Child nutrition programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,Infants, and Children (the WIC program) are governed by three basic federal laws: (1) The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act . This law was originallyenacted in 1946 as the National School Lunch Act; it was renamed in 1999. It provides authorityfor the School Lunch program, the Child and Adult Care Food program, the Summer Food Serviceprogram, after-school programs (those run under both the aegis of the School Lunch program andthe Child and Adult Care Food program), food commodity support for child nutrition programs,training and technical assistance (including the Food Service Management Institute), compliance,program integrity, and accountability activities, and an information clearinghouse. It also includesa number of general-purpose provisions governing the operation of multiple child nutrition programs(e.g., income eligibility and inflation indexing rules, nutrition requirements for meals, general rulesparticipating schools must follow). The Child Nutrition Act. This law was originally enacted in 1966. It providesauthority for the School Breakfast program, the WIC program, the Special Milk program, assistancefor state administrative expenses related to child nutrition programs, and nutrition educationactivities. Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c). Section 32 authorityprovides funding for cash child nutrition subsidies (permanent appropriations under Section 32 aretransferred to the child nutrition account annually as part of the appropriations process). It alsoincludes additional authority (to that in the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act) andfunding for the acquisition of food commodities for distribution to child nutrition programs (Section32 money is used to buy and distribute surplus commodities). (2) Prior to the 108th Congress, the most recent comprehensive amendments to child nutritionand WIC law were made by the 1998 William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act ( P.L.105-336 ). (3) And, underthe reauthorization schedule, the next wide-ranging review of child nutrition and WIC programs wasset for 2003. However, a number of significant laws affecting the child nutrition and WIC programswere enacted in the 106th and 107th Congresses (1999 through 2002). These are covered in theimmediate predecessor to this report -- CRS Report RL31578(pdf) , Child Nutrition and WIC Legislationin the 106th and 107th Congresses, by [author name scrubbed]. Information on the programs covered by childnutrition and WIC legislation is contained in CRS Report RL33307 , Child Nutrition and WICPrograms: Background and Recent Funding , by [author name scrubbed]. Only one significant law governing child nutrition programs (e.g., school mealprograms) and the WIC program has been (or is likely to be) enacted in the 108th and 109thCongresses -- the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-265 ;signed on June 30, 2004). The authorization of appropriations for several child nutrition programs and the WICprogram, as well as authority to carry out certain child nutrition activities, were scheduledto expire September 30, 2003, under the terms of the previous reauthorization law ( P.L.105-336 ). (4) Anticipating renewal of these authorizations, Congress began consideration of childnutrition/WIC reauthorization legislation in the Spring of 2003. However, primarily becauseof budget-related concerns as to how much, if any, new funding might be available to bespent on new or expanded initiatives, no action was taken in 2003 (other than hearings andthe introduction of bills proposing various individual program changes). Instead, ashort-term extension of expiring authorizations ( P.L.108-134 ) was enacted, pushing mostexpiration dates to March 31, 2004, and giving Congress time to act. On March 24, 2004, the House passed an amended version of its child nutrition-WICreauthorization bill (the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act; H.R. 3873 ; H.Rept. 108-445 ), which included provisions that would have resulted in estimatednet new mandatory spending of $235 million through FY2009. However, with the March31st deadline approaching (and no definitive Senate action), another stopgap law extendingmost expiring authorities through June 30, 2004, was enacted -- P.L. 108-211 . While there was no formal action in the Senate, the House and Senate committees ofjurisdiction (the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the Senate Agriculture,Nutrition, and Forestry Committee), with the Administration's participation, informallydiscussed a potential final bill through March, April, May, and into June 2004. On May 19,2004, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee ordered reported the ChildNutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( S. 2507 ; S.Rept. 108-279 ;reported June 7, 2004). This bill, as amended with unanimous consent on the Senate floor,passed the Senate on June 23, 2004. It reflected agreements that had been reached in theHouse-Senate discussions that had been taking place over the past several months andincluded many House (and Administration) proposals and perspectives. On June 24, 2004,the House passed it without objection. This final measure encompassed changes in lawestimated to result in $232 million in net new mandatory spending (outlays, slightly more inbudget authority) through FY2009 (the end of the reauthorization period). It was enacted asthe Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-265 ) on June 30, 2004. Much of the debate over and content of the 2004 reauthorization law was driven bythe availability (or lack of availability) of funding for new initiatives or program expansions. Budget reconciliation agreements offered little new mandatory money (a total of about $230million through FY2009), and, if House and Senate legislators wanted to fund new initiativesor expansions with mandatory dollars beyond these budget constraints, they effectively wereforced to use savings from changes they made within child nutrition programs. (5) In the alternative, theycould (and did) authorize appropriations for new initiatives/expansions or establish pilotprojects rather than create or expand entitlement/mandatory programs. The final productencompassed some $395 million in new gross spending through FY2009; however, this wasfinanced with an estimated $163 million in savings achieved primarily by revisions to thesystem for certifying and verifying eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals (seeimmediately below). Perhaps the biggest issue confronted by Congress was concern over "overcertification" -- the degree to which ineligible children are judged eligible for free orreduced-price school meals. Though estimates and perceptions differed as to the extent andseriousness of the problem, overcertification was widely judged a significant issue andprovoked accompanying questions as to schools' administrative strength and how to ensurethat eligible children were not disadvantaged by any legislative solution. As a result, themost important amendments in the 2004 law dealt with program integrity -- improvementsto rules governing certification and verification of eligibility, new procedures to upgradeadministration of school meal programs, and new technical assistance and training. As to school meal program operations, few changes were made (e.g., expansion ofeligibility for homeless, runaway, and migrant children and youth, loosened rules for higher"severe need" school breakfast subsidies). And, a major (and costly) proposal to phase inhigher income eligibility limits for free school meals was limited to authorization for a smallpilot project. Another major set of issues involved nutrition, health, and nutrition education aspectsof child nutrition programs, particularly childhood obesity trends and the role of childnutrition programs and school environments (like physical activities) in dealing with this, therules governing the offering of milk and milk substitutes, foods sold in competition withschool meals, food safety, and the desire of some to substantially increase fundingcommitments for nutrition education. While a number of federally led options were offered,in the end, the most significant change was a requirement that all schools participating inschool meal programs establish locally designed "wellness policies" to tackle obesity- andnutrition/health-related issues (like competitive foods and students' physical activity), withfederal technical assistance and other support. Nutrition education provisions encompasseda series of authorizations , but no new funding. In related amendments, the program offeringfree fresh fruit and vegetables operating in selected schools in a few states was expanded andmade permanent, and important changes were made to food safety rules. Small changes also were made in the Summer Food Service and Child and Adult CareFood programs -- for example, making permanent and expanding the coverage ofpre-existing "simplified summer program" (so-called "Lugar") rules that make it easier forsummer program sponsors to participate, making permanent and nationally applicable apre-existing rule loosening eligibility requirements for for-profit child care centers wishingto participate in the Child and Adult Care Food program. Finally, a large number of revisions were made to the WIC program, but the mostsignificant were several aimed at strengthening rules containing food costs incurred by theprogram. Of these, the most controversial was a new provision placing substantial limits onvendors receiving the majority of their revenue from WIC vouchers (so-called "WIC-only"stores). The 2004 reauthorization law extended virtually all expiring child nutrition and WICappropriations authorizations and other authorities through FY2009. (6) In addition, it madea wide range of changes to child nutrition and WIC law as described in the followingsections. Program Integrity in School Meal Programs: Certificationand Verification of Eligibility. Role of Local Educational Agencies (LEAs).