You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The federal child nutrition programs provide assistance to schools and other institutions in the form of cash, commodity food, and administrative support (such as technical assistance and administrative funding) based on the provision of meals and snacks to children. In general, these programs were created (and amended over time) to both improve children's nutrition and provide support to the agriculture economy. Today, the child nutrition programs refer primarily to the following meal, snack, and milk reimbursement programs (these and other acronyms are listed in Appendix A ): National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)); School Breakfast Program (SBP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 4 (42 U.S.C. 1773)); Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 17 (42 U.S.C. 1766)); Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) (Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 13 (42 U.S.C. 1761)); and Special Milk Program (SMP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 3 (42 U.S.C. 1772)). The programs provide financial support and/or foods to the institutions that prepare meals and snacks served outside of the home (unlike other food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) where benefits are used to purchase food for home consumption). Though exact eligibility rules and pricing vary by program, in general the amount of federal reimbursement is greater for meals served to qualifying low-income individuals or at qualifying institutions, although most programs provide some subsidy for all food served. Participating children receive subsidized meals and snacks, which may be free or at reduced price. Forthcoming sections discuss how program-specific eligibility rules and funding operate. This report describes how each program operates under current law, focusing on eligibility rules, participation, and funding. This introductory section describes some of the background and principles that generally apply to all of the programs; subsequent sections go into further detail on the workings of each. Unless stated otherwise, participation and funding data come from USDA-FNS's "Keydata Reports." The child nutrition programs are most often dated back to the 1946 enactment of the National School Lunch Act, which created the National School Lunch Program, albeit in a different form than it operates today. Most of the child nutrition programs do not date back to 1946; they were added and amended in the decades to follow as policymakers expanded child nutrition programs' institutional settings and meals provided: The Special Milk Program was created in 1954, regularly extended, and made permanent in 1970. The School Breakfast Program was piloted in 1966, regularly extended, and eventually made permanent in 1975. A program for child care settings and summer programs was piloted in 1968, with separate programs authorized in 1975 and then made permanent in 1978. These are now the Child and Adult Care Food Program and Summer Food Service Program. The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program began as a pilot in 2002, was made permanent in 2004, and was expanded nationwide in 2008. The programs are now authorized under three major federal statutes: the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (originally enacted as the National School Lunch Act in 1946), the Child Nutrition Act (originally enacted in 1966), and Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c). Congressional jurisdiction over the underlying three laws has typically been exercised by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee; the House Education and the Workforce Committee; and, to a limited extent (relating to commodity food assistance and Section 32 issues), the House Agriculture Committee. Congress periodically reviews and reauthorizes expiring authorities under these laws. The child nutrition programs were most recently reauthorized in 2010 through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296 ); some of the authorities created or extended in that law expired on September 30, 2015. WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) is also typically reauthorized with the child nutrition programs. WIC is not one of the child nutrition programs and is not discussed in this report. The 114 th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization (see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview ). There was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115 th Congress. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) administers the programs at the federal level. The programs are operated by a wide variety of local public and private providers and the degree of direct state involvement differs by program and state. At the state level, education, health, social services, and agriculture departments all have roles; at a minimum, they are responsible for approving and overseeing local providers such as schools, summer program sponsors, and child care centers and day care homes, as well as making sure they receive the federal support they are due. At the local level, program benefits are provided to millions of children (e.g., there were 30.0 million in the National School Lunch Program, the largest of the programs, in FY2017), through some 100,000 public and private schools and residential child care institutions, nearly 170,000 child care centers and family day care homes, and just over 50,000 summer program sites. All programs are available in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Virtually all operate in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands (and, in differing versions, in the Northern Marianas and American Samoa). This section summarizes the nature and extent to which the programs' funding is mandatory and discretionary, including a discussion of appropriated entitlement status. Table 3 lists child nutrition program and related expenditures. Most spending for child nutrition programs is provided in annual appropriations acts to fulfill the legal financial obligation established by the authorizing laws. That is, the level of spending for such programs, referred to as appropriated mandatory spending, is not controlled through the annual appropriations process, but instead is derived from the benefit and eligibility criteria specified in the authorizing laws. The appropriated mandatory funding is treated as mandatory spending. Further, if Congress does not appropriate the funds necessary to fund the program, eligible entities may have legal recourse. Congress typically considers the Administration's forecast for program needs in its appropriations decisions. For the majority of funding discussed in this report, the formula that controls the funding is not capped and fluctuates based on the reimbursement rates and the number of meals/snacks served in the programs. In the meal service programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, summer programs, and assistance for child care centers and day care homes, federal aid is provided in the form of statutorily set subsidies (reimbursements) paid for each meal/snack served that meets federal nutrition guidelines. Although all (including full-price) meals/snacks served by participating providers are subsidized, those served free or at a reduced price to lower-income children are supported at higher rates. All federal meal/snack subsidy rates are indexed annually (each July) for inflation, as are the income eligibility thresholds for free and reduced-price meals/snacks. Subsequent sections discuss how a specific program's eligibility and reimbursements work. Most subsidies are cash payments to schools or other providers, but a smaller portion of aid is provided in the form of USDA-purchased commodity foods . Laws for three child nutrition programs (NSLP, CACFP, and SFSP) require the provision of commodity foods (or in some cases allow cash in lieu of commodity foods). Meal and snack service entails nonfood costs. Federal child nutrition per-meal/snack subsidies may be used to cover local providers' administrative and operating costs. However, the separate direct federal payments for administrative/operating costs ("State Administrative Expenses," discussed in the " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities " section) are limited. In addition to the open-ended, appropriated entitlement funds summarized above, the child nutrition programs' funding also includes certain other mandatory funding and a limited amount of discretionary funding. Some of the activities discussed in " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities ," such as Team Nutrition, are provided for with discretionary funding. Aside from the annually appropriated funding, the child nutrition programs are also supported by certain permanent appropriations and transfers. Notably, funding for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program is funded by a transfer from USDA's Section 32 program, a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts. Federal subsidies do not necessarily cover the full cost of the meals and snacks offered by providers. States and localities help cover program costs, as do children's families by paying charges for nonfree or reduced-price meals/snacks. There is a nonfederal cost-sharing requirement for the school meals programs (discussed below), and some states supplement school funding through additional state per-meal reimbursements or other prescribed financing arrangements. Subsequent sections of this report delve into the details of how each of the child nutrition programs support the service of meals and snacks in institutional settings; first, it is useful to take a broader perspective of primary program elements. Table 1 is a top-level look at the different programs that displays distinguishing characteristics (what meals are provided, in what settings, to what ages) and recent program spending. Other relevant CRS reports in this area include CRS In Focus IF10266, An Introduction to Child Nutrition Reauthorization CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P.L. 111-296 (summarizes the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010) CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program Other relevant resources include USDA-FNS's website, https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/child-nutrition-programs USDA-FNS's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act page, http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act The FNS page of the Federal Register , https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/food-and-nutrition-service This section discusses the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). Principles and concepts common to both programs are discussed first; subsections then discuss features and data unique to the NSLP and SBP, respectively. The federal school meals programs provide federal support in the form of cash assistance and USDA commodity foods; both are provided according to statutory formulas based on the number of reimbursable meals served in schools. The subsidized meals are served by both public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools and residential child care institutions (RCCIs) that opt to enroll and guarantee to offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible low-income children. Both cash and commodity support to participating schools are calculated based on the number and price of meals served (e.g., lunch or breakfast, free or full price), but once the aid is received by the school it is used to support the overall school meal service budget, as determined by the school. This report focuses on the federal reimbursements and funding, but it should be noted that some states have provided state financing through additional state-specific funding. Federal law does not require schools to participate in the school meals programs. However, some states have mandated that schools provide lunch and/or breakfast, and some of these states require that their schools do so through NSLP and/or SBP. The program is open to public and private schools. A reimbursable meal requires compliance with federal school nutrition standards, which have changed throughout the history of the program based on nutritional science and children's nutritional needs. Food items not served as a complete meal meeting nutrition standards (e.g., a la carte offerings) are not reimbursable meals, and therefore are not eligible for federal per-meal, per-snack reimbursements. Following rulemaking to implement provisions in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-296 ), USDA updated the nutrition standards for reimbursable meals in January 2012 (see " Nutrition Standards " for more information). Schools serving meals that meet the updated nutrition standards are eligible for an increased reimbursement of 6 cents per lunch. USDA-FNS administers the school meals programs federally, and state agencies (typically state departments of education) oversee and transmit reimbursements through agreements with school food authorities (SFAs) (typically local educational agencies (LEAs); usually these are school districts). Figure 1 provides an overview of the roles and relationships between these levels of government. There is a cost-sharing requirement for the programs, which amounts to a contribution of approximately $200 million from the states. There also are states that choose to supplement federal reimbursements with their own state