H.R. 2401House115th Congress (2017-2019)In Committee

Anti-Lunch Shaming Act of 2017

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 15, 2026 at 3:19 PM UTC

The Anti‑Lunch Shaming Act of 2017 would change the National School Lunch Act to stop schools from publicly identifying or treating differently children who can’t pay for their meals. It defines a “covered child” as any student in a participating school who lacks funds or has unpaid meal debt, and it requires schools to serve meals to all children regardless of payment status while encouraging better communication with families.

Key Provisions

Adds a new prohibition against discriminatory or stigmatizing treatment of children who cannot pay for school meals.
Defines a “covered child” as a student in a lunch or breakfast program who has no money or has outstanding meal debt.
Bars schools from publicly marking or identifying covered children (e.g., wristbands, stamps) and from making them do chores, dispose of meals, or otherwise treat them differently.
Requires any communication about a child’s unpaid meal balance to be sent to a parent or guardian, not the child, and limits how letters can be used so they do not stigmatize the child.
Calls on the USDA to provide clear, uniform free‑or‑reduced‑price lunch applications by July 1 each year and to offer technical help to families.
Directs schools to work with local agencies to ensure homeless and foster children receive free meals they’re eligible for.
Mandates that schools must give a meal to any child who asks, even if the child can’t pay or owes money, and prohibits offering a different “alternate” meal to free‑or‑reduced‑price students.
Encourages schools to use technology for prepaid accounts, balance checks, adding funds, handling debt, and sending low‑balance alerts.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

HouseIntro Referral Latest Action

Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Education and Workforce Committee

May 8, 2017

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

May 8, 2017

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Education and Workforce Committee

May 8, 2017

Floor Debate

24 members

What members said about H.R. 2401 on the floor

+19

13 Republicans11 Democrats

Rep. Rodney P. FrelinghuysenR-NJ-11 · Sep 6, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the consideration of H.R. 3354,…

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the consideration of H.R. 3354, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to present H.R. 3354, the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act. This legislation moves Congress one step closer to completing its critical work on our fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills ahead of the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

Our bill respects the American people, their priorities for our Nation, and their hard-earned tax dollars, and it will help move our great country forward to a more stable and prosperous future.

This funding, totaling $1.2 trillion, supports important domestic and international programs that keep our people safe and help our economy grow and thrive, protects us from terrorists and those who want to do us harm, and assures that America has a critical role across the globe both militarily and diplomatically.

Most importantly, this bill continues the work started with the national security funding package that passed the House in July, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, and it prioritizes the safety of the American people, targeting funding towards critical law enforcement programs, securing our borders and our cyber networks, fighting terrorism, combating opioid abuse, and stemming the flow of illegal drugs and goods.

Other funds are directed to programs that provide the greatest national benefit, including those that