|
Child Nutrition Reauthorization 
Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 00:52:33 AM PST
|
|
Here's a list of what just passed, to the best of my knowledge:
1. Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell
2. START treaty
3. Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, i.e. "compromise"
4. The Shark Conservation Act (no more finning in US waters!)
5. The food safety bill
6. The Child Nutrition reauthorization (i.e. school lunch)
7. Aid to 9/11 first responders
8. Extending the federal budget til March
Did I get it all there?
OK, well first... what do you notice about this list of bills (perhaps leaving the Obama tax "compromise" beside)? None of them have any real enemies. There isn't a "We Hate 9/11 First Responders" lobby, with the exception of perhaps Bin Ladin himself (and if Congress is being influenced by him we have bigger problems on our hands). Nor is there a pro-E. coli lobby. And now even the top military brass is for the repeal of DADT.
|
|
There's More...
:: (12
Comments, 1443 words in story)
|
|
Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 14:35:05 PM PST
|
|
After two years of advocacy, we're finally done. For now. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 just passed the House, and it had already passed the Senate. Now it is going to Obama's desk. It's overall a pretty darn good bill, and it provides a LOT of much needed reform to the National School Lunch Program. For the first time, it even funds a Farm to School program. However, it only provides an additional $.06 per lunch, with a total of $4.5 billion in new money for all child nutrition programs over 10 years. All in all, this is great news, since it's not as if the next Congress would pass anything even this good. And, we can take the reforms we got and work for more money next time.
The House vote was 264 to 157 with 13 abstaining.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 14:08:10 PM PST
|
|
With only a few weeks left in the lame duck session of Congress, the House is looking to pass the Senate version of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization. While the Senate version is not as good as the House bill, at this point our choice is whether we'd prefer the Senate bill or nothing. And, given that choice, I'll take the Senate bill.
The House brought the Senate bill up for debate today and the Republicans decided to play politics with it. Thus, it won't pass until tomorrow. But if all goes well, it could pass tomorrow.
Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader put out the following statement:
"I am disappointed Republicans chose to play politics with a bill that enjoys strong bipartisan support and would increase access to school meal programs, improve the standards of food provided, and help reduce childhood obesity. The real purpose of this motion to recommit was to delay this bipartisan bill from being signed into law.
"We will complete action on the Child Nutrition bill tomorrow. We will bring up the Republican motion to recommit as a stand alone suspension bill. After that vote, we will return to the Child Nutrition bill where we left off, voting on the motion to recommit and final passage. This will allow a good, bipartisan bill to reach the President's desk without delay."
What's sadly ironic is that it's Hoyer and other deficit hawks like him who make it impossible to make this bill truly "increase access to school meal programs, improve the standards of food provided, and help reduce childhood obesity." The child nutrition bill is a great bill but for one thing: it needs money. And that's a fight that's just too big for us to win at the 11th hour. We'll have to take what we've got and then continue working for money in the next Congress (or more likely, in the Congress after that, since the next Congress won't do jack squat).
Meanwhile, S. 510, the food safety bill, might not pass the House due to a technicality, according to Roll Call.
UPDATE: See the comments below re: S. 510. Also, here's a statement from Rep. George Miller (D-CA) about the Child Nutrition bill:
"It is disappointing that Republicans decided to pull a political stunt to delay passage of this bill at the expense of the deserving children who need healthy meals. I look forward to completing action on this critical legislation tomorrow and sending it to the President's desk for his signature."
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:40:31 AM PST
|
|
I'm assuming that by now you've gotten over your joy that Harry "Better Than Sharon Angle" Reid eeked out a victory in his election (god, what a low bar), and - like me - you're now bracing yourself for a Republican led House and hoping they don't make Kent Conrad the Chair of the Senate Ag Committee.
Well. Get ready to get excited for one more fight for something that's not quite what you believe in but, well, it's better than nothing. The Senate version of the school lunch bill.