reimbursements. The school meals programs and related funding do not serve only low-income children. All students can receive a meal at a NSLP- or SBP-participating school, but how much the child pays for the meal and/or how much of a federal reimbursement the state receives will depend largely on whether the child qualifies for a "free," "reduced-price," or "paid" (i.e., advertised price) meal. Both NSLP and SBP use the same household income eligibility criteria and categorical eligibility rules. States and schools receive the largest reimbursements for free meals, smaller reimbursements for reduced-price meals, and the smallest (but still some federal financial support) for the full-price meals. There are three pathways through which a child can become certified to receive a free or reduced-price meal: 1. Household income eligibility for free and reduced-price meals (information typically collected via household application), 2. Categorical (or automatic) eligibility for free meals (information collected via household application or a direct certification process), and 3. School-wide free meals under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) , an option for eligible schools that is based on the share of students identified as eligible for free meals. Each of these pathways is discussed in more detail below. The income eligibility thresholds (shown in Table 2 ) are based on multipliers of the federal poverty guidelines. As the poverty guidelines are updated every year, so are the eligibility thresholds for NSLP and SBP. Free Meals: Children receive free meals if they have household income at or below 130% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive the highest subsidy rate. (Reimbursements are approximately $3.30 per lunch served, less for breakfast.) Reduced-Price Meals: Children may receive reduced-price meals (charges of no more than 40 cents for a lunch or 30 cents for a breakfast) if their household income is above 130% and less than or equal to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive a subsidy rate that is 40 cents (NSLP) or 30 cents (SBP) below the free meal rate. (Reimbursements are approximately $2.90 per lunch served.) Paid Meals: A comparatively small per-meal reimbursement is provided for full-price or paid meals served to children whose families do not apply for assistance or whose family income does not qualify them for free or reduced-price meals. The paid meal price is set by the school but must comply with federal regulations. (Reimbursements are approximately 30 cents per lunch served.) The above reimbursement rates are approximate; exact current-year federal reimbursement rates for NSLP and SBP are listed in Table B -1 and Table B -3 , respectively. Households complete paper or online applications that collect relevant income and household size data, so that the school district can determine if children in the household are eligible for free meals, reduced-price meals, or neither. Though these income guidelines primarily influence funding and administration of NSLP and SBP, they also affect the eligibility rules for the SFSP, CACFP, and SMP (described further in subsequent sections). In addition to the eligibility thresholds listed above, the school meals programs also convey eligibility for free meals based on household participation in certain other need-tested programs or children's specified vulnerabilities (e.g., foster children). Per Section 12 of the National School Lunch Act, "a child shall be considered automatically eligible for a free lunch and breakfast ... without further application or eligibility determination, if the child is" in a household receiving benefits through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program); FDPIR (Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, a program that operates in lieu of SNAP on some Indian reservations) benefits; or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) cash assistance; enrolled in Head Start; in foster care; a migrant; a runaway; or homeless. For meals served to students certified in the above categories, the state/school receive a reimbursement at the free meal amount and children receive a free meal. (See Table B -1 and Table B -3 for school year 2018-2019 rates.) Some school districts collect information for these categorical eligibility rules via paper application. Others conduct a process called direct certification —a proactive process where government agencies typically cross-check their program rolls and certify a household's children for free school meals without the household having to complete a school meals application. Prior to 2004, states had the option to conduct direct certification of SNAP (then, the Food Stamp Program), TANF, and FDPIR participants. In the 2004 child nutrition reauthorization ( P.L. 108-265 ), states were required under federal law to conduct direct certification for SNAP participants, with nationwide implementation taking effect in school year 2008-2009. Conducting direct certification for TANF and FDPIR remains at the state's discretion. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P.L. 111-296 ) made further policy changes to expand direct certification (discussed further in the next section). One of those changes was the initiation of a demonstration project to look at expanding categorical eligibility and direct certification to some Medicaid households. The law also funded performance incentive grants for high-performing states and authorized correcting action planning for low-performing states in direct certification activities. Under SNAP direct certification rules generally, schools enter into agreements with SNAP agencies to certify children in SNAP households as eligible for free school meals without requiring a separate application from the family. Direct certification systems match student enrollment lists against SNAP agency records, eliminating the need for action by the child's parents or guardians. Direct certification allows schools to make use of SNAP's more in-depth eligibility certification process; this can reduce errors that may occur in school lunch application eligibility procedures that are otherwise used. From a program access perspective, direct certification also reduces the number of applications a household must complete. Figure 2 , created by GAO and published in a May 2014 report, provides an overview of how school districts certify students for free and reduced-price meals under the income-based and category-based rules, via applications and direct certification. A USDA-FNS study of school year 2014-2015 estimates that 11.1 million students receiving free meals were directly certified—68% of all categorically eligible students receiving free meals. HHFKA also authorized the school meals Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option in NSLP and SBP law that allows eligible schools and school districts to offer free meals to all enrolled students based on the percentage of their students who are identified as automatically eligible from nonhousehold application sources (primarily direct certification through other programs). Based on the statutory parameters, USDA-FNS piloted CEP in various states over three school years and it expanded nationwide in school year 2014-2015. Eligible LEAs have until June 30 of each year to notify USDA-FNS if they will participate in CEP. According to a database maintained by the Food Research and Action Center, just over 20,700 schools in more than 3,500 school districts (LEAs) participated in CEP in SY2016-2017, an increase of approximately 2,500 schools compared to SY2015-2016. For a school (or school district, or group of schools within a district) to provide free meals to all children the school(s) must be eligible for CEP based on the share (40% or greater) of enrolled children that can be identified as categorically (or automatically) eligible for free meals, and the school must opt-in to CEP. Though CEP schools serve free meals to all students, they are not reimbursed at the "free meal" rate for every meal. Instead, the law provides a funding formula: the percentage of students identified as automatically eligible (the "identified student percentage" or ISP) is multiplied by a factor of 1.6 to estimate the proportion of students who would be eligible for free or reduced-price meals had they been certified via application. The result is the percentage of meals served that will be reimbursed at the free meal rate, with the remainder reimbursed at the far lower paid meal rate. For 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. Some of the considerations that may impact a school's decision to participate in CEP include whether the new funding formula would be beneficial for their school meal budget; an interest in reducing paperwork for families and schools; and an interest in providing more free meals, including meals to students who have not participated in the program before. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P.L. 111-296 ) set in motion changes to the nutrition standards for school meals, requiring USDA to update the standards within a certain timeframe. The law required that the revised standards be based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (now the Health and Medicine Division) at the National Academy of Sciences. The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance related to implementation. USDA published the final regulations in January 2012. The final rule sought to align school meal patterns with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and, generally consistent with IOM's recommendations, increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat-free milk in school meals. The regulations also included calorie maximums and sodium limits to phase in over time, among other requirements. The nutrition standards largely took effect in SY2012-2013 for lunches and in SY2013-2014 for breakfasts. A few other requirements were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years. Some schools experienced difficulty implementing the new guidelines, and Congress and USDA have made changes to the 2012 final rule's whole grain, sodium, and milk requirements. For SY2019-2020 and onwards, schools are operating under a final rule published December 12, 2018. The HHFKA also gave USDA the authority to regulate other foods in the school nutrition environment. Sometimes called "competitive foods," these include foods and drinks sold in a la carte lines, vending machines, snack bars and concession stands, and fundraisers. Relying on recommendations made by a 2007 IOM report, USDA-FNS promulgated a proposed rule and then an interim final rule in June 2013, which went into effect for SY2014-2015. The interim final rule created nutrition guidelines for all non-meal foods and beverages that are sold during the school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal). The final rule, published on July 29, 2016, maintained the interim final rules with minor modifications. Under the final standards, these foods must meet whole-grain requirements; have certain primary ingredients; and meet calorie, sodium, and fat limits, among other requirements. Schools are limited to a list of no- and low-calorie beverages they may sell (with larger portion sizes and caffeine allowed in high schools). There are no limits on fundraisers selling foods that meet the interim final rule's guidelines. Fundraisers outside of the school day are not subject to the guidelines. HHFKA and the interim final rule provide states with discretion to exempt infrequent fundraisers selling foods or beverages that do not meet the nutrition standards. The rule does not limit foods brought from home, only foods sold at school during the school day. The federal standards are minimum standards; states and school districts are permitted to issue more stringent policies. In FY2017, NSLP subsidized 4.9 billion lunches to children in close to 96,000 schools and 3,200 residential child care institutions (RCCIs). Average daily participation was 30.0 million students (58% of children enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs). Of the participating students, 66.7% (20.0 million) received free lunches and 6.5% (2.0 million) received reduced-price lunches. The remainder were served full-price meals, though schools still receive a reimbursement for these meals. Figure 3 shows FY2017 participation data. FY2017 federal school lunch costs totaled approximately $13.6 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total). The vast majority of this funding is for per-meal reimbursements for free and reduced-price lunches. The HHFKA also provided an additional 6-cent per-lunch reimbursement to schools that provide meals that meet the updated nutritional guidelines requirements. This bonus is not provided for breakfast, but funds may be used to support schools' breakfast programs. NSLP lunch reimbursement rates are listed in Table B -1 . In addition to federal cash subsidies, schools participating in NSLP receive USDA-acquired commodity food s . Schools are entitled to a specific, inflation-indexed value of USDA commodity foods for each lunch they serve. Also, schools may receive donations of bonus commodities acquired by USDA in support of the farm economy. In FY2017, the value of federal commodity food aid to schools totaled nearly $1.4 billion. The per-meal rate for commodity food assistance is included in Table B-4 . While the vast majority of NSLP funding is for lunches served during the school day, NSLP may also be used to support