligibility Provision EBT: Electronic Benefit Transfer FFVP: Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program FMNP: Farmers' Market Nutrition Program FNS: Food and Nutrition Service HHFKA: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296) ISP: Identified Student Percentage LEA: Local Educational Agency NSLP: National School Lunch Program RCCI: Residential Child Care Institutions SBP: School Breakfast Program SEBTC: Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children SFSP: Summer Food Service Program SY: USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture WIC: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children |
The "child nutrition programs" (National School Lunch Program [NSLP] and certain other institutional food service programs) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are primarily authorized by permanenttwo statutes, the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq). These statutes and programs were last reauthorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296). Some of the authorities created or extended in the last reauthorization law expired on September 30, 2015.
As of the date of this report, Congress has not reauthorized the child nutrition and WIC programs, but the vast majority of operations and activities continue viawith funding provided by appropriations laws. Specifically, funding was provided by the FY2016 omnibus appropriation law (P.L. 114-113), including the appropriations law's amendment of one expiring authority.91 These operations currently continue under the terms of a FY2017 continuing resolution (CR), P.L. 114-223, which expires on April 28, 2017.2
In summary, a lapse in the reauthorization or extension of the HHFKA does not affect all activities equally:
The sections to follow describe the 114th Congress committee proposals: legislative history, selected provisions, and CBO cost estimates. Aspects of this now-historical information may be relevant for 115th Congress policymaking. During the 114th Congress, committees of jurisdiction marked up child nutrition reauthorization bills. In 2016, both committees of jurisdiction—the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce—completed reauthorization legislation: S. 3136 and H.R. 5003, respectively. Prior to the markups, the committees of jurisdiction had held related hearings.4 On January 20, 2016, by a unanimous voice vote, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry voted to report its WIC and child nutrition reauthorization proposal.5 Bipartisan approval of the committee's legislation, the Improving Child Nutrition Integrity and Access Act of 2016, was the 114th Congress's most significant first step toward reauthorizing the child nutrition and WIC programs. On July 6, 2016, Chairman Pat Roberts introduced this approved proposal as S. 3136. On April 20, 2016, Representative Todd Rokita, chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced the Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016 (H.R. 5003), a proposal to reauthorize WIC and the child nutrition programs. On May 18, 2016, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce marked up H.R. 5003, adopting an amendment in the nature of a substitute as well as five Member-offered amendments.6 The committee approved the bill, 20 to 14, largely along partisan lines.7 As in weeks prior to the markup, committee Republicans applauded and Democrats decried the bill's changes to current law.8 On December 8, 2016, Chairman Kline submitted, together with minority views, committee report H.Rept. 114-852. Before the end of the 114th Congress, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, announced the end of reauthorization negotiations.9The sections to follow summarize selected provisions of the current Senate and House committee proposals; these sections organize the provisions thematically, by program. As legislative changes may occur throughout this process, please note that the
10The summaries below do not provide all specifications for the policies discussed; see legislation for further detail. In particular, these summaries generally do not include the required timeline for USDA action, nor do they include reports to Congress. Please also note that agency rulemaking is often required or implied by the legislation; such rulemaking is likely to addhave added details or specifications.
The Senate committee's proposal would extendhave extended the authorizations of appropriations of the Summer Food Service Program, WIC, WIC FMNP, and State Administrative Expenses through FY2020. (Other major programs—like NSLP and SBP—have a permanent authorization of programs.)
The Senate committee's proposal would also continuehave continued some of the authorizing provisions that sunset after September 30, 2015. Regarding the activities that are currently expired, theThe Senate and House committees' proposals would continuehave continued the California pilot and the food safety audit authorities, but it would not continuehave continued the preappropriated funding for a National Hunger Clearinghouse.
The House committee's proposal includesincluded these same extensions, but usesused a different time period. While the Senate extendswould have extended most programs for the period of FY2016 to FY2020, the House committee's bill extendswould have extended for FY2017 through FY2021.
Under current law, most funding for child nutrition programs is open-ended, mandatory, and appropriated. Funds are provided in annual appropriations acts to fulfill the legal financial obligation established by the authorizing laws, but the level of spending is not controlled through the annual appropriations process; instead, it is derived from the benefit and eligibility criteria specified in the authorizing laws. In the case of the child nutrition programs (NSLP, SBP, CACFP, SFSP, Special Milk, and related activities), funding is not capped and fluctuates based largely on the reimbursement rates and the number of meals/snacks served (i.e., participation in the programs).
