Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material on the amendment that was overridden on 10/07/1975.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12004567
label
1975/10/03 HR4222 National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments of 1975 (vetoed) (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12004567
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1975/10/03 HR4222 National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments of 1975 (vetoed) (2)
description
This file contains material on the amendment that was overridden on 10/07/1975.
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
Children
Legislation
National school lunch program
Nutrition
Vetoes
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12004567
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-10-31
month
10
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-10-01
month
10
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
09597109c7f9ed46
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 30, folder "10/3/75 HR4222 National School
Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments of 1975 (vetoed) (2)" of the White House
Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 30
10/4
g
Luby
but
not
of the White House Records Office Legislation
Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
10.14.75
TO: Tom Jones
For Your Information:
FORD i LIBRARY CERALLO
For Appropriate Handling:
Plolet me know if
you are missing the
original bill reports for
any bills signed lately
Robert PL Dinder
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Oct. 13
Judy,
Dr. Cavanaugh said these
were not sent to the President
and should probably go to
Central Files.
Cristy
FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
Last Day: October 3, 1975
October 1, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Enrolled H.R. 4222 - National School
JIM CANNON Jul
Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments
of 1975
This is to present for your action H.R. 4222, the National
School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments of 1975.
BACKGROUND
H.R. 4222 expands substantially the Federal Government's
child nutrition program, including increased eligibility
and coverage under the School Lunch Program and permanent
authorization and expanded coverage for the School Breakfast
Program. Also included are extension of the Special Supple-
mental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
with high authorization levels and expanded eligibility,
expanded coverage under the Summer Food Service Program
and the non-school Child Care Food Program, and the addition
of new categorical programs.
H.R. 4222 would extend and expand the existing child feeding
programs, increase the number of eligible participants and
institutions, create new programs and add substantially to
annual budget outlays for these programs. It runs counter
to the Administration's proposal to consolidate and reform
the existing programs.
Despite strong Administration opposition, H.R. 4222 was
passed by the House by a vote of 335-59 and by the Senate
by a vote of 81-8. The first conference report was rejected
in the Senate at the urging of Senator Muskie who called the
bill a "budget buster" because it exceeded the Congressional
Concurrent Budget Resolution by $362 million. The bill was
returned to conference where $75 million was eliminated by
removing a provision for a new subsidy of 3¢ for paid lunches.
The second conference report, which still exceeded the Con-
gressional Concurrent Budget Resolution by $287 million, was
then approved in the House 380-7 and in the Senate by voice
vote.
- 2 -
BUDGET IMPACT
Since the bill would not be effective until October, its
impact on FY 76 costs is estimated to be an addition of
$1.2 billion to the 1976 budget estimate.
If H.R. 4222 were in effect for the entire fiscal year 1976,
the estimated cost of the programs would be between $2.9
and $3.5 billion. Thus, the estimated increase over an
extension of the present law would be between $0.5 and
$1.0 billion and the estimated increase over the 1976
budget request between $1.2 and $1.7 billion.
For fiscal year 1977, when H.R. 4222 would apply to the entire
year, it is estimated that the bill would add $1.7 billion
over the projection for the block grant proposal in the 1976
budget and $1.1 billion over present laws.
Costs for both the current and upcoming fiscal year could
be even higher if program participation rates increase
more rapidly than expected.
Congressional estimates of the program costs are lower than
ours. The Congressional Concurrent Budget Resolution for
fiscal year 1976 included $2.4 billion for child nutrition
programs. Figures provided on the Senate floor indicate
an estimated add-on of $287 million to fiscal year 1976
outlays over the level in the resolution, thus raising
estimated program costs to $2.7 billion.
ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL
1. Disapproval could appear to indicate lack of concern
about proper nutrition for the Nation's children,
contrary to the concern reflected in the steady ex-
pansion of the child nutrition programs which have
enjoyed great Congressional and public popularity
since they were begun in the Depression of the 1930's.
2. The bill would provide added funds--in effect, income
supplements--for needy and other families, at a time
when many of them are economically hard-pressed by
inflation and recession.
- 3 -
3. The bill's provisions for expanded program participation
would enable more needy and near-needy children to be
reached, by raising the income eligibility for reduced
price lunches, expanding the school breakfast program,
and extending eligibility to residential child care
institutions.