snack service during the school year and to serve meals during the summer. These features are discussed in subsequent sections, " Summer Meals " and " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options ." Reimbursement rates for snacks are listed in Table B -2 . The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides per-meal cash subsidies for breakfasts served in schools. Participating schools receive subsidies based on their status as a severe need or nonsevere need institution. Schools can qualify as a severe need school if 40% or more of their lunches are served free or at reduced prices. See Table B -3 for SBP reimbursement rates. Figure 4 displays SBP participation data for FY2017. In that year, SBP subsidized over 2.4 billion breakfasts in over 88,000 schools and nearly 3,200 RCCIs. Average daily participation was 14.7 million children (30.1% of the students enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs). The majority of meals served through SBP are free or reduced-price. Of the participating students, 79.1% (11.6 million) received free meals and 5.7% (835,000) purchased reduced-price meals. Federal school breakfast costs for the fiscal year totaled approximately $4.3 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total). Significantly fewer schools and students participate in SBP than in NSLP. Participation in SBP tends to be lower for several reasons, including the traditionally required early arrival by students in order to receive a meal and eat before school starts. Some schools offer (and anti-hunger groups have encouraged) models of breakfast service that can result in greater SBP participation, such as Breakfast in the Classroom, where meals are delivered in the classroom; "grab and go" carts, where students receive a bagged breakfast that they bring to class, or serving breakfast later in the day in middle and high schools. Unlike NSLP, commodity food assistance is not a formal part of SBP funding; however, commodities provided through NSLP may be used for school breakfasts as well. In addition to the school meals programs discussed above, other federal child nutrition programs provide federal subsidies and commodity food assistance for schools and other institutions that offer meals and snacks to children in early childhood, summer, and after-school settings. This assistance is provided to (1) schools and other governmental institutions, (2) private for-profit and nonprofit child care centers, (3) family/group day care homes, and (4) nongovernmental institutions/organizations that offer outside-of-school programs for children. (Although this report focuses on the programs that serve children, one child nutrition program (CACFP) also serves day care centers for chronically impaired adults and elderly persons under the same general per-meal/snack subsidy terms.) The programs in the sections to follow serve comparatively fewer children and spend comparatively fewer federal funds than the school meal programs. CACFP subsidizes meals and snacks served in early childhood, day care, and after-school settings. CACFP provides subsidies for meals and snacks served at participating nonresidential child care centers, family day care homes, and (to a lesser extent) adult day care centers. The program also provides assistance for meals served at after-school programs. CACFP reimbursements are available for meals and snacks served to children age 12 or under, migrant children age 15 or under, children with disabilities of any age, and, in the case of adult care centers, chronically impaired and elderly adults. Children in early childhood settings are the overwhelming majority of those served by the program. CACFP provides federal reimbursements for breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks served in participating centers (facilities or institutions) or day care homes (private homes). The eligibility and funding rules for CACFP meals and snacks depend first on whether the participating institution is a center or a day care home (the next two sections discuss the rules specific to centers and day care homes). According to FY2017 CACFP data, child care centers have an average daily attendance of about 56 children per center, day care homes have an average daily attendance of approximately 7 children per home, and adult day care centers typically care for an average of 48 chronically ill or elderly adults per center. Providers must demonstrate that they comply with government-established standards for other child care programs. Like in school meals, federal assistance is made up overwhelmingly of cash reimbursements calculated based on the number of meals/snacks served and federal per-meal/snack reimbursements rates, but a far smaller share of federal aid (4.3% in FY2017) is in the form of federal USDA commodity foods (or cash in lieu of foods). Federal CACFP reimbursements flow to individual providers either directly from the administering state agency (this is the case with many child/adult care centers able to handle their own CACFP administrative functions) or through "sponsors" who oversee and provide administrative support for a number of local providers (this is the case with some child/adult care centers and with all day care homes). In FY2017, total CACFP spending was over $3.5 billion, including cash reimbursement, commodity food assistance, and costs for sponsor audits. (See Table 3 for a further breakdown of CACFP costs.) This total also includes the after-school meals and snacks provided through CACFP's "at-risk after-school" pathway; this aspect of the program is discussed later in " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options ." As with school foods, the HHFKA required USDA to update CACFP's meal patterns. USDA's final rule revised the meal patterns for both meals served in child care centers and day care homes, as well as preschool meals served through the NSLP and SBP, effective October 1, 2017. For infants (under 12 months of age), the new meal patterns eliminated juice, supported breastfeeding, and set guidelines for the introduction of solid foods, among other changes. For children ages one and older, the new meal patterns increased whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and low-fat and fat-free milk; limited sugar in cereals and yogurts; and prohibited frying, among other requirements. Child care centers in CACFP can be (1) public or private nonprofit centers, (2) Head Start centers, (3) for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet certain requirements as to the proportion of low-income children they enroll), and (4) shelters for homeless families. Adult day care centers include public or private nonprofit centers and for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet minimum requirements related to serving low-income disabled and elderly adults). In FY2017, over 65,000 child care centers with an average daily attendance of over 3.6 million children participated in CACFP. Over 2,700 adult care centers served nearly 132,000 adults through CACFP. Participating centers may receive daily reimbursements for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks for each participant, so long as the meals and snacks meet federal nutrition standards. The eligibility rules for CACFP centers largely track those of NSLP: children in households at or below 130% of the current poverty line qualify for free meals/snacks while those between 130% and 185% of poverty qualify for reduced-price meals/snacks (see Table 2 ). In addition, participation in the same categorical eligibility programs as NSLP as well as foster child status convey eligibility for free meals in CACFP. Like school meals, eligibility is determined through paper applications or direct certification processes. Like school meals, all meals and snacks served in the centers are federally subsidized to some degree, even those that are paid. Different reimbursement amounts are provided for breakfasts, lunches/suppers, and snacks, and reimbursement rates are set in law and indexed for inflation annually. The largest subsidies are paid for meals and snacks served to participants with family income below 130% of the federal poverty income guidelines (the income limit for free school meals), and the smallest to those who have not met a means test. See Table B -5 for current CACFP center reimbursement rates. Unlike school meals, CACFP institutions are less likely to collect per-meal payments. Although federal assistance for day care centers differentiates by household income, centers have discretion on their pricing of meals. Centers may adjust their regular fees (tuition) to account for federal payments, but CACFP itself does not regulate these fees. In addition, centers can charge families separately for meals/snacks, so long as there are no charges for children meeting free-meal/snack income tests and limited charges for those meeting reduced-price income tests. Independent centers are those without sponsors handling administrative responsibilities. These centers must pay for administrative costs associated with CACFP out of nonfederal funds or a portion of their meal subsidy payments. For centers with sponsors, the sponsors may retain a proportion of the meal reimbursement payments they receive on behalf of their centers to cover such costs. CACFP-supported day care homes serve a smaller number of children than CACFP-supported centers , both in terms of the total number of children served and the average number of children per facility. Roughly 17% of children in CACFP (approximately 757,000 in FY2017 average daily attendance) are served through day care homes. In FY2017, approximately 103,000 homes (with just over 700 sponsors) received CACFP support. As with centers, payments to day care homes are provided for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks a day for each child. Unlike centers, day care homes must participate under the auspices of a public or, more often, private nonprofit sponsor that typically has 100 or more homes under its supervision. CACFP day care home sponsors receive monthly administrative payments based on the number of homes for which they are responsible. Federal reimbursements for family day care homes differ by the home's status as "Tier I" or "Tier II." Unlike centers, day care homes receive cash reimbursements (but not commodity foods) that generally are not based on the child participants' household income. Instead, there are two distinct, annually indexed reimbursement rates that are based on area or operator eligibility criteria Tier I homes are located in low-income areas (defined as areas in which at least 50% of school-age and enrolled children qualify for free or reduced-price meals) or operated by low-income providers whose household income meets the free or reduced-price income standards. They receive higher subsidies for each meal/snack they serve. Tier II (lower) rates are by default those for homes that do not qualify for Tier I rates; however, Tier II providers may seek the higher Tier I subsidy rates for individual low-income children for whom financial information is collected and verified. (See Table B-6 for current Tier I and Tier II reimbursement rates.) Additionally, HHFKA introduced a number of additional ways (as compared to prior law) by which family day care homes can qualify as low-income and get Tier I rates for the entire home or for individual children. As with centers, there is no requirement that meals/snacks specifically identified as free or reduced-price be offered; however, unlike centers, federal rules prohibit any separate meal charges. Current law SFSP and the NSLP/SBP Seamless Summer Option provide meals in congregate settings nationwide; the related Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (SEBTC or Summer EBT) demonstration project is an alternative to congregate settings. SFSP supports meals for children during the summer months. The program provides assistance to local public institutions and private nonprofit service institutions running summer youth/recreation programs, summer feeding projects, and camps. Assistance is primarily in the form of cash reimbursements for each meal or snack served; however, federally donated commodity foods are also offered. Participating service institutions are often entities that provide ongoing year-round service to the community including schools, local governments, camps, colleges and universities in the National Youth Sports program, and private nonprofit organizations like churches. Similar to the CACFP model, sponsors are institutions that manage the food preparation, financial, and administrative responsibilities of SFSP. Sites are the places where food is served and eaten. At times, a sponsor may also be a site. State agencies authorize sponsors, monitor and inspect sponsors and sites, and implement USDA policy. Unlike CACFP, sponsors are required for an institution's participation in SFSP as a site. In FY2017, nearly 5,500 sponsors with 50,000 food service sites participated in the SFSP and served an average of approximately 2.7 million children daily (according to July data). Participation of sites and children in SFSP has increased in recent years. Program costs for FY2017 totaled over $485 million, including cash assistance, commodity foods, administrative cost assistance, and health inspection costs. There are several options for eligibility and meal/snack service for SFSP sponsors (and their sites) Open sites provide summer food to all children in the community. These sites are certified based on area eligibility