Under the Senate and House committees' reauthorization proposals, the open-ended, mandatory, and appropriated nature of child nutrition programs' funding would mostly continuehave continued. However, the House committee's proposal (§109) does includeincluded a demonstration project for up to three states to receive a block grant in place of the open-ended funding (though still mandatory and appropriated).1211 No such demonstration project iswas included in the Senate committee's proposal.
Under the House committee's proposal, up to three states would receivehave received a fixed amount of funding for flexible purposes (a block grant), in place of the open-ended funding provided by NSLP, SBP, SFSP, Special Milk, and several related activities.
The grantee states would receivehave received funding each year for three years, in an amount equal to the respective state's reimbursements for free and reduced-price meals provided through NSLP and SBP programs in FY2016.1312 Grantee states would not behave been eligible to receive funding from the open-ended NSLP, SBP, SFSP, Special Milk, State Administrative Expenses, and Team Nutrition programs that would continue to be available for non-grantee states.1413
Grantee states would not have had to follow national standards currently in place for nutrition requirements, eligibility rules, or meal price-setting, among other requirements; instead, grantee states could have set their own rules in these areas. Among other required assurances, a state applying for the block grant funding would behave been required to assure "that each school-aged child in the [s]tate will have access to at least one affordable meal service option during the school day at the school in which the child is enrolled." The applying state would have also bebeen required to provide an implementation plan that includes the state's need-based eligibility rules, standards for meals and prices, estimated participation in the program, and monitoring and verification procedures, among other specified state-determined parameters.1514 The proposal includesincluded specified "limitations to federal interference," which would restricthave restricted USDA from defining many aspects of implementation, including nutritional standards and how program participants are identified and verified. The proposal also includesincluded reporting requirements for USDA and the participating states.
During the House committee's markup, committee members defeated an amendment that sought to block grant the NSLP and SBP nationwide and permanently.1615
Debates about the next child nutrition reauthorization have often centered on the school meals programs' updated nutrition standards.1716 An update had been required by the 2004 and 2010 reauthorizations, and USDA-FNS issued the final rule in January 2012.1817 The 2010 reauthorization also required nutrition standards for food served outside the school meals programs ("competitive foods"); to implement this, USDA-FNS issued an interim final rule in June 2013.1918
Both of the committees' proposals would changehave changed existing nutrition standards but would dohave done so differently.
The Senate committee's proposal includesincluded a number of provisions that would have or could affecthave affected the current nutrition standards regulations and their implementation:
The House committee's proposal includesincluded the following nutrition standards policies:
The Senate committee's proposal doesdid not include changes to the school meals programs income eligibility rules nor does it changewould it have changed the rates of reimbursement for the school meals programs. On the other hand, the House committee's proposal would make changes in both of these areas.
The 2010 child nutrition reauthorization law (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296) created an option for eligible schools to serve all meals free of charge and without collecting applications, the "Community Eligibility Provision" (CEP). The House committee's proposal would make fewer schools eligible for the CEP option.
Eligibility for CEP depends on a school's "identified student percentage" (ISP), the share of enrolled students that can be identified as eligible for free school meals through direct certification.2221 Direct certification is a proactive process where government agencies (for example, state departments of education and departments of human services) cross-check their program rolls and certify children for free school meals based on the household's participation in other specified means-tested programs or vulnerable population status, without the household having to complete a school meals application. Under current law, a school, school district, or group of schools within a district must have an ISP of 40% or greater to use CEP. Though CEP schools serve free meals to all students, CEP schools are not necessarily reimbursed at the "free meal" rate for every meal.23
Under the House committee's proposal (§105), the ISP threshold would behave been raised from 40% to 60% beginning July 1, 2017. The provision also would allowhave allowed for a grace period of one periodschool year for schools that had been eligible for CEP but would no longer be eligible under the amended law.2423
Of the two committees' proposals, only the House committee's would makehave made changes to the school meal reimbursement rates.