4. Program administration would be improved by a number of
provisions in the bill, principally changes to eliminate
"plate waste", provision of equipment allowances for
non-school food programs, and authorization for school
officials to seek, for cause, verification of data
contained in applications for free and reduced price
lunches.
5. Needed information to assist in improving existing child
nutrition programs could be obtained from the requirement
for the Secretary to conduct studies of State staffing
needs, the cause and degree of "plate waste", and the
requirement for States to implement full cost-accounting
procedures.
ARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL
1. H.R. 4222 would perpetuate and expand the existing child
feeding programs which have grown in a largely uncoordinated
piecemeal fashion and do nothing to eliminate the existing
duplication and overlap of Federally assisted program
benefits.
2. The bill would require substantially increased budget
outlays over the present laws and the Administration's
block grant proposal, with much of the escalating Federal
costs disproportionately subsidizing those who do not
need subsidies. The program expansions in H.R. 4222
would aggravate the Government's budgetary problem.
3. H.R. 4222 would probably result in a significant increase
in program benefits for non-needy children, even if all
those eligible do not participate. The bill mandates
that all schools participating in the school lunch program
offer reduced price lunches to all eligible children and
raises the qualifying family income limits to 195% of
poverty guidelines. This would make a family of four
with an income up to $9,770 eligible and creates the
potential for adding about 5.5 million children to the
reduced price lunch program. The bill, however, would
not do anything about the 700,000 needy children who
GERALD FORD CIGRAPY
- 4 -
are not now receiving program benefits, because they
attend schools or live in communities which choose
not to participate in the school lunch program.
4. The provisions in the bill to extend meal subsidies
to a wide range of residential child care institutions
serving mainly needy children but also the non-needy
may only result in replacing the existing sources of
State, private, and other Federal support to these
institutions and may result in windfall gains to
institutions already serving meals.
5. The expansion of the experimental WIC program to $250
million is premature, since this program has not yet
been finally evaluated to determine if its extension
and expansion is warranted. Moreover, it is duplicative
of the food stamp program, which is available to largely
the same eligible group.
6. H.R. 4222 would continue the obsolete surplus commodities
removal programs originated in the early 1930's and
would fail to address the problems resulting from the
slow transformation of the school lunch and child
nutrition programs into a people-oriented income
supplement program. Furthermore, the bill would extend
through September 30, 1977, the Secretary's authority
to purchase commodities on the open market under non-
surplus conditions, thereby competing in the private
market for commodities and possibly adding to inflationary
pressures. The bill would create an inequity in allowing
only one State, Kansas, to elect to receive cash-in-lieu
of commodities because it is a State which "eliminated
its commodity distribution facilities prior to June 30,
1974."
7. The discretion available to local school authorities
and State educational agencies would be further limited
by the mandating of the previously optional provision
of reduced price lunches to all eligible students.
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval
Department of Agriculture
Disapproval
Council of Economic Advisers
Disapproval
FORD
- 5 -
Department of the Treasury
Would concur in a
disapproval recom-
mendation
Department of Labor
No recommendation
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
Defers to Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Defers to Agriculture
Department of Justice
No objection
COMMENTS
Lynn:
"
the arguments for disapproval outweigh
those for approval, on grounds of both substance
and cost. Accordingly, we [recommend] that
you veto H.R. 4222. We recognize, however,
that child feeding programs have strong Congress-
ional support and that it is doubtful such action
would be sustained. "
Agriculture:
"[veto] is imperative in light of the President's
desire to control the escalation of Federal
obligations.
bill provides for some needed
changes however, it also contains unjustifiable
provisions that will increase the Federal budget
significantly
The Department specifically
objects to: extending eligibility for school
lunch reduced price meals to additional non-
needy children; extending the experimental WIC
program for three years, and expanding
eligibility under the program before it has been
evaluated; extending the Child Care Food program
to non-needy pre-school children; and expanding
the summer program, including participation of
all eligible institutions upon request."
Greenspan:
believes that more efficiency ought to be
introduced in the existing programs before
expanding the present subsidies, questions
the continued use of surplus agricultural
commodities, and notes the high cost of the
bill. CEA concludes: "although it is difficult
to be against child nutrition, we advise a veto
of H.R. 4222.'
GERALD LIBRARY
- 6 -
Seidman:
Veto
Buchen:
Approve. "A veto would further the interests
(Lazarus)
of Democrats who attempt to paint the President
as the representative of a narrow segment of
society, i.e., 'big business' with no egalitarian
inclinations.