OK, so it ain't perfect. But it does 2 of the 3 major things it needs to do. First, it sets stronger nutrition standards for school lunch. Second, it makes sure more hungry kids will get fed. And, third, well... it doesn't really give as much money as the lunch program needs. But it does give a whopping $.06 per meal and a total of $4.5 billion in new money over 10 years. And THAT is a LOT MORE THAN YOU CAN EXPECT FROM THE REPUBLICANS.
At first we were asking Congress for the perfect bill. Then we were asking them to at least pass the House version instead of the Senate one. And now, with little time left in this Congress, we're down to just asking them to pass the Senate. For this, you need to focus your action on the House (bug the Senate about the DREAM Act and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell).
Details here. Take action by writing, faxing, or calling your Representative.
|
|
Discuss
:: (15
Comments)
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 20:49:39 PM PDT
|
|
I wrote up a piece on school lunch for another site but I'm cross-posting it here too (below). If you're a regular reader of this blog, much of what I wrote won't be new to you. But if you want the overall status of the child nutrition bill, read on.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 946 words in story)
|
|
Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 13:34:30 PM PDT
|
|
It's amazing what happens when the First Lady writes a Washington Post op ed calling for the passage of a bill. The pathetically slow, broken Senate gets moving and actually passes it! At least, that's what happened in this case.
Blanche Lincoln's child nutrition bill just passed the Senate by unanimous consent. My god. The Republicans don't mind apologizing to BP or taking all kinds of other wildly unpopular positions, but even they won't vote against feeding hungry children.
The bill is flawed, primarily in its lack of funding for healthy school lunches, but it brings the National School Lunch Program far closer to perfection in just about every other way. The bill is not yet ready for Obama's desk. First, the full House needs to vote on Rep. George Miller's child nutrition bill, a bill that is slightly more generous than Lincoln's but still underfunded, and then the two chambers must reconcile their versions of the bill. We still don't know how the House bill will be paid for, as it must be before reaching the House floor. Thus, the questions remaining are: How much money will child nutrition receive, and where will it come from? The other question, of course, is whether the bill will pass before the deadline of September 30, but if the Senate has passed its version, I am hopeful.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 18:56:57 PM PDT
|
|
Today, the House Education and Labor committee passed its bipartisan Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill by a vote of 32-13. For those who are keeping score, there were three Republicans who voted for it.
Some of the biggest news for me are two great new pilot programs established with amendments added yesterday. First, there is an organic foods pilot program that provides $10 million per year between 2011 and 2015 to selected schools with high low-income populations. That was proposed by Lynn Woolsey and Dennis Kucinich and it passed by a roll call vote. My hunch is that the funding is discretionary, which means that the Appropriations committee gets to decide whether to fund the program or not. I'm trying to find the roll call vote to see who voted or and against this but I don't think it's online yet.
Second, Jared Polis proposed a vegan (plant-based) foods pilot program, which passed in a voice vote. Some schools will participate in a program offering kids "plant based protein" (a.k.a. whole grains, nuts, beans, and veggies) and then they will evaluate which foods are superior in cost-effectiveness, marketability to school food authorities, ease of preparation and use, and acceptance by the kids. Yay! Awesome!
Last but hardly least, the bill includes $50 million in funding for Farm to School grants.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 13:26:47 PM PDT
|
|
It's been a lively afternoon in the Education and Labor Committee's markup session for the child nutrition reauthorization. Mostly the Republicans have whined about the cost and introduced multiple measures to cut money out of the bill. In fact, my very own representative, Duncan D. Hunter (the D stands for Dumbass), has attempted to cut grant money for school equipment upgrades out of the bill. All amendments thus far can be seen here.
My former representative, Susan Davis, on the other hand, put forward an amendment (which I believe was accepted or will be) to automatically enroll any children in military families who are already in the military's version of food stamps in the school lunch program.
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) also introduced an amendment that was accepted that sets up a grant program to help low income kids get access to food during summers when school is out.