The House committee's proposal (§202) would increasehave increased all School Breakfast Program reimbursements. That is, the proposal would increasehave increased the reimbursement for free, reduced-price, and full-price ("paid") breakfasts. The increase would beginhave begun in School Year (SY) 2018-2019 and continuewould have continued as follows:
Note: this amendment, due to cross-references in the authorizing statute, would also accordingly changehave changed accordingly the rate of reimbursement for breakfasts served through CACFP.27
Under current law, schools are required to verify the data submitted on a sample of household applications for free and reduced-price school meals. In general, the standard verification sample under current law is the smallest of 3,000 or 3% of approved applications, with a focus on error-prone applications.2827 Schools may also conduct verification "for cause" for questionable applications.2928 Many schools employ "direct verification" (matching data from other low-income programs) to conduct their verification activities, but if data cannot be verified in this way, schools will contact households to verify.3029
Both the Senate and House committees' proposals would have significantly revise and reworkrevised and reworked application verification in the school meals programs. Both proposals arewere similar in their approach, with some differences in the specific details. Below is an overview of the major changes proposed:
HHFKA set a floor for schools' pricing of full-price ("paid") lunches and non-program foods (i.e., vending machines, a la carte line foods).3231 These policies had been intended to ensure that federal subsidies for free and reduced-price lunches did not end up subsidizing meals for non-needy children and non-meal foods.
The Senate committee's proposal would strikehave stricken these price calculation requirements and replacereplaced them with a broader "non-federal revenue target." This proposal would requirehave required schools to contribute a calculated target of nonfederal funds; the source of these nonfederal funds may behave been household payments for full-price lunches but could also be other state or local contributions to the school food service program. (§§106)
The House committee's proposal would only strikehave stricken the price calculation requirements; it would not replacehave replaced them. (§§105(e))
The Senate committee's proposal would addhave added to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act policies regarding kitchen equipment and related infrastructure. It would authorizehave authorized discretionary grants for equipment and other specified capital improvements (up to $30 million in discretionary funding for FY2016 and each fiscal year thereafter). It also would requirehave required USDA to offer loan guarantees; it includesincluded discretionary funding (up to $5 million for FY2016 and each fiscal year thereafter) for related fees, although appropriations for the fees would not behave been required for loan guarantee activities to occur. (§§116)
The House committee's proposal includesincluded both the grants and the loan guarantees but authorizeswould have authorized less funding for the discretionary grants (up to $25 million in discretionary grants "for fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2019"). (§§114)
The House committee's proposal would providehave provided up to $475,000 to ensure that children have access to potable water during meal service, for a period of no more than 90 days when certain requirements are met. (§§104) This policy iswas not included in the Senate committee's proposal.
Under current law, most food offered in summer months is provided in congregate settings through the SFSP or the NSLP's Seamless Summer Option (SSO, an option only for schools).3332 ("Congregate" settings refer to specific sites where children come to eat and are supervised.) With the exception of the California pilot mentioned earlier and the SSO option for schools, organizations that provide summer and afterschool food need to participate in two separate programs (SFSP and CACFP At-risk Afterschool).
Following related testimony in multiple 114th Congress committee hearings, as well as the introduction of a number of freestanding proposals, the Senate and House committees' proposals would pilot or expandhave piloted or expanded a number of alternatives for feeding low-income children during the summer months.3433 Still, there arewere significant differences between the reauthorization proposals' SFSP provisions. (§107 Senate committee proposal; §106 House committee proposal)
Both committees' proposals would authorizehave authorized eligible institutions to operate SFSP and CACFP At-risk Afterschool sites under one application.
Under the Senate committee's proposal (§§107), participating institutions would behave been reimbursed at SFSP rates, which are higher than CACFP's. In FY2018, up to seven states would behave been authorized to operate this pilot. In FY2019, three states could behave been added to the limit. In FY2020, two additional states could behave been added. In FY2021, and each fiscal year thereafter, one additional state could behave been added. The Secretary of Agriculture would behave been required to select states with low SFSP participation and states that had not yet transitioned their WIC program to Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). Among other requirements, eligible institutions would have had to provide meals during at least 20 summer days (or school vacation days in areas that operate a continuous school calendar) in order to participate. Under this streamlined option, the daily reimbursement maximum would behave been one meal (during summer, only lunch/breakfast) and one snack.