"
Friedersdorf:
Veto, "but it cannot be sustained."
Hartmann:
"Do not recommend veto. Politically difficult
(Calkins)
to explain and would likely be overridden.
Swallow hard and let it become law one way or
the other with message citing need for clearing
up overlaps, etc.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend disapproval of H.R. 4222 because of the excessive
authorization which is substantially above your FY 76 budget
request and your FY 77 ceiling and substantially above the
cost of extending the existing programs and because of the
extension and expansion of the programs.
I recognize that there is Congressional and popular support
for this legislation. But because I feel that an important
issue is involved, I recommend a veto of the bill. Should
you disapprove the bill, the programs will operate under a
continuing resolution in effect since October 1, 1975, until
the Congress takes further action.
Jim Lynn's memorandum which includes Earl Butz's recommendation
for disapproval and the other agency recommendations is at
Tab A. A memorandum of disapproval is attached at Tab B.
The enrolled bill is attached at Tab C.
DECISION
1.
Approve H.R. 4222
2.
Disapprove and issue memorandum of disapproval
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
Last Day: October 3, 1975
October 2, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 4222 - National School
Lunch and Child Nutrition Act
Amendments of 1975
This is to present for your action H.R. 4222, the
National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act
Amendments of 1975.
BACKGROUND
H.R. 4222 expands substantially the Federal Government's
child nutrition program, including increased eligibility
and coverage under the School Lunch Program and
permanent authorization and expanded coverage for the
School Breakfast Program.
Despite strong Administration opposition, H.R. 4222
was passed by the House by a vote of 335-59 and by the
Senate by a vote of 81-8.
BUDGET IMPACT
Since the bill would not be effective until October,
its impact on FY 76 costs is estimated to be an
addition of $1.2 billion to the 1976 budget estimate.
If H.R. 4222 were in effect for the entire fiscal
year 1976, the estimated cost of the programs would
be between $2.9 and $3.5 billion.
RECOMMENDATIONS And Comments
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval
Department of Agriculture
Disapproval
-2-
Council of Economic Advisers
Disapproval
Department of the Treasury
Would concur in
a disapproval
recommendation
Department of Labor
NO recommendation
Department of Health, Education
Defers to
and Welfare
Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Defers to
Agriculture
Department of Justice
No objection
COMMENTS
Lynn:
"The arguments for disapproval outweigh
those for approval, on grounds of both
substance and cost. Accordingly, we...
[recommend] that you veto H.R. 4222.
Agriculture:
"[Veto] is imperative in light of the
President's desire to control the
escalation of Federal obligations.
Greenspan:
"Although it is difficult to be against
child nutrition, we advise a veto of
H.R. 4222."
Seidman:
Veto.
Buchen:
Approve. "A veto would further the
(Lazarus)
interests of Democrats who attempt to
paint the President as the representative
of a narrow segment of society, i.e.,
'big business' with no egalitarian
inclinations.'
"
Friedersdorf:
Veto, "but it cannot be sustained."
Hartmann:
"Do not recommend veto. Politically
(Calkins)
difficult to explain and would likely be
overridden.
-3-
Jim Lynn's memorandum which includes Earl Butz's
recommendation for disapproval and the other agency
recommendations is at Tab A. A memorandum of
disapproval to the House of Representatives, the
text of which is approved by Paul Theis, is attached
at Tab B. The enrolled bill is attached at Tab C.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend disapproval of H.R. 4222 because of the
excessive authorization which is substantially above
your FY 76 budget request and your FY 77 ceiling and
substantially above the cost of extending the existing
programs and because of the extension and expansion
of the programs.
DECISION
1.
Approve H.R. 4222.
2.
Disapprove and issue memorandum of disapproval.
I Also Recomed THAT you Sign THE
of Disapprint AT TAb B.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
3
the cost of the bill was reduced by only $75 million--
about 2 percent. This slight change apparently was
considered enough to somehow make the bill acceptable.
This is not my way of budgeting the taxpayers'
11P
hard earned dollar
We should not expand subsidies to
families with incomes above the poverty level.
SJJ believe the way to help work American
theating
.If we want to help non-poverty families we ought
to
and
to hold down inflation reduce their tax burdens and lot
x
them decide for themselves to use their money
FOOD and Nutation
The consolidated feeding program I proposed in March
stet
for needy children would have greatly improved our
existing programs. The program sent to me by the Congress
with disproportionate subsidies for the non-needy is
worse than the programs we now have.