Kucinich (D-OH) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) just introduced an amendment to put organic foods into the school lunch program and made brilliant arguments for why it should be done. The Republicans, of course, complained that it would be too expensive. It will be up for a roll call vote later.
Rep. Wu (D-OR) put forward an amendment that would allow frozen fruits into the Fresh Fruits & Vegetables program. This amendment passed.
Rep. Petri (R-WI) submitted an amendment to allow schools to donate excess food to food banks. That amendment passed.
And, because pork can come in cranberry flavor, Rep. Petri (R-WI) asked that any standards limiting added sugars in foods did not limit cranberries. Wisconsin is the nation's top producer of cranberries. It's not a crazy idea, since cranberries are pretty healthy, even with a bit of sugar added. As Petri pointed out, sweetened cranberries can have less total sugar than unsweetened apple juice. The point there isn't that cranberries with sugar are awesome but that we should think twice before guzzling down big tall glasses of apple juice. Instead, serve kids apples.
Jared Polis introduced a measure to make vegetarian food available in schools as a pilot program. Kucinich spoke out very strongly for it.
They have also debated Miller's "Manager's Amendment," which I've included details about below.
I will update this post later once I'm more certain which amendments are in and out and what, specifically, the amendments actually do. Good on the Dems for smacking down Republicans who tried to cut money out of this bill.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 130 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:07:32 AM PDT
|
|
Rep. George Miller just introduced a bipartisan child nutrition reauthorization bill at a press conference featuring TV Network's Rachael Ray. Within the "Beltway Bubble" of DC, everyone expected it to be a much better bill than the Senate bill introduced by Blanche Lincoln. And the bill has a lot of great things in it.
It improves food safety for school food in a much needed way. A GAO report found last year that when foods were recalled, the steps to remove those foods from school meals weren't necessarily being taken. So that's good.
It also improves access to free meals to eligible children by allowing direct certification - if a kid gets Medicaid or SCHIP, they automatically qualify for free meals. Also, in high poverty areas, all the kids get free meals no matter what. That's HUGE because there's often a stigma to getting free meals, and sometimes kids who are entitled to them won't actually eat them because they are afraid of being made fun of by peers. Where there's universal access to free meals in high poverty areas, all the kids will eat so nobody has to worry about being uncool.
Unfortunately, the the increase in the school lunch reimbursement rate - the amount spent per kid per meal - only goes up by 6 cents. That's the same as in the Senate bill. It's not enough to make the changes we need in school food. Activists have called for increases between $.35 and $1.00, and I tend to think the amount needed is closer to $1.00.
This is a great bill in many respects and Rep. Miller is a wonderful representative whose intentions I don't doubt at all. I know he wants to help kids and I know he wants to improve lunches. So why do we have so much money for bailouts and wars but only 6 cents for our kids?
|
|
Discuss
:: (6
Comments)
|
|
Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 22:27:01 PM PDT
|
I knew something up when the soda lobby was happy about the child nutrition bill. And I was right. Blanche Lincoln put out a press release called "Lincoln, Harkin, Woolsey Announce National School Nutrition Standards" and in the first paragraph it says this:
U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., today announced a major agreement between the food and beverage industry and public health and education groups on national school nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools.
Why is the junk food lobby at the table to make rules about nutrition? Would you have a criminal at the table to make laws about crime? The American Beverage Association, Coca Cola, Mars, Nestle, and PepsiCo were all included in negotiations for the new school lunch nutrition standards in Lincoln's child nutrition bill. Under the bill, the USDA will set one set of nutrition standards for all food sold in schools during the school day (including vending machines). This is a change from current laws, which forbid the USDA from setting rules over most food sold in schools outside of the federally-reimbursable school lunch (i.e. the meal served to kids who receive free lunch).
So here's the question: What did public health groups give up by negotiating with the junk food lobby? What do public health experts think the school nutrition standards should be, and how far apart is that from the actual language of the bill?