Under the House committee's proposal (§§106), participating institutions would behave been reimbursed at CACFP At-Risk Afterschool rates. Beginning in May 2017, up to five states would behave been selected for participation. Selection of states iswould have largely based on the state's demonstrated capacity to reduce paperwork and other administrative burdens while retaining program integrity. Beginning in October 2018, up to five additional states could behave been added. Beginning in May 2020 and each year thereafter, the Secretary may choosehave chosen additional states. Throughout the transition and expansion, the Secretary iswould have to provide technical assistance to the states, to collect best practices from them, and to update technical assistance to reflect the implementing states' best practices. The daily reimbursement maximum would behave been the same as the Senate committee's proposal.
Both proposals addressaddressed the provision of benefits via EBT to children that are eligible for free and reduced-price school meals over the summer months. The Senate would expandhave expanded this alternative with mandatory funding. The House would keep the existing pilot funded with discretionary funding.
The Senate committee's proposal would authorizehave authorized states to make a special election, in place of congregate meal service, to issue $30 per summer month, per eligible child, on a WIC EBT card.3635 This election, funded by the SFSP mandatory funding, would behave been provided for a limited number of children. In FY2018 (the first year), no more than 235,000 children could behave been served under this election; in FY2019, no more than 260,000 children; in FY2020, and each fiscal year thereafter, no more than 285,000 children. In addition to the mandatory funding authorized, up to $50 million would be authorized to be appropriated to serve additional children. Among other criteria and considerations, USDA would behave been required to limit this election to eligible households that live in (1) poor areas that are rural and without congregate feeding sites, (2) poor areas that have limited access to SFSP and other authorized alternatives, or (3) areas with less than 50% of households eligible for free school meals and with limited access to SFSP and other authorized alternatives. (§§107)
The House committee's proposal authorizeswould have authorized resources to continue the Summer EBT demonstrations. The proposal would authorizehave authorized up to $10 million in appropriations for each of FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020.3736 The funding would only behave been available to those states that currently operate an SEBTC program.3837 Area and household eligibility rules arewere similar to the Senate committee's proposal. Participating children may receivehave received from $15 to $30 per month. Participating states my considermay have considered differentiating benefit amounts based on any of a variety of community level factors, such as the proportion of applicants that are eligible for free meals, rather than reduced-price. During the committee's markup, an amendment passedwas adopted to strike the requirement that participating states must administer benefits through WIC EBT, allowing states to use SNAP or WIC (as in the current pilot).3938 (§109)
The Senate committee's proposal (§§107) would have, beginning in summer 2017, permitpermitted states to allow institutions to provide SFSP meals to be consumed off-site. This election would behave been available for children (1) in a rural area (as defined by the Secretary), or (2) in a non-rural area in which more than 80% of students are certified as eligible for free or reduced-price meals. (Home delivery of meals (no more than two meals per child per delivery) is an example of how a state might usehave used this election.
The House committee's proposal (§§106) iswas substantially similar with a few differences. In addition to the Senate committee proposal's area eligibility criteria, the House committee's proposal would have only allowedonly allow implementation of the off-site election if "an area is eligible to participate in [SFSP] but is not currently being served." Also, the House committee's proposal would requirehave required the state, rather than USDA, to define rural.
For institutions operating congregate feeding sites, the Senate committee's proposal would requirehave required USDA to grant a state's request for off-site consumption when the site is closed due to extreme weather considerations, violence or other public safety concerns temporarily prevent children from traveling safely to the site, or other emergency circumstances. (§(§107)
The House committee's proposal iswas substantially similar. (§(§106)
. The Senate committee's proposal would authorize(§107)would have authorized discretionary funding for up to six state agencies to pilot the provision of three meals per day, or two meals and one snack. (§107)
This was not included in the House committee's proposal. A; a related amendment was offered in markup and defeated.40
. The House committee's proposal would authorizehave authorized USDA to award competitive grants, using available SFSP mandatory funding, to improve SFSP service delivery through "sustainable, scalable, business-driven solutions." Such grants would behave been available for as many as four states and could behave been provided for as long as three years. Additional requirements arewere included regarding state applications, vendors, and auditing. (§§109)
The Senate and House committees' proposals (§109, §§108, respectively) arewere substantially similar in their CACFP policy changes, but only the Senate committee proposal would providehave provided an additional snack for a child in care for longer hours.