measures, where 50% or more of area children have family income that would make them eligible for free or reduced-price school meals (see Table 2 ). Closed or Enrolled sites provide summer meals/snacks free to all children enrolled at the site. The eligibility test for these sites is that 50% or more of the children enrolled in the sponsor's program must be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals based on household income. Closed/enrolled sites may also become eligible based on area eligibility measures noted above. Summer camps (that are not enrolled sites) receive subsidies only for those children with household eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals. Other programs specified in law , such as the National Youth Sports Program and centers for homeless or migrant children. Summer sponsors get operating cost (food, storage, labor) subsidies for all meals/snacks they serve—up to one meal and one snack, or two meals per child per day. In addition, sponsors receive payments for administrative costs, and states are provided with subsidies for administrative costs and health and meal-quality inspections. See Table B -7 for current SFSP reimbursement rates. Actual payments vary slightly (e.g., by about 5 cents for lunches) depending on the location of the site (e.g., rural vs. urban) and whether meals are prepared on-site or by a vendor. Although SFSP is the child nutrition program most associated with providing meals during summer months, it is not the only program option for providing these meals and snacks. The Seamless Summer Option, run through NSLP or SBP programs, is also a means through which food can be provided to students during summer months. Much like SFSP, Seamless Summer operates in summer sites (summer camps, sports programs, churches, private nonprofit organizations, etc.) and for a similar duration of time. Unlike SFSP, schools are the only eligible sponsors , although schools may operate the program at other sites. Reimbursement rates for Seamless Summer meals are the same as current NSLP/SBP rates. Beginning in summer 2011 and (as of the date of this report) each summer since, USDA-FNS has operated Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or "Summer EBT") demonstration projects in a limited number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs). These Summer EBT projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. Depending on the site and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided, through a WIC or SNAP EBT card model. In the demonstration projects, these benefits were provided as a supplement to the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) meals available in congregate settings. Summer EBT and other alternatives to congregate meals through SFSP were first authorized and funded by the FY2010 appropriations law ( P.L. 111-80 ). Although a number of alternatives were tested and evaluated, findings from Summer EBT were among the most promising, and Congress provided subsequent funding. Summer EBT evaluations showed significant impacts on reducing child food insecurity and improving nutritional intake.  Summer EBT was funded by P.L. 111-80 in the summers from 2011 to 2014. Projects have continued to operate and were annually funded by FY2015-FY2018 appropriations; most recently, the FY2018 appropriations law ( P.L. 115-141 ) provided $28 million. According to USDA-FNS, in summer 2016 Summer EBT served over 209,000 children in nine states and two tribal nations—an increase from the 11,400 children served when the demonstration began in summer 2011. Schools (and institutions like summer camps and child care facilities) that are not already participating in the other child nutrition programs can participate in the Special Milk Program. Schools may also administer SMP for their part-day sessions for kindergartners or pre-kindergartners. Under SMP, participating institutions provide milk to children for free and/or at a subsidized paid price, depending on how the enrolled institution opts to administer the program (see Table B -8 for current Special Milk reimbursement rates for each of these options) An institution that only sells milk will receive the same per-half pint federal reimbursement for each milk sold (approximately 20 cents). An institution that sells milk and provides free milk to eligible children (income eligibility is the same as free school meals, see Table 2 ), receives a reimbursement for the milk sold (approximately 20 cents) and a higher reimbursement for the free milks. An institution that does not sell milk provides milk free to all children and receives the same reimbursement for all milk (approximately 20 cents). This option is sometimes called nonpricing. In FY2017, over 41 million half-pints were subsidized, 9.5% of which were served free. Federal expenditures for this program were approximately $8.3 million in FY2017. States receive formula grants through the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, under which state-selected schools receive funds to purchase and distribute fresh fruit and vegetable snacks to all children in attendance (regardless of family income). Money is distributed by a formula under which about half the funding is distributed equally to each state and the remainder is allocated by state population. States select participating schools (with an emphasis on those with a higher proportion of low-income children) and set annual per-student grant amounts (between $50 and $75). Funding is set by law at $150 million for school year 2011-2012 and inflation-indexed for every year after. In FY2017, states used approximately $184 million in FFVP funds. FFVP is funded by a mandatory transfer of funds from USDA's Section 32 program—a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts. This transfer is required by FFVP's authorizing laws (Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and Section 4304 of P.L. 110-246 ). Up until FY2018's law, annual appropriations laws delayed a portion of the funds to the next fiscal year. After a pilot period, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-265 ) permanently authorized and funded FFVP for a limited number of states and Indian reservations. In recent years, FFVP has been amended by omnibus farm bill laws rather than through child nutrition reauthorizations. The 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 ) expanded FFVP's mandatory funding, specifically providing funds through Section 32, and enabled all states to participate in the program. The 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 ) essentially made no changes to this program but did include, and fund at $5 million in FY2014, a pilot project that requires USDA to test offering frozen, dried, and canned fruits and vegetables and publish an evaluation of the pilot. Four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) participated in the pilot in SY2014-2015 and the evaluation was published in 2017. Other proposals to expand fruits and vegetables offered in FFVP have been introduced in both the 114 th and 115 th Congress. Two of the child nutrition programs discussed in previous sections, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), provide federal support for snacks and meals served during after-school programs. NSLP provides reimbursements for after-school snacks; however, this option is open only to schools that already participate in NSLP. These schools may operate after-school snack-only programs during the school year, and can do so in two ways: (1) if low-income area eligibility criteria are met, provide free snacks in lower-income areas; or (2) if area eligibility criteria are not met, offer free, reduced-price, or fully paid-for snacks, based on household income eligibility (like lunches in NSLP). The vast majority of snacks provided through this program are through the first option. Through this program, approximately 206 million snacks were served in FY2017 (a daily average of nearly 1.3 million). This compares with nearly 4.9 billion lunches served (a daily average of 27.8 million). CACFP provides assistance for after-school food in two ways. First, centers and homes that participate in CACFP and provide after-school care may participate in traditional CACFP (the eligibility and administration described earlier). Second, centers in areas where at least half the children in the community are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals can opt to participate in the CACFP At-Risk Afterschool program, which provides free snacks and suppers. Expansion of the At-Risk After-School meals program was a major policy change included in HHFKA. Prior to the law, 13 states were permitted to offer CACFP At-Risk After-School meals (instead of just a snack); the law allowed all CACFP state agencies to offer such meals. In FY2017, the At-Risk Afterschool program served a total of approximately 242.6 million free meals and snacks to a daily average of more than 1.7 million children. Federal child nutrition laws authorize and program funding supports a range of additional programs, initiatives, and activities. Through State Administrative Expenses funding, states are entitled to federal grants to help cover administrative and oversight/monitoring costs associated with child nutrition programs. The national amount each year is equal to about 2% of child nutrition reimbursements. The majority of this money is allocated to states based on their share of spending on the covered programs; about 15% is allocated under a discretionary formula granting each state additional amounts for CACFP, commodity distribution, and Administrative Review efforts. In addition, states receive payments for their role in overseeing summer programs (about 2.5% of their summer program aid). States are free to apportion their federal administrative expense payments among child nutrition initiatives (including commodity distribution activities) as they see fit, and appropriated funding is available to states for two years. State Administrative Expense spending in FY2017 totaled approximately $279 million. Team Nutrition is a USDA-FNS program that includes a variety of school meals initiatives around nutrition education and the nutritional content of the foods children eat in schools. This includes Team Nutrition Training Grants, which provide funding to state agencies for training and technical assistance, such as help implementing USDA's nutrition requirements and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. From 2004 to 2018, Team Nutrition also included the HealthierUS Schools Challenge (HUSSC), which originated in the 2004 reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act. HUSSC was a voluntary certification initiative designed to recognize schools that have created a healthy school environment through the promotion of nutrition and physical activity. Farm-to-school programs broadly refer to "efforts that bring regionally and locally produced foods into school cafeterias," with a focus on enhancing child nutrition. The goals of these efforts include increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among students, supporting local farmers and rural communities, and providing nutrition and agriculture education to school districts and farmers. HHFKA amended existing child nutrition programs to establish mandatory funding of $5 million per year for competitive farm-to-school grants that support schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs that improve a school's access to locally produced foods. The FY2018 appropriations law provided an additional $5 million in discretionary funding to remain available until expended. Grants may be used for training, supporting operations, planning, purchasing equipment, developing school gardens, developing partnerships, and implementing farm-to-school programs. USDA's Office of Community Food Systems provides additional resources on farm-to-school issues. Through an Administrative Review process (formerly referred to as Coordinated Review Effort (CRE)), USDA-FNS, in cooperation with state agencies, conducts periodic on-site NSLP school compliance and accountability evaluations to improve management and identify administrative, subsidy claim, and meal quality problems. State agencies are required to conduct administrative reviews of all school food authorities (SFAs) that operate the NSLP under their jurisdiction at least once during a three-year review cycle. Federal Administrative Review expenditures were approximately $9.9 million in FY2017. USDA-FNS and state agencies conduct many other child nutrition program support activities for which dedicated funding is provided. Among other examples, there is the Institute of Child Nutrition (ICN), which provides technical assistance, instruction, and materials related to nutrition and food service management; it receives $5 million a year in mandatory funding appropriated in statute. ICN is located at the University of Mississippi. USDA-FNS provides training on food safety education. Funding is also provided for USDA-FNS to conduct studies, provide training and technical assistance, and oversee payment accuracy. Appendix A. Acronyms Used in This Report Appendix B. Per-meal or Per-snack Reimbursement Rates for Child Nutrition Programs This appendix lists the specific reimbursement rates discussed in the earlier sections of the report. Reimbursement rates are adjusted for inflation for each school or calendar year according to terms laid out in the programs' authorizing laws. Each year, the new rates are announced in the Federal Register . 