I propose to the Congress two choices: (1) Extend
our present programs at this time, or (2) reconsider and
act favorably on my feeding proposal for needy children.
Either course would be in the best interests of
needy children, the Nation's economic health and the
taxpaying public.
T
FORD & LIBRARY DERALD
DC
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning without my signature H.R. 4222, the
National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments
of 1975.
As I
If this bill provided food for children who would
, in
otherwise go hungry, I would give it my wholehearted
support. All Americans share my conviction that children
of families living in poverty who truly neèd help in raising
their level of nutrition should receive that help.
It was with this in mind earli this year that I
recommended a reform of the Federal Government's existing
child feeding programs. My proposal would have provided
assistance by the Federal Government for all infants and
children from families below the poverty level -- but only
for those children. It would have halted the steady ex-
pansion of Federal child nutrition subsidies to increasing
numbers of non-needy children. By so doing, it would have
concentrated more funds on feeding needy children, yet
saved the taxpayers of this Nation almost $4 billion over
the next five years.
I recommended one block grant be made to States to
provide them with greater flexibility to tailor feeding
programs to their own conditions and preferences. At the
same time, States would have been relieved of much
administrative red tape. Such an approach would eliminate
the wastefulness of present overlapping programs which
often subsidize the same meal.
I recognize that H.R. 4222 would enlarge our present
efforts to feed the needy children I am concerned about.
But it would go far beyond that and greatly expand Federal
subsidies to children from non-mandy families &
GERAL FORD SIBRARY
which do not need Fedral
subsidies.
(By extending 2 aid to bauches not
in Need,
In so this bill would add $1.2 billion to my
budget proposals for the current fiscal year. I cannot
accept such fiscal irresponsibility when we face the real
REACH $70
danger that the budget deficit could exceed by as much US
of
$10 billion the already-high limit of $60 billion I set
AS
earlier this year. IS the Congress keeps adding to the
Congress adds to
deficit, we soon find ourselves facing senewed
inflationary pressures which could push us back into a
recession.
Members of the Congress showed great concern about the
fiscal implications of H.R. 4222 by refusing to accept the
first conference report on the bill, which they calculated
would cost $362 million more than their own budget target.
However, after further deliberation, the cost of the bill
was reduced by only $75 million -- about 2 percent. This
slight change apparently was considered enough to somehow
make the bill acceptable. This is not my way of budgeting
the taxpayers' hard-earned dollar. We should not expand
subsidies to families with incomes above the poverty level.
If we want to help non-poverty families, we ought to
HOLD DOWN INFL ATION,
reduce their tax burdens and let them decide for themselves
how to use their money. Instead, bills like H.R. 4222 con-
tinue to have the Government collect taxes from these
families and then give back some of it in the form of
specifically earmarked subsidies for food, in this case.
IN MARCH
1
The consolidated feeding program I proposed for needy
children would have greatly improved our existing programs.
The program sent to me by the Congress with disproportionate
Insurt A
subsidies for the non-needy is worse than the programs Q we
now have. If need be it would be better to simply extend
to
work
our present programs at this time for I would be happy
avos
GERALD LIBRARY
4
3
with the Congress to achieve this. I urge the Congress,
however, to 2. reconsider and act favorably on my Child
for needy children Either course would be
feeding proposal a It is in the best interests of needy
children, the Nation's economic health and the taxpaying
public.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
Last Day: October 3, 1975
October X, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 4222 - National School
JIM CANNON Jul
Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments
of 1975
This is to present for your action H.R. 4222, the National
School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act Amendments of 1975.
BACKGROUND
H.R. 4222 expands substantially the Federal Government's
child nutrition program, including increased eligibility
and coverage under the School Lunch Program and permanent
authorization and expanded coverage for the School Breakfast
Program. Also included are extension of the Special Supple-
mental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
with high authorization levels and expanded eligibility,
expanded coverage under the Summer Food Service Program
and the non school Child Care Food Program, and the addition
of new categorical programs.
H.R. 4222 would extend and expand the existing child feeding
programs, increase the number of eligible participants and
institutions, create new programs and add substantially to
annual budget outlays for these programs. It runs counter
to the Administration's proposal to consolidate and reform
the existing programs.