Among their changes, both proposals would allowhave allowed new types of institutions into the program. Residential child care institutions (RCCIs) and boarding schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education would behave been eligible for CACFP meal and snack reimbursement in addition to the school meals programs.
Under current law, two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks are the daily limits per child regardless of duration of care. The Senate committee's proposal would providehave provided additional food for longer-duration child care. Child care institutions would behave been able to claim reimbursement for an additional snack for each child that is in care for nine hours or more per day. The House committee's proposal did not include this change; an amendment to add a related change was defeated during committee markup.41
As noted under "Breakfast Reimbursement Rates", §202 of the House committee's proposal would also increasehave increased reimbursement rates for breakfasts served through CACFP.
Beginning FY2017 and each year thereafter, the Senate committee's proposal would increasehave increased annual mandatory funding (from $5 million to $10 million) for the Farm to School Grant Program. It would also increasehave increased maximum grant amounts (from $100,000 to $200,000). The proposal would also authorizehave authorized up to $10 million in discretionary appropriations each year (FY2016-FY2020). Among other updates, the proposal would addhave added "implementing agricultural literacy and nutrition education" as an allowable use for grants and requirerequired USDA to make improving procurement and distribution a goal of grant making. (§§110)
The House committee's proposal iswas substantially similar, except that maximum grants would behave been $150,000 and the proposal does not include authorization of additional discretionary funds. (§§109)
Under current law, with the exception of a pilot included in the 2014 farm proposalbill (P.L. 113-79), the fruit and vegetable snacks served through this program must be fresh—not frozen, dried, or canned. The Senate and House committees' proposals would make distinct changes.
The Senate committee's proposal (§§111) would createhave created "hardship exemption" criteria and a process under which some schools could servehave served frozen, dried, or canned fruits and vegetables instead of only fresh items. Subject to USDA's and the states' implementation, schools with limited access to quality fresh fruits and vegetables year-round or with limited facilities to store, prepare, or serve fresh fruits and vegetables would behave been able to participate in the snack program by providing frozen, dried, or canned fruit and vegetable snacks. In the first year of a hardship exemption, the school could servehave served up to 100% of their fruit and vegetable snacks in these forms; however, the ceiling would drophave dropped over four years, moving from 100% to 60% to 20% to 0%, transitioning the exempt schools from 0% fresh offerings to 100% fresh offerings.
The House committee's proposal (§§110) would allowhave allowed participating schools to serve all forms of fruits and vegetables, changing the program's name to "Fruit and Vegetable Program." The proposal would also allowhave allowed schools to serve snacks that include tree nuts. USDA would behave been required to promulgate guidance to limit fruit, vegetable, and tree nut snacks to meeting the respective nutrition standards that are currently in place for competitive food items—including sodium, sugar, and total fat limits.44
On WIC, most of the Senate and House committees' provisions (§§204, §206206, respectively) arewere similar, but the proposals have a few key differences.
Currently, WIC's authorization of appropriations does not have a numerical cap; it authorizes "such sums as are necessary."4645 The House committee's proposal would set its authorization of appropriations at $6.35 billion each year through FY2021.4746 The Senate committee's proposal would maintain "such sums as are necessary" through FY2020.
Only the Senate committee's proposal would makehave made changes to child eligibility and the certification period for infants:
The above changes arewere not included in the House committee's proposal.4847 Both committees' proposals dodid include similar changes to the calculation of income in the WIC program:
The supplemental food package in a given state is the result of federal regulation and state policies. "Supplemental foods" is defined in federal WIC law as
those foods containing nutrients determined by nutritional research to be lacking in the diets of pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children and foods that promote the health of the population served by the program authorized by this section [WIC], as indicated by relevant nutrition science, public health concerns, and cultural eating patterns, as prescribed by the Secretary [of Agriculture]. State agencies may, with the approval of the Secretary, substitute different foods providing the nutritional equivalent of foods prescribed by the Secretary, to allow for different cultural eating patterns.4948
Both committees' proposals includeincluded changes to this definition.
The Senate committee's proposal would allowhave allowed the list of supplemental foods to consider commercial availability and participant demand. It also would requirehave required the inflation adjustment of the cash value voucher (used to purchase fruits or vegetables) to round to the nearest dollar.