 

 Report 2:
T he federal government pays benefits to coal miners affected by coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP, commonly referred to as black lung disease) and other lung diseases linked to coal mining in cases where the responsible mine operators are not able to pay. Benefit payments and related administrative expenses are paid out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. The primary source of revenue for the trust fund is an excise tax on coal produced and sold domestically. If excise tax revenue is not sufficient to finance Black Lung Program benefits, the trust fund may borrow from the general fund of the Treasury, which contains federal receipts not earmarked for a specific purpose. For 2018, the tax rates on coal were $1.10 per ton of underground-mined coal or $0.55 per ton of surface-mined coal, limited to 4.4% of the sales price. Starting in 2019, under current law, these tax rates are $0.50 per ton of underground-mined coal or $0.25 per ton of surface-mined coal, limited to 2% of the sales price. This decline in the excise tax rates will likely put additional financial strain on a trust fund that already borrows from the general fund to meet obligations. The decline in domestic coal production, recent increases in the rate of CWP, and bankruptcies in the coal sector also contribute to the financial strain on the trust fund. This report provides background information and policy options to help inform the debate surrounding the coal excise tax rate, and other considerations related to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. The report begins with an overview of the federal black lung program, providing information on black lung disease and benefits under the program. The report proceeds to examine Black Lung Disability Trust Fund revenues, focusing on the coal excise tax and its history. The report closes with a discussion of policy options, evaluating various revenue- and benefits-related policy options that could improve the fiscal outlook of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund is used to finance the payment of federal Black Lung Program benefits under Part C of the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) when a responsible coal operator does not meet its obligations under the law to pay benefits. Coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP, commonly referred to as black lung disease) is an interstitial lung disease caused by the inhalation of coal dust. Like in other types of pneumoconioses, the inhalation of coal dust results in the scarring of the lung tissue and affects the gas-exchanging ability of the lungs to remove carbon dioxide and take oxygen into the bloodstream. Exposure to coal dust over an extended period of time can lead to CWP and continued exposure can lead to the progression from the early stages of CWP referred to as "simple CWP," to more advanced stages of scarring referred to as "complicated CWP" or progressive massive fibrosis (PMF). There is no cure for CWP and PMF. CWP can lead to loss of lung function, the need for lung transplantation, and premature death. CWP can be identified by observing light spots, or opacities, in x-ray images of the lungs and can be classified using guidelines established by the International Labour Organization (ILO). Despite technological advances in mining dust control, mandatory chest x-rays for miners, free CWP surveillance offered to miners by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the enactment of numerous pieces of mine safety and health legislation, and the promulgation and enforcement of mine safety and health standards by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), CWP persists in American coal miners, especially those in the Appalachian region. After reductions in rates of PMF in the 1990s, this advanced form of CWP has recently been found in Central Appalachia at rates not seen since the early 1970s. In 2017 researchers discovered, among coal miners mostly living in Kentucky and Virginia and served by three federally funded Black Lung Clinics in Virginia, what may be the largest cluster of PMF ever recorded. This cluster of miners with PMF includes a relatively high number of miners with less than 20 years of mining experience as well as cases of PMF in current miners. The occurrence of this advanced stage of CWP in short-tenured and current miners is noteworthy since MSHA standards require that any miner with evidence of CWP be given the option, without loss of compensation or other penalty, to work in an area of the mining operation in which the average concentration of coal dust in the air is continuously maintained at or below an established level that is lower than the permissible exposure level for all miners with the goal of preventing the progression of CWP. The federal Black Lung Program was created in 1969 with the enactment of Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (Coal Act, P.L. 91-173, later renamed the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 by P.L. 95-164 ). Section 401 of the Coal Act provides the congressional justification for the federal Black Lung Program and cites the lack of benefits for disability and death caused by CWP provided by existing state workers' compensation systems as justification for the creation of a federal program. This section also states that the program is intended to be a cooperative effort between the federal government and the states. The Coal Act also established mandatory safety and health standards for coal mines, including standards limiting exposure of miners to coal dust and giving miners with CWP the option of being moved, without loss of compensation or penalty, to an area of the mine with lower dust concentrations. The Coal Act was later amended by the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 (BLBA, P.L. 92-303). The Coal Act established Part B of the federal Black Lung Program to provide cash benefits to miners totally disabled due to CWP and to the survivors of miners who die from CWP. Part B only applies to cases filed on or before December 31, 1973. Part B benefits are paid out of general revenue and were initially administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Today, with the exception of a small number of pending appellate cases, Part B benefits are administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Coal Act established Part C of the Federal Black Lung Program for cases filed after December 31, 1973, and was later amended by the BLBA. Under Part C of the BLBA, all claims for benefits for disability or death due to CWP are to be filed with each state's workers' compensation system, but only if such systems have been determined by DOL as providing benefits that are equivalent to or greater than the cash benefits provided by the federal government under Part B of the BLBA and the medical benefits provided to disabled longshore and harbor workers under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). If a state's workers' compensation system is not determined by DOL to meet these standards, then Part C benefits are to be paid by the each miner's coal employer, or, if no such employer is available to pay benefits, by the federal government. In 1973, Maryland, Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia submitted their state workers' compensation laws to DOL for approval, but were denied. To date, no state workers' compensation system has been approved by DOL under Part C of the BLBA. Because no state's workers' compensation system has been determined to be sufficient to pay benefits under Part C, each operator of an underground coal mine is responsible for the payment of benefits to that operator's miners. Operators are required to provide for these benefits either by purchasing insurance for benefits or through self-insurance approved by DOL. A self-insured operator is required to purchase an indemnity bond or provide another form of security (such as a deposit of negotiable securities in a Federal Reserve Bank or the establishment of a trust) in an amount specified by DOL. In order to be approved for self-insurance, federal regulations require that a mine operator have been in business for at least the three previous years and have average assets over the previous three years that exceed current liabilities by the sum of expected benefit payments and annual premiums on the indemnity bond. When a claim for benefits is approved, benefits are to be paid by the "responsible" operator, which is generally the last coal operator to employ the miner. If a company has acquired the assets of a mine operator, then that company is considered a "successor operator" and is responsible for the payment of claims related to the original operator. The federal government pays benefits in cases in which the responsible operator no longer exists and has no successor operator, or is unable to pay benefits. The federal government pays benefits when an operator has not made payment within 30 days of a determination of eligibility or when benefits are otherwise due to be paid. Initially, under Part C of the Coal Act, these federal benefits were paid out of general revenue. However, pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977 ( P.L. 95-227 ), these benefits are now paid from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund established by this law and primarily financed by an excise tax on coal. If a responsible operator can later be identified, the trust fund is authorized by law to seek to recover from this operator the amount of benefits paid by the trust fund and any interest earned on these amounts. The trust fund is also used for the following federal Black Lung Program-related expenses: the payment of benefits for miners whose last coal mine employment was before January 1, 1970; reimbursement to the Treasury for the costs of Part C benefits paid from general revenue before April 1, 1978, for periods of benefit eligibility after January 1, 1974; the repayment and payment of interest on advances made from the general fund to the trust fund; the payment of administrative expenses related to Part C of the BLBA and the coal excise tax incurred after March 1, 1978; and the reimbursement of coal operators who paid Part C benefits before April 1, 1978, for miners whose last coal mine employment ended before January 1, 1970. A miner is eligible for benefits if that miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment. The survivors of a miner are eligible for benefits if the miner's death was due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment. Benefits are only available to miners and their survivors. The BLBA defines a miner as any individual who works or has worked in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility in the extraction or preparation of coal. Such term also includes an individual who works or has worked in coal mine construction or transportation in or around a coal mine, to the extent such individual was exposed to coal dust as a result of such employment. Thus, other workers who may be exposed to coal dust in their work, such as railroad workers or workers at coal-fired power plants are not eligible for benefits. Persons who live near coal mines or power plants are also not eligible for benefits even if they are exposed to coal dust. In addition, while a miner's family members may receive benefits as survivors and the number of family members can increase the amount of a miner's monthly benefits, family members may not claim benefits on their own due to exposure to coal dust in the home such as from cleaning the miner's soiled clothing. The BLBA defines pneumoconiosis for the purposes of benefit eligibility as "a chronic dust disease of