Despite strong Administration opposition, H.R. 4222 was
passed by the House by a vote of 335-59 and by the Senate
by a vote of 81-8. The first conference report was rejected
in the Senate at the urging of Senator Muskie who called the
bill a "budget buster" because it exceeded the Congressional
Concurrent Budget Resolution by $362 million. The bill was
returned to conference where $75 million was eliminated by
removing a provision for a new subsidy of 3¢ for paid lunches.
The second conference report, which still exceeded the Con-
gressional Concurrent Budget Resolution by $287 million, was
then approved in the House 380-7 and in the Senate by voice FORD
vote.
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 2 -
BUDGET IMPACT
Since the bill would not be effective until October, its
impact on FY 76 costs is estimated to be an addition of
$1.2 billion to the 1976 budget estimate.
If H.R. 4222 were in effect for the entire fiscal year 1976,
the estimated cost of the programs would be between $2.9
and $3.5 billion. Thus, the estimated increase over an
extension of the present law would be between $0.5 and
$1.0 billion and the estimated increase over the 1976
budget request between $1.2 and $1.7 billion.
For fiscal year 1977, when H.R. 4222 would apply to the entire
year, it is estimated that the bill would add $1.7 billion
over the projection for the block grant proposal in the 1976
budget and $1.1 billion over present laws.
Costs for both the current and upcoming fiscal year could
be even higher if program participation rates increase
more rapidly than expected.
Congressional estimates of the program costs are lower than
ours. The Congressional Concurrent Budget Resolution for
fiscal year 1976 included $2.4 billion for child nutrition
programs. Figures provided on the Senate floor indicate
an estimated add-on of $287 million to fiscal year 1976
outlays over the level in the resolution, thus raising
estimated program costs to $2.7 billion.
ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL
1. Disapproval could appear to indicate lack of concern
about proper nutrition for the Nation's children,
contrary to the concern reflected in the steady ex-
pansion of the child nutrition programs which have
enjoyed great Congressional and public popularity
since they were begun in the Depression of the 1930 S.
2. The bill would provide added funds--in effect, income
supplements--for needy and other families, at a time
when many of them are economically hard-pressed by
inflation and recession.
FORD LIBRARY j GENALD
- 3 -
The bill's provisions for expanded program participation
would enable more needy and near-needy children to be
reached, by raising the income eligibility for reduced
price lunches, expanding the school breakfast program,
and extending eligibility to residential child care
institutions.
Program administration would be improved by a number of
provisions in the bill, principally changes to eliminate
"plate waste", provision of equipment allowances for
non-school food programs, and authorization for school
officials to seek, for cause, verification of data
contained in applications for free and reduced price
lunches.
Needed information to assist in improving existing child
nutrition programs could be obtained from the requirement
for the Secretary to conduct studies of State staffing
needs, the cause and degree of "plate waste", and the
requirement for States to implement full cost-accounting
procedures.
ARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL
1. H.R. 4222 would perpetuate and expand the existing child
feeding programs which have grown in a largely uncoordinated
piecemeal fashion and do nothing to eliminate the existing
duplication and overlap of Federally assisted program
benefits.
2. The bill would require substantially increased budget
outlays over the present laws and the Administration's
block grant proposal, with much of the escalating Federal
costs disproportionately subsidizing those who do not
need subvidies. The program expansions in H.R. 4222
would aggravate the Government's budgetary problem.
3. H.R. 4222 would probably result in a significant increase
in program benefits for non-needy children, even if all
those eligible do not participate. The bill mandates
that all schools participating in the school lunch program
offer reduced price lunches to all eligible children and
raises the qualifying family income limits to 195% of
poverty quidelines. This would make a family of four
with an income up to $9,770 eligible and creates the
potential for adding about 5.5 million children to the
reduced price lunch program. The bill, however, would
not do anything about the 700,000 needy children who
FORD is LIBRARY GENALD
- 4 -
are not now receiving program benefits, because they
attend schools or live in communities which choose
not to participate in the school lunch program.
4,
The provisions in the bill to extend meal subsidies
to a wide range of residential child care institutions
Nerving mainly needy children but also the non-needy
may only result in replacing the existing sources of
#tate, private, and other Federal support to these
Institutions and may result in windfall gains to
Institutions already serving meals.
5,
The expansion of the experimental WIC program to $250
million is premature, since this program has not yet
been finally evaluated to determine if its extension
And expansion is warranted. Moreover, it is duplicative
OF the food stamp program, which is available to largely
the same eligible group.