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 15:50:32 PM PDT
|
|
The American Beverage Association (i.e. the soda lobby) seems awfully happy about the school lunch bill in the Senate. Should we be worried? They began last year by spending a mere $200,000 in lobbying in the first quarter. They increased to $1,330,000 in the second quarter, $7,550,000 in the third quarter, and $11,010,000 in the fourth quarter. (Additionally, they began in the first quarter with their own lobbyists plus the help of two outside lobbying firms, added two new lobbying firms in the second quarter, and another one in the third quarter.) They've also testified at Congressional hearings on school lunch.
I realize that much of their spending is related to defeating a soda tax, but some of it is for school lunch and child nutrition programs too. They are scared shitless that Congress will ban vending machines from schools (a great idea!). Thus, they are promoting their own, voluntary, "self-regulation:"
The beverage industry is committed to the health and wellness of its consumers, including America's schoolchildren. Just this month, we announced the remarkable results of the final progress report on the implementation of our School Beverage Guidelines. The report shows that, when it comes to beverages, it's a whole new day in America's schools. In fact, we've removed full-calorie soft drinks and slashed beverage calories available in schools by 88 percent!
They don't mind cutting the calories because the same companies that sell soda (and diet soda) also sell water, juice, and sports drinks. So long as schools have vending machines with ANYTHING in them, these companies make money. Removing the calories doesn't harm the bottom line, but removing the vending machines does.
What I want to know is: what's in the Senate bill that the ABA likes so much? I've emailed the Center for Science in the Public Interest to see if they know anything. Also, I've included more on the ABA's lobbying below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 149 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 13:18:04 PM PDT
|
|
The Child Nutrition Reauthorization is one step closer to passage as of today. Today, Blanche Lincoln's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 passed the Senate Ag Committee unanimously. There are two bits of good news along with a lot of bad. (I recognize that the bill does a lot to make sure hungry kids eat - which is great - but while eating bad food is better than starvation, it's certainly not the solution we need.)
First, the bill went forward with $40 million for Farm to School. And second, Sherrod Brown is helping school lunch go organic:
An amendment by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was accepted by voice vote with no opposition to authorize an organic food pilot program that would provide competitively-awarded grants to school authorities to create pilot efforts to buy more organic foods for the school meal programs. The measure would still need to be funded by Agricultural Appropriations for the program to get off the ground.
The bill still only provides $4.5 billion in new money over 10 years (less than half of what Obama called for). Here's how they came up with the money:
The child nutrition reauthorization bill as reported out of Committee today also includes three funding cuts to offset the additional $4.5 billion being invested in school meals and nutrition programs. In addition to cuts to SNAP Ed, as the food stamp education program is now known, and the bonus commodity program, the bill cuts $2.8 billion in farm bill mandatory spending budget authority for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) over the next ten years.
It seems that this would only give about $.06 extra to each kid's school lunch, raising the reimbursement rate from $2.68 to $2.74. The School Nutrition Association is asking for an extra $.35, which I believe is what is needed to help schools pay for the current (often crappy) school lunches they now serve. In other words, anything over $.35 goes to improve school lunch quality, and anything less means no improvement at all. We need an extra $1 per lunch to make school lunches really healthy. From everything I've seen about school lunch, I believe that it all REALLY does come down to money. So there are some good bits in the bill, but it's just not acceptable unless we get over $.35 added to the reimbursement rate.
The next step for this bill is the Senate floor. After it passes the full Senate, it will go to the House.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 13:08:35 PM PDT
|
|
I wouldn't expect any bill from Blanche Lincoln to be good. And this one isn't. Obama called for $10 billion over 10 years in new money for child nutrition. Lincoln gave it less than half that ($4.5 billion over 10 years). That's bad. It's especially bad because most of the problems with school lunch CANNOT BE SOLVED WITHOUT SPENDING MORE MONEY. It's really that simple.