the lung and its sequelae, including respiratory and pulmonary impairments, arising out of coal mine employment." The BLBA directs the Secretary of Labor to develop, through regulations, standards for determining if a miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis or died due to pneumoconiosis. The federal Black Lung Program regulations provide that the definition of pneumoconiosis includes medical or "clinical" pneumoconiosis and statutory or "legal" pneumoconiosis. Clinical pneumoconiosis is defined as follows: "Clinical pneumoconiosis" consists of those diseases recognized by the medical community as pneumoconioses, i.e., the conditions characterized by permanent deposition of substantial amounts of particulate matter in the lungs and the fibrotic reaction of the lung tissue to that deposition caused by dust exposure in coal mine employment. This definition includes, but is not limited to, coal workers' pneumoconiosis, anthracosilicosis, anthracosis, anthrosilicosis, massive pulmonary fibrosis, silicosis or silicotuberculosis, arising out of coal mine employment. Legal pneumoconiosis is defined as any chronic lung disease or impairment and its sequelae arising out of coal mine employment. This definition includes, but is not limited to, any chronic restrictive or obstructive pulmonary disease arising out of coal mine employment. Through these definitions, DOL has established that benefits are available not just to miners with CWP, but also to those miners with other respiratory diseases arising out of coal mine employment such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) even though these diseases are not pneumoconioses and may be linked to other factors unrelated to exposure to coal dust such as cigarette smoking. The BLBA contains five presumptions used to determine if a miner is eligible for black lung benefits. Three of these presumptions are "rebuttable," meaning that, in the absence of any contrary evidence, eligibility is presumed. One presumption is "irrebutable" and eligibility for Black Lung program benefits is established if the statutory requirements of the presumption are met. Three of these presumptions apply to current Black Lung Program claims while two apply only to cases filed before the end of 1981. Table 1 provides a summary of the following five presumptions provided by the BLBA. 1. A rebuttable presumption that the pneumoconiosis of a miner who was employed in mining for at least 10 years was caused by his or her employment. 2. A rebuttable presumption that the death of a miner who worked in mining for at least 10 years and who died of any respirable disease, was due to pneumoconiosis. This presumption does not apply to claims filed on or after January 1, 1982, the effective date of the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981 ( P.L. 97-119 ). 3. An irrebuttable presumption that a miner with any chronic lung disease which meets certain statutory tests or diagnoses is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis or died due to pneumoconiosis. 4. A rebuttable presumption that a miner employed in mining for at least 15 years, and who has a chest x-ray that is interpreted as negative with respect to certain statutory standards but who has other evidence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment, is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis or died due to pneumoconiosis. This presumption may only be rebutted by the Secretary of Labor establishing that the miner does not or did not have pneumoconiosis or that the miner's respiratory or pulmonary impairment did not arise out of connection to mine employment. 5. A presumption that a miner who died on or before March 1, 1978, and who was employed in mining for at least 25 years before June 30, 1971, died due to pneumoconiosis, unless it is established that at the time of the miner's death, he or she was not at least partially disabled due to pneumoconiosis. This presumption does not apply to claims filed on or after June 29, 1982, which is 180 days after the effective date of the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981. This presumption is not listed in the law as either rebuttable or irrebuttable. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), P.L. 111-148 ) included two provisions that amended the BLBA to reinstate one of the eligibility presumptions and a provision affecting survivors' benefits. The effect of these changes was to increase the opportunity to establish eligibility through the statutory presumptions and make it easier for certain survivors to receive benefits. Pursuant to Section 202(a) of the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981, the fourth presumption did not apply to cases filed on or after January 1, 1982. Section 1556(a) of the ACA removed the prohibition on applying the fourth presumption to cases filed on or after January 1, 1982. It is expected that this ACA provision will increase the number of miners eligible for benefits. The BLBA provides that, for Part C claims, the survivors of a miner who was determined to be eligible to receive benefits at the time of his or her death are not required to file new claims for benefits or revalidate any claim for benefits, thus permitting the payment of survivors' benefits in these cases even if the miner's death was not caused by pneumoconiosis. Pursuant to Section 203(a)(6) of the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981, this provision did not apply to claims filed on or after January 1, 1982. Section 1556(b) of the ACA removed from this provision the exception for claims filed on or after January 1, 1982. It is expected that this ACA provision will increase the number of survivors eligible for benefits. The amendments to the BLBA provided in Section 1556 of the ACA apply to any claims filed under Part B or C of the act after January 1, 2005, that were pending on or after March 23, 2010, the date of enactment of the ACA. Eligible miners receiving benefits under Parts B and C are entitled to medical coverage for their pneumoconiosis and related disability. This medical coverage is provided at no cost to the miner and can generally be obtained from the miner's choice of medical providers. Eligible miners are also entitled to cash disability benefits. The basic benefit rate is set at 37.5% of the basic pay rate at GS-2, Step 1, on the federal pay schedule without any locality adjustment. If the miner has one dependent (a spouse or minor child) the miner is eligible for a benefit of 150% of the basic benefit. A miner with two dependents is eligible for 175% of the basic benefit and a miner with three or more dependents is eligible for 200% of the basic benefit. Benefits may also be paid to the divorced spouse of a miner if the marriage lasted at least 10 years and the divorced spouse was dependent on the miner for at least half of the spouse's support at the time of the miner's disability. A child is considered a dependent until the child marries, or reaches age 18, unless the child is either disabled using the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) definition of disability or is under the age of 23 and a full-time student. The benefit rates are adjusted whenever there are changes to the federal employee pay schedules, but are not separately adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living. Table 2 provides the benefit rates for 2019. Benefits are offset by state workers' compensation or other benefits paid on account of the miner's disability or death due to pneumoconiosis. Part C benefits, but not Part B benefits, are considered workers' compensation for the purposes of reducing a miner's SSDI benefits. The total amount paid in cash disability benefits has fallen over time, as illustrated in Figure 1 . More is paid in cash disability benefits than is paid in medical benefits. Certain survivors of a miner whose death was due to pneumoconiosis are eligible for cash benefits. In the case of a surviving spouse or divorced spouse, the spouse's benefit is equal to what the miner would have received and is based on the number of dependents of the spouse as provided in Table 2 . If there is no surviving spouse, then benefits are awarded to the surviving minor children in equal shares. If there are no surviving minor children, then benefits can be paid to the miner's dependent parents or dependent siblings. If there are no eligible survivors, no benefits are paid upon the miner's death and benefits do not go to the miner's estate or to any other person, including a person named by the miner in a will. The number of miners and survivors receiving benefits has declined over time, as illustrated in Figure 2 . The primary revenue source for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund is a per-ton excise tax on coal. Historically, the coal excise tax has not generated enough revenue to meet the trust fund's obligations. Thus, additional funds have been provided from the general fund of the Treasury. The general fund includes governmental receipts not earmarked for a specific purpose, the proceeds of general borrowing, and is used for general governmental expenditures. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 4121 imposes the black lung excise tax (BLET) on sales or use of domestically mined coal. Generally, a producer that sells the coal is liable for the tax. Producers that use their own domestically mined coal, such as integrated utilities or steel companies, are also liable for the tax. The tax rate depends on how coal is mined. Effective January 1, 2019, the tax on underground-mined coal is the lesser of (1) $0.50 per ton, or (2) 2% of the sale price. The tax on surface-mined coal is the lesser of (1) $0.25 per ton, or (2) 2% of the sales price. Before 2019, the tax rates were $1.10 per ton for coal from underground mines or $0.55 per ton for coal from surface mines, with the tax being no more than 4.4% of the sale price. In FY2017, $229 million was collected on coal mined underground (see Figure 3 ). Nearly all of this coal was taxed at the $1.10 per ton rate. In FY2017, $200 million was collected on surface-mined coal. Just over half of this coal was taxed at the $0.55 per ton rate, with the rest subject to the 4.4% of sales price maximum tax. On January 1, 2019, the BLET rates declined to their current levels. The rates that took effect January 1, 2019, would also have taken effect if the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund had repaid, with interest, all amounts borrowed from the General Fund of the Treasury. The tax is imposed on "coal from mines located in the United States" and does not apply to imported coal. The tax is designed to support the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund for domestic miners. Very little domestically consumed coal is imported. The BLET also does not apply to exported coal under the Export Clause of the United States Constitution. A credit or refund can be claimed if coal is taxed before it is exported. Black lung excise tax collections have generally declined in recent years (see Figure 3 ). In FY2009, more than $650 million was collected from the BLET. In FY2017, collections were about $429 million. The decline in BLET collections follows the general decline in U.S. coal production. As the price of coal rose in the 2000s, coal mined underground tended to pay the tax at a fixed rate of $1.10 per ton, as opposed to paying 4.4% of the sales price. In the years beyond 2018, coal excise tax receipts are expected to fall sharply, reflecting the decrease in the coal excise tax rate (see Figure 3 ). The excise tax on coal was established to help ensure the coal industry shared in the social costs imposed by black lung disease. Over time, the rate