The House committee's proposal includesincluded similar language to the Senate committee's proposal with a few additions. In addition to considerations of commercial availability and participant demand, the House committee proposesproposed a limit that any changes "shall not limit the overall fruit intake of children." The proposal would also requirehave required an examination of current fluid milk criteria. The House committee proposal also includesincluded some additional accommodations for special dietary needs and other requirements for food package formulation.
Both of the committees' proposals arewere substantially similar in other WIC areas, with similarities and differences summarized below:
This section trackssummarizes CBO's cost estimates of the committees' child nutrition reauthorization proposals, as of the date of this report:
On March 11, 2016, CBO published a cost estimate of the Senate committee's proposal (as marked up on January 20, 2016).5251 CBO completed a formal cost estimate of the direct spending (i.e., mandatory spending), but has not released an estimate of the discretionary spending provisions. This proposal was scored against CBO's March 2015 baseline and cost estimates are for a budget window of FY2016-FY2025.
On June 30, 2016, CBO published a cost estimate of the House committee's proposal (as marked up on May 18, 2016).5352 CBO completed a formal cost estimate of both the direct spending and the discretionary spending provisions. This proposal was scored against CBO's March 2016 baseline and cost estimates are for a budget window of FY2017-FY2026.
CBO explainsCBO explained, "Any differences in the [proposals'] estimates reflect differences in both the language of the legislation and in the baselines used for the estimates."5453 In other words, the different budget windows and baselines limit the significance of comparing the cost estimates as an exact measure of their policy differences.
The sections that follow include selected information from the cost estimates. Other committee-proposed policies, not listed here or discussed in this report, would increase direct spending or increase revenues. See CBO's cost estimates for further details.
Based on changes to direct spending and revenues, CBO estimatesestimated that the legislation would have increased the deficit by $269 million over 5 years (FY2016-FY2020) and approximately $1.1 billion over 10 years (FY2016-FY2025). More specifically, CBO estimated that some of the policies discussed in this CRS report would impact direct spending in the child nutrition programs. CBO estimates (in outlays over the 10-year budget window FY2016-FY2025) that, if enacted,
At the time, committee leadership had said they would work to revise the proposal to make it cost-neutral.54
Cost Estimate of House Committee's Proposal (June 30, 2016)Based on changes to direct spending and revenues, CBO estimatesestimated that the legislation would have reducedreduce the deficit by $131 million over 5 years (FY2017-FY2021) and $67 million over 10 years (FY2017-FY2026).
For certain policies that were in the House committee's proposal but not the Senate committee's proposal, CBO estimatesestimated (in outlays over the 10-year budget window of FY2017-FY2026) that, if enacted,
In some of the areas where both proposals would amendhave amended policy, CBO estimates (in outlays over the 10-year budget window of FY2017-FY2026) the following for the House committee's proposal, if enacted:
For discretionary programs (i.e., spending subject to appropriation), CBO estimatesestimated that the House committee's proposal would have cost $29.8 billion over the five-year (FY2017-FY2021) period, assuming the appropriation of necessary amounts.56 The vast majority ($29.6 billion) of this estimate is based on the reauthorization of WIC and WIC FMNP programs.
Author Contact Information
| 1. |
For further background, including a list of affected or potentially affected provisions, CRS has released a congressional memorandum. Congressional clients may request a copy from [author name scrubbed] at [email address scrubbed].