Part of the problem is that Congress passed a "PAYGO" rule (Pay as you go) requiring that any time they increase spending in one area, they find a way to pay for it by either taking money away from another area or by raising taxes. And obviously nobody wants to raise taxes. When Obama called for $10 billion over 10 years for child nutrition, he did not also provide Congress with $10 billion in cuts elsewhere in the budget. So it was left to Congress to figure out how to pay for it. And Lincoln - Senator of Factory Farms and Wal-Mart - decided to cut conservation spending. I'm positive there's any number of wasteful weapons programs out there that we can cut, and I would also like to see corporations pay their taxes (as many do not). Those to funding sources alone, if tapped, could probably pay for gourmet, all-organic meals for our kids.
The bill text and more details on the bill are available here. I had these links yesterday when I posted saying I didn't have the bill text. That's because the bill does not open when I download it. The other files do open though, so check those out.
UPDATE: I forgot to add that there will be a hearing on this on Wednesday, March 24. You can watch live via webcast from the Senate Ag Committee website.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 00:53:43 AM PDT
|
There's a BIG LIST of new food-related bills in Congress (listed below), but the one generating the most buzz is Blanche Lincoln's proposed child nutrition bill.
- S. 3123: Growing Farm to School Programs Act of 2010, introduced by Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) with 13 cosponsors.
- S. 3124, to reduce the paperwork burden on child care sponsors and providers, introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) with 1 cosponsor.
- S. 3126, a bill to promote wellness policies by Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) with no cosponsors.
- S. 3127 a bill to require continual updating of foods provided under WIC by Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) with no cosponsors.
- S. 3128, a bill to make all foster children automatically eligible for free breakfast and lunch by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) with no cosponsors.
- S. 3129, a bill to change WIC so that once qualified, participants are in the program for a year before they must be re-certified by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand with no cosponsors.
- H.R. 4734 and S. 3040, a bill to improve summer meal programs by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Sen. Lugar (R-IN) with 1 cosponsor in the House and 4 in the Senate.
- H.R. 4710: Farm to School Improvements Act of 2010 by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) with 17 cosponsors.
- H.R.4638: The Healthy Start Act, a bill to provide $.05 in federal commodities for school breakfasts by Rep. Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD) with 10 cosponsors.
- H.R.4148: The Hunger Free Schools Act, a bill to provide direct certification for free breakfast and lunch by Rep. David Loebsack (D-IA) with 21 cosponsors.
- H.R. 3705: Expand School Meals Act, a bill to expand the number of children eligible for free school meals by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) with 47 cosponsors. (It appears that this bill makes meals free for any children who are currently eligible for reduced cost meals.)
- H.R. 4402: The Nutritious Meals for Young Children Act and S.2749, a bill to improve access to food for young children in child care by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand with 41 cosponsors in the House and 5 in the Senate.
What will probably happen is that most of these bills will die, and components of them will be folded into whichever bill ultimately becomes law. Lincoln's bill, which I don't think she's actually introduced yet (and the text of the bill is most certainly not available from the Library of Congress yet), has a darn good chance of ultimately becoming law. More on that below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 618 words in story)
|
|
Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 06:00:00 AM PST
|
Today the House Education & Labor is holding a full committee hearing on child nutrition (including school lunch). You'll be able to watch it live at 2:30pm EST (11:30am PST) on the Education & Labor Committee Website.
Improving Children's Health: Strengthening Federal Child Nutrition Programs
Full Committee Hearing 2:30 PM, March 2, 2010
On Tuesday, March 2, the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing on strengthening the federal nutrition and school meal programs through the upcoming the child nutrition reauthorization. Improving federal child nutrition programs is one of the four pillars of First Lady Michelle Obama's recently announced "Let's Move" campaign to combat childhood obesity.
Witnesses:
- Dora R. Rivas President of the School Nutrition Association, Executive Director of Food and Child Nutrition Services Dallas Independent School District Dallas, Texas
- Carolyn L. Morrison President of the National Child and Adult Care Food Program Forum Chief Executive Officer of Child Development Services, Inc. Gresham, Oregon
- Kiran Saluja Deputy Director Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. Irwindale, California
Additional witnesses to be announced.
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