of the tax has been increased, in an effort to provide sufficient revenue to meet this objective. The Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977 ( P.L. 95-227 ) first imposed the Section 4121 excise tax on coal. When enacted, the tax was $0.50 per ton for coal from underground mines, and $0.25 per ton for coal from surface mines. The tax was limited to 2% of the sales price. The tax was effective for sales after March 31, 1978. Before P.L. 95-227 was enacted there was considerable debate surrounding how black lung benefits programs should be financed. Various mechanisms to shift the costs of the black lung benefits program to the coal industry and its customers were considered. These debates ultimately led to the establishment of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund and the related excise tax on coal. There was also debate about how to structure the proposed tax. Some suggested a graduated tax, with higher rates imposed on coal with a higher British thermal unit (Btu) content, as such coal was believed to be more likely to cause black lung disease. There were concerns, however, that such a tax could be difficult to administer. Other proposals suggested that coal be subject to a uniform rate, with coal mined from underground deposits subject to a higher rate than other coal (including lignite). A concern with this approach was that coal prices vary substantially per ton for different types of coal (lignite is less expensive than anthracite), meaning that the tax as a percent of the sales price could differ substantially across different types of coal. One answer to this concern is to impose an ad valorem tax, or a tax based on the sales price. Another approach that was considered was to impose a "premium rate" at a level that would fully finance the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, giving authority to the Department of Labor to adjust the fee as necessary. The tax as enacted was the lesser of the per-unit price or the ad valorem rate of 2%. In the early 1980s, it was observed that coal excise tax revenues were not sufficient to meet the trust fund's obligations. The Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1981 ( P.L. 97-119 ) doubled the excise tax rates to $1.00 per ton for coal from underground mines, and $0.50 per ton for coal from surface mines, not to exceed 4% of the sales price. The higher rates were effective January 1, 1982. The doubled rates were temporary, and scheduled to revert to the previous rates on January 1, 1996. Further, the rates could be reduced earlier if the trust fund repaid all advances and interest from the general fund of the Treasury. A stated goal of this legislation was to eliminate the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund's debt. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ( P.L. 99-272 ) again increased the BLET rates to $1.10 for underground-mined coal, and $0.55 for surface-mined coal, not to exceed 4.4% of the sales price. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 ( P.L. 100-203 ) extended these rates through 2013. Increased excise tax rates on coal were again extended in 2008. Current-law rates were extended through 2018 as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA; P.L. 110-343 ). When extending the increased rates, Congress reiterated the original intent of establishing trust fund financing for black lung benefits, observing that it is "to reduce reliance on the Treasury and to recover costs from the mining industry." It was also observed that the program's expenses had continued to exceed revenues over time, and that the debt to the Treasury was not likely to be paid off by 2013. For these reasons, "the Congress believe[d] that it [was] appropriate to continue the tax on coal at the increased rates beyond the expiration date." When receipts of the trust fund are less than expenditures, advances are appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury to the trust fund. These advances are repayable, and interest charged on these advances is also payable to the general fund. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ( P.L. 99-272 ) provided a five-year forgiveness of interest on debt owed to the Treasury's general fund. As a result, the principal amount of trust fund debt outstanding was relatively unchanged throughout the late 1980s. The moratorium on interest payments ended September 30, 1990. Throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, the cumulative end-of-year debt of the trust fund grew, and the trust fund continued to receive repayable advances from the general fund to cover expenses. The trust fund was subject to financial restructuring when the current excise tax rate was extended until January 1, 2019, in EESA. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund debt was restructured in FY2009. Essentially, the partial forgiveness and restructuring allowed the trust fund to refinance outstanding repayable advances and unpaid interest on those advances. As a result of the partial forgiveness and refinancing, the cumulative debt was reduced from $10.4 billion at the end of FY2008 to $6.2 billion by the end of FY2009. At the time of the restructuring it was expected that the trust fund's debt would be fully eliminated by FY2040. The trust fund's cumulative debt has trended downward since the restructuring (see Figure 4 ). However, coal excise tax revenue has been less than anticipated in recent years. As a result, current projections suggest that the trust fund debt will rise over time when considering annual borrowing as well as legacy debt. The trust fund's debt is therefore not on a path to be eliminated. By FY2050, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects the trust fund's debt will be $15.4 billion without any changes in current policy. In addition to revenue from the BLET and repayable general fund advances, the trust fund receives revenue from the collection of certain fines, penalties, and interest paid by coal operators and miners and reimbursements from responsible operators. Part C of the BLBA authorizes the following fines and penalties for violations of the act: a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per day for a mine operator's failure to secure benefits through insurance or approved self-insurance; a fine of up to $1,000 upon conviction of the misdemeanor offense of knowingly destroying or transferring property of a mine operator with the intent to avoid the payment of benefits for which the mine operator is responsible; a fine of up to $1,000 upon conviction of the misdemeanor offense of making a false or misleading statement or representation for the purposes of obtaining benefits; and a civil penalty of up to $500 for a mine operator's failure to file a report on miners who are or may be entitled to benefits as required by DOL. The amount of these penalties and fines, as well as interest assessed, is paid into the trust fund. In FY2017, trust fund receipts from fines, penalties, and interest totaled $1.2 million. This is a small source of trust fund revenue relative to the coal excise tax, which generated $428.7 million in trust fund revenues in FY2017. The trust fund is authorized to begin paying benefits within 30 days if no responsible operator has begun payment. If, after paying benefits, DOL is able to identify a responsible operator, the trust fund may seek to collect from that operator the costs of benefits already paid by the trust fund and interest assessed on this amount. The amount of these collections is paid into the trust fund. In FY2017, $19.9 million was collected from responsible mine operators. The amount collected from responsible mine operators has fluctuated over time, but has averaged about 1% of total receipts since 1995. Various factors have contributed to the ongoing situation of trust fund expenditures exceeding trust fund revenues. Throughout the 1980s, black lung benefit payments and administrative expenditures exceeded trust fund revenue. As a result, the trust fund accumulated debt. As discussed above, over time, various efforts have been made to improve the fiscal condition of the trust fund. However, as of the end of FY2017, the trust fund remains in debt. The trust fund's cumulative debt at the end of FY2017 was $3.1 billion. The trust fund also borrowed $1.3 billion from the general fund that same year. Projections suggest that borrowing from the general fund will increase over the next few years, even as cumulative (or legacy) debt is paid down. Under the current excise tax rates, benefit payments and administrative expenses will be approximately equal to trust fund revenues in FY2020 through FY2022 (see Figure 5 ). However, revenues are not projected to be sufficient to repay debt, and expenses are projected to rise over time when debt and interest expenses are included. Specifically, by FY2022, it is projected that the trust fund will borrow $2.6 billion in repayable advances from the general fund. There are various policy options that Congress might consider to improve the fiscal condition of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. Broadly, increasing taxes on the coal industry (or maintaining 2018 rates) would pass the costs associated with paying black lung benefits onto the coal industry. Alternatively, forgiving trust fund interest or debt or financing black lung benefits out of general fund revenues would pass the costs of federal black lung benefits onto taxpayers in general. Another option would be to reduce federal black lung benefits. Additional revenue would likely need to be provided to the trust fund if the trust fund is to pay for past black lung benefits and maintain current benefit levels. Additional revenue may be needed even if past debt is forgiven (or assumed by the general fund), as anticipated trust fund revenues are not likely to be sufficient to cover anticipated trust fund expenditures. As discussed above, in the past, Congress and the President have opted to increase the excise tax on coal to address shortfalls in the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. These increased rates have been temporary, and scheduled to revert back to the reduced rate if the trust fund's debt is eliminated. Congress has chosen to extend the increased rates beyond their scheduled expiration when the trust fund is in debt. One option would be to extend 2018 rates.. The GAO projects that if 2018 coal excise tax rates are extended, the trust fund will have a debt of $4.5 billion in 2050 (see "GAO Options for Improving Trust Fund Finances" below). GAO projections suggest that increasing 2018 tax rates by 25% would eliminate the trust fund's debt, leaving the trust fund with a surplus of $0.6 billion in 2050. An alternative way to raise revenue from the coal industry is to scale back or eliminate various tax expenditures, or tax preferences, from which the coal industry benefits. For example, coal producers benefit from being able to expense exploration and development costs and are able to recover costs using percentage depletion (depletion based on revenue from the sale of the mineral asset) instead of cost depletion (depletion based on the amount of the mineral asset exhausted and the amount invested in the asset). The Obama Administration regularly proposed repealing these tax incentives as part of the Administration's annual budget. It could be difficult to assign the revenues raised via the repeal of tax benefits to the trust fund. With an excise tax, it is straightforward to identify the revenue generated by the tax and earmark the revenue for a trust fund. It is not as straightforward to determine the amount of revenue that is raised through the repeal of an income tax expenditure, or direct the additional revenue raised because a certain preference is no longer in the code to a trust fund. Repeal of coal-industry tax benefits could, however, be used to offset the cost of a one-time transfer from the general fund to the trust fund. Revenue from various sources, including the general fund, could be used to supplement trust fund revenue generated from current sources. General fund revenues are not earmarked for a specific purpose, and there is generally no direct link between the source of general fund revenue and the government good or service provided. Black lung benefits were paid out of general revenue before the trust fund was established in 1977. Trust funds are generally established when there is a link between the government benefits or services being provided and the revenue source funding those benefits or services. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund was established because Congress believed that the costs of the part C black lung program should be borne by the coal industry. Financing black lung benefits with general fund revenue would weaken the link between the industry and black lung benefits, while reducing the burden on the industry associated with paying for black lung benefits. In the past the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund's fiscal outlook has been improved through interest and debt forgiveness. As discussed above, in the late 1990s, there was a five-year forgiveness of interest on debt owed to the Treasury's general fund. More recently, debt was forgiven as part of the 2008 restructuring of the trust fund's debt. The GAO projects that if all current debt were forgiven, the trust fund would accumulate $2.3 billion in new debt by 2050. If all interest were forgiven, the trust fund debt is projected to be $5.8 billion by 2050. Forgiving the trust fund's interest or debt obligations would shift the burden of paying for black lung disability benefits from the coal industry to general taxpayers. However, a one-time appropriation to forgive interest or debt is a transparent option for satisfying the trust fund's obligations to the general fund. The primary expenditures of the trust fund are for the payment of Part C benefits to miners in cases in which there is no responsible operator. In order to reduce expenditures and improve the long-term financial health of the trust fund, Congress could consider several options to reduce the generosity and scope of benefits or increase the ability of the federal government to ensure that coal operators, even those who are in the bankruptcy process, pay benefits for their miners. A reduction in the amount of Part C benefits would result in lower Part C expenditures from both responsible coal operators and the trust fund. However, as compared to other workers' compensation benefits, Part C benefits are relatively low. The basic Part C benefit rate for a single miner is equal to 37.5% of the base rate of pay for federal employees at the GS-2, Step 1 level. For 2019 this benefit is just over $660 per month, or under $8,000 per year. In the majority of state workers' compensation programs, the basic benefit rate is set at two-thirds of the worker's pre-disability wage, subject to statutory minimums and maximums. The other workers' compensation programs administered by DOL, the LHWCA, and the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) use two-thirds of a worker's pre-disability wage as the basis for their benefits. A federal worker with a spouse or dependent in the FECA program is entitled to 75% of his or her pre-disability wage. The minimum benefit for total disability or death in the FECA program, 75% of GS-2, Step 1, is twice the amount of the Part C benefit rate. In addition, unlike the other federal workers' compensation programs and many state programs, there is no automatic adjustment to Part C benefits to reflect increases in the cost of living. Part C benefits instead increase only when federal pay rates are increased. The eligibility of miners and survivors to Part C benefits could be restricted to reduce expenditures from responsible operators and the trust fund. In 1981, Congress enacted several eligibility restrictions to miners and survivors as part of the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1981, to address concerns about the financial insolvency of the trust fund. Specifically, this law removed the following three eligibility presumptions for new claims going forward: A rebuttable presumption that the death of a miner who worked in mining for at least 10 years and who died of any respirable disease, was due to pneumoconiosis (listed as presumption 2 in Table 1 ). A rebuttable presumption that a miner employed in mining for at least 15 years, and who has a chest x-ray that is interpreted as negative with respect to certain statutory standards but who has other evidence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment, is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis, or died due to pneumoconiosis. This presumption may only be rebutted by the Secretary of Labor establishing that the miner does not or did not have pneumoconiosis or that the miner's respiratory or pulmonary impairment did not arise out of connection to mine employment (presumption 4 in Table 1 ). A presumption that a miner who died on or before March 1, 1978, and who was employed in mining for at least 25 years before June 30, 1971, died due to pneumoconiosis, unless it is established that at the time of the miner's death, he or she was not at least partially disabled due to pneumoconiosis (presumption 5 in Table 1 ). In addition to removing three of the five existing eligibility presumptions, the 1981 law also removed the right of the survivors of a miner who is determined to be eligible for Part C benefits at the time of his or her death to receive survivors' benefits without filing a new claim, thus permitting the payment of survivors' benefits in the case of a current beneficiary, even if the beneficiary's death is not proven to be linked to pneumoconiosis. Two of the restrictions put in place by the 1981 legislation were later removed by the ACA. The ACA reinstated the fourth eligibility presumption and expanded rights for survivors' benefits, thus expanding eligibility for both miners and certain survivors. Under Part C of the BLBA, the federal government may recover the costs of benefits, and interest accrued on those benefits, paid by the trust fund from identified responsible operators. In addition, Part C allows the federal government to place a lien on the property and rights to property of an operator that refuses to pay the benefits and interest it owes to the trust fund. In the case of a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding, this lien is to be treated in the same manner as a lien for taxes owed to the federal government. However, in a 2016 letter to the Comptroller General requesting a GAO review of the trust fund, Representatives Bobby Scott, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Sander Levin, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, claimed that the number of current and potential bankruptcies among coal operators is placing stress on the trust fund. Representatives Scott and Levin cited the example of Patriot Coal which, according to their letter, transferred $62 million in Part C liabilities to the trust fund when it became insolvent. In addition, this letter claims that insolvent coal operators may be able to avoid trust fund liens by continuing to make benefit payments until after the court in their bankruptcy cases has approved the sale of their assets to another company. Because the original company was never in default of its payments, no lien was filed, and these assets were able to be purchased by another company without any lien or future liability to the trust fund. Congress may examine the issue of the impact of coal operator bankruptcies and the interaction of bankruptcy law and the BLBA's lien provisions, to strengthen both the federal government's ability to ensure that responsible operators are paying for benefits and reduce the benefit expenditures of the trust fund.

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: The "child nutrition programs" refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in school or institutional settings. The best known programs, which serve the largest number of children, are the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). The child nutrition programs also include the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals and snacks in day care and after school settings; the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), which provides food during the summer months; the Special Milk Program (SMP), which supports milk for schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP; and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), which funds fruit and vegetable snacks in select elementary schools. Funding: The vast majority of the child nutrition programs account is considered mandatory spending, with trace amounts of discretionary funding for certain related activities. Referred to as open-ended, "appropriated entitlements," funding is provided through the annual appropriations process; however, the level of spending is controlled by benefit and eligibility criteria in federal law and dependent on the resulting levels of participation. Federal cash funding (in the form of per-meal reimbursements) and USDA commodity food support is guaranteed to schools and other providers based on the number of meals or snacks served and participant category (e.g., free meals for poor children get higher subsidies). Participation: The child nutrition programs serve children of varying ages and in different institutional settings. The NSLP and SBP have the broadest reach, serving qualifying children of all ages in school settings. Other child nutrition programs serve more-narrow populations. CACFP, for example, provides meals and snacks to children in early childhood and after-school settings among other venues. Programs generally provide some subsidy for all food served but a larger federal reimbursement for food served to children from low-income households. Administration: Responsibility for child nutrition programs is divided between the federal government, states, and localities. The state agency and type of local provider differs by program. In the NSLP and SBP, schools and school districts ("school food authorities") administer the program. Meanwhile, SFSP (and sometimes CACFP) uses a model in which sponsor organizations handle administrative responsibilities for a number of sites that serve meals. Reauthorization: The underlying laws covering the child nutrition programs were last reauthorized in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296, enacted December 13, 2010). This law made significant changes to child nutrition programs, including increasing federal financing for school lunches, expanding access to community eligibility and direct certification options for schools, and expanding eligibility options for home child care providers. The law also required an update to school meal nutrition guidelines as well as new guidelines for food served outside the meal programs (e.g., snacks sold in vending machines and cafeteria a la carte lines). Current Issues: The 114th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization, and there was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115th Congress. However, the vast majority of operations and activities continue with funding provided by appropriations laws. Current issues in the child nutrition programs are discussed in CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues.