PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 7, 2003
Child and Adult Care Food Program Improvements Act of 2003 - Amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to revise requirements for the child and adult care food program.
Revises requirements relating to: (1) the eligibility of private organizations; (2) the supplement reimbursement rate for tier II family or group day care homes; (3) the administrative reimbursement rate for family or group day care home sponsoring organizations in rural areas; and (4) management support.
Provides for temporary redefinitions of: (1) tier I family or group home in rural areas; and (2) at-risk school children in rural areas.
Revises the program for at-risk school children to add Oregon, New York, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Iowa, and Indiana to the limited list of States in which institutions are to receive reimbursement. (Continues the current listing of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Delaware, Michigan, and two unspecified States.)
Allows emergency shelters to claim reimbursement for resident children not more than 18 years of age. (The current limit is 12.)
People & committees
Sen. Kohl, Herb [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1022 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1022 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1022 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1022 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.