6,
H.R. 4222 would continue the obsolete surplus commodities
removal programs originated in the early 1930's and
would fail to address the problems resulting from the
slow transformation of the school lunch and child
"utrition programs into a people-oriented income
supplement program. Furthermore, the bill would extend
through September 30, 1977, the Secretary's authority
to purchase commodities on the open market under non-
surplus conditions, thereby competing in the private
market for commodities and possibly adding to inflationary
pressures. The bill would create an inequity in allowing
only one State, Kansas, to elect to receive cash-in-lieu
of commonities because it is a State which "eliminated
its commodity distribution. facilities prior to June 30,
1974."
7,
The discretion available to local school authorities
and State educational agencies would be further limited
in the mandating of the previously optional provision
reduced price lunches to all eligible students.
AGUNT RECOMMENDATIONS
office of Management and Budget
Disapproval
Delivement of Agriculture
Disapproval
COUNTRIL of Economic Advisers
Disapproval
BLRALD FORD LIBRARY
- 5 -
Department of the Treasury
Would concur in a
disapproval recom-
mendation
Department of Labor
No recommendation
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
Defers to Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Defers to Agriculture
Department of Justice
No objection
COMMENTS
Lynn:
"
the arguments for disapproval
outweigh
those for approval, on grounds of both substance
and cost. Accordingly, we [recommend] that
you veto H.R. 4222. We recognize however,
that child feeding programs have strong Congress-
ional support and that it is doubtful such action
would be sustained.
Agriculture:
"[veto] is imperative in light of the President's
desire to control the escalation of Federal
obligations.
bNl provides for some needed
changes however, it also contains un ustifiable
provisions that will increase the Federal budget
significantly The Department specifically
objects to extending eligibility for school
lunch reduced price meals to additional non-
needy children, extending the experimental WIC
program for three years, and expanding
eligibility under the program before it has been
evaluated extending the Child Care Food program
to non needy pre-school shildren; and expanding
the summer program, including participation of
all eligible institutions upon request.
Greenspan:
"believes that more efficiency ought to be
introduced in the existing programs before
expanding the present subsidies, questions the
continued use of surplus agricultural commodities,
and notes the high cost of the bills CEA
concludes: 'although it is difficult to be ord
of H.R. 4222.'
against child nutrition, we advise a veto BERATE
LIBRARY
- 6 -
Seidman:
Veto
Buchen:
Approve. "A veto would further the interests
(Lazarus)
of Democrats who attempt to paint the President
as the representative of a narrow segment of
society, i.e., 'big business' with no egalitarian
inclinations."
Friedersdorf: Veto, "but it cannot be sustained."
Hartmann:
"Do not recommend veto. Politically difficult
(Calkins)
to explain and would likely be overridden.
Swallow hard and let it become law one way
the other with messaqe clearing
up overlaps, etc.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend disapproval of H.R. 4222 because of the excessive
authorization which is substantially above your FY 76 budget
request and your FY 77 ceiling and substantially above the
cost of extending the existing programs and because of the
extension and expansion of the programs.
I recognize that there is Congressional and popular support
for this legislation. But because I feel that an important
issue is involved, I recommend a veto of the bill. Should
you disapprove the bill. the programs will operate under a
continuing resolution in effect since October 1, 1975, until
the Congress takes further action.
Jim Lynn's memorandum which includes Earl Butz's recommendation
for disapproval and the other agency recommendations is at
Tab A. A memorandum of disapproval is attached at Tab B.
The enrolled bill is attached at Tab C.
TO THE House IF THE
DECISION
Text OF UNICE is reproved by
PAUL THEiS
1.
Approve H.R. 4222
2.
Disapprove and issue memorandum of disapproval
GERALD & LIBRARY FORD
DOMESTIC COUNCIL CLEARANCE SHEET
Date: October 1
JMC action required by:
TO:
JIM GANNON
VIA:
DICK DUNHAM
or
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
SARAH MASSENGALE
SUBJECT:
H.R. 4222 - National School Lunch and Child Nutrition
Act Amendments
COMMENTS:
LAST DAY 10/3/75
Date:
RETURN TO:
JUDY JOHNSTON
Material has been:
Signed and forwarded
Changed and signed (Copy attached)
Returned per our conversation
Noted
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Jim Cannon
FROM discussion Linder
per