For more about the funding levels and anomalies for these programs, see CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. Based on December 2015 and January 2016 emails between CRS and USDA staff. |
|||||
|
A copy of the legislation and related materials are posted on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry website, http://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/committee-print-improving-child-nutrition-integrity-and-access-act-of-2016. |
||||||
|
Markup documents are available at http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400678. |
||||||
|
Republican Representative David Brat of Virginia voted against the bill along with Democrats. |
||||||
|
House Committee on Education and the Workforce Republicans, "Committee Approves Bill to Reauthorize, Improve Child Nutrition Assistance," press release, May 18, 2016, http://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=400707; House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats, "Committee Republicans Pass Harmful Bill Restricting Access to Healthy School Meals," press release, May 18, 2016, https://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/media/press-releases/-committee-republicans-pass-harmful-bill-restricting-access-to-healthy-school-meals. |
||||||
|
| ||||||
| 7. |
Ellyn Ferguson, "CBO: Child Nutrition Bill Would Add $1 Billion to Deficit," CQ Roll Call, March 14, 2016, http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4851837?search=LPbRP8fo. |
|||||
| 8. |
Congressional Budget Office, Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016, cost estimate, June 30, 2016. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51756. |
|||||
| 9. |
For further background, including a list of affected or potentially affected provisions, CRS has released a congressional memorandum. Congressional clients may request a copy from [author name scrubbed] at [email address scrubbed]. |
|||||
| 10. |
Based on December 2015 and January 2016 emails between CRS and USDA staff. |
|||||
|
As of the date of this report, the bills as introduced are available on http://www.congress.gov. The House committee's amendments—including an amendment in nature of a substitute that differs significantly from the introduced version—are available on the committee's website: http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400678. |
||||||
|
In §109 of H.R. 5003 |
||||||
|
The proposal would not |
||||||
|
The demonstration project would not |
||||||
|
For all plan requirements, see legislative language in §109 of H.R. 5003. |
||||||
|
Amendment #27 offered by Representative Glenn Grothman was defeated 9-25. See House Committee on Education and the Workforce website, http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400678. |
||||||
|
See, for example, "Food Fight Fizzles as Senate Nears Compromise on School Nutrition Rules," National Public Radio, January 20, 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/01/20/463618556/food-fight-fizzles-as-senate-nears-compromise-on-school-nutrition-rules. |
||||||
|
For the final rule and related resources, see the USDA-FNS website at http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/nutrition-standards-school-meals. |
||||||
|
For further summaries and background on regulations noted in this paragraph, see "Selected Current Issues in the USDA Child Nutrition Programs" in CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer, by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||
|
While not all of the details are written into the legislation itself, the School Nutrition Association (SNA) posted a January 15, 2016, statement of the terms of an agreement reached between SNA, USDA, the White House, and the Senate committee, https://schoolnutrition.org/News/AgreementReachedOnSchoolNutritionStandards/. The terms of the agreement were also discussed in a colloquy between Ranking Member Stabenow and Senator Hoeven during the committee's markup (mentioned in Congressional Quarterly coverage at http://www.cq.com/alertmatch/277534762?0). In recent years, "policy riders" in appropriations laws have provided some changes to the whole grain and sodium policies. Under the FY2016 appropriations law (P.L. 114-113), some school food authorities may receive waivers to the 100% whole grain rules and USDA would be prevented from reducing sodium to the Target 2 until "the latest scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial for children." See also CRS Report R44240, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2016 Appropriations, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||
|
This section discusses school meal eligibility rules and reimbursement rates, providing only limited background. For more background, see "School Meals Eligibility Rules" in CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer, by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||
|
If eligible, CEP can also be implemented district-wide or for a selection of schools in a district. |
||||||
|
Instead, the law provides a funding formula: the percentage of students identified as automatically eligible is multiplied by a factor of 1.6; the result is the percentage of meals served that will be reimbursed at the free meal rate, with the remainder reimbursed at the far smaller paid meal rate. As an example, if a CEP school identifies that 40% of students are eligible for free meals, then 64% of the meals served will be reimbursed at the free meal rate and 36% at the paid meal rate. Schools that identify 62.5% or more students as eligible for free meals receive the free meal reimbursement for all meals served. |
||||||
|
Non-CEP schools' students that are income-eligible for free or reduced-price meals or categorically eligible for free meals may still fill out a household application to receive such subsidized meals. Students that are categorically eligible and are identified through direct certification processes would be certified for free meals without filling out applications. |
||||||
|
As a point of comparison, SBP reimbursement rates for SY2015-2016 in the 48 contiguous states and DC are as much as $1.99 for a free breakfast, as much as $1.69 for a reduced-price breakfast, and $0.29 for a full-price breakfast. |
||||||
|
The proposal would not |
||||||
|
Section 17(c)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1766(c)(1)). |
||||||
|
Current law defines ''error prone application'' as "a household application that ... indicates a monthly income that is within $100, or an annual income that is within $1,200, of the income eligibility limitation for free or reduced-price meals." (Section 9(b)(3)(D)(i) of Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1758((b)(3)(D)(i)). |
||||||
|
7 C.F.R. 245.6a(c)(7). |
||||||
|
For more background on verification under current law, see Quinn Moore, Judith Cannon, and Dallas Dotter, et al., Program Error in the National School Lunch program and School Breakfast Program: Findings from the Second Access, Participation, Eligibility and Certification Study (APEC II) Volume 1: Findings, USDA-FNS, May 2015, pp. 8-9, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/APECII-Vol1.pdf. |
||||||
|
Not all factors |
||||||
|
For more on the implementation of this policy, see, for example, USDA-FNS website at http://www.fns.usda.gov/paid-lunch-equity-school-year-2015-16-calculations-and-tool. |
||||||
|
For further background, see |
||||||
|
During 114th Congress hearings, witnesses testified about SFSP and summer alternatives before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce (April 15, 2015; June 16, 2015; June 24, 2015) and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (May 7, 2015). The 114th Congress introduced bills on summer meals, including (companion bills paired, when applicable): S. 613/H.R. 1728; S. 1539/H.R. 2715; S. 1966. |
||||||
|
From FY2010 through FY2016 (and including FY2017 continuing resolutions), appropriations laws have provided authority and funding for an EBT demonstration project. These projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children in order to make up for school meals that children miss when school is out of session and as an alternative to the Summer Food Service Program meals. Related projects originally were authorized and funded in the FY2010 appropriations law (P.L. 111-80). In limited areas, projects have been operated and funded since then, most recently in the FY2016 appropriations law (P.L. 114-113). They received $23 million for FY2016 (including $7 million in §741(b)). For more information, see USDA-FNS FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2016notes.pdf, p. "32-24"; and USDA-FNS website, "Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC)" http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-electronic-benefit-transfer-children-sebtc. |
||||||
|
The $30 would |
||||||
|
CBO |
||||||
|
FY2016 grantees |
||||||
|
Amendment #29, offered by Representative Susan Davis, was agreed to by voice vote. Amendment #28 was defeated. See http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400678. |
||||||
|
Amendment #26 offered by Ranking Member Bobby Scott was offered and defeated 15-19. See http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400678. |
||||||
|
Amendment #25, offered by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, was defeated 15-19. See http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400678. |
||||||
|
For more information on program grants and grantees, see the USDA-FNS program website, http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/farm-school-grant-program. |
||||||
|
This program is authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act but is funded by the Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (P.L. 74-320, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 612c). Since first piloted in 2002, this program has been amended by both farm bills and child nutrition reauthorization laws. The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, Section 4214) authorized a pilot project for canned, frozen, or dried fruits and vegetables. |
||||||
|
The interim final rule is currently codified at 7 C.F.R. 210.11. |
||||||
|
For more information on how the WIC program currently operates (including eligibility rules, EBT, vendor, and infant formula and infant food competitive bidding), see CRS Report R44115, A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||
|
Section 17(g)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1786(g)(1)(A). |
||||||
|
WIC received $6.35 billion in FY2016 appropriations. For recent years' WIC funding, see Table 2 in CRS Report R44441, FY2017 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: In Brief, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||
|
During House markup, Representative Katherine Clark offered these provisions along with other WIC changes in Amendment #24. It was defeated 13-21, along party lines. See House Committee on Education and the Workforce website, http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400678. |
||||||
|
Section 17(b)(14) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1786(b)(14)). |
||||||
|
WIC applicants that participate in Medicaid are deemed income eligible for the program; this Medicaid-WIC relationship is called adjunctive eligibility. In addition to this change for infant formula contracts in Section 204(a) of the Senate committee proposal and Section 206(a) of the House committee proposal, Section 204(b)/206(b) would require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study to examine the impact of adjunctive eligibility on WIC. |
||||||
|
For explanation of CBO baselines and scorekeeping, see CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process, by [author name scrubbed] |
||||||
|
Congressional Budget Office, Improving Child Nutrition Integrity and Access Act of 2016, cost estimate, March 11, 2016. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51373. |
||||||
|
Congressional Budget Office, Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016, cost estimate, June 30, 2016. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51756. |
||||||
|
Ibid., p. 17. |
||||||
| 54.
|
|
55.
Ellyn Ferguson, "CBO: Child Nutrition Bill Would Add $1 Billion to Deficit," CQ Roll Call, March 14, 2016, http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4851837?search=LPbRP8fo. |
"Based on consultation with state officials and policy experts, CBO does not expect that any state would take up this option." Ibid., p. 9. |
|||
| 56. |
Ibid., p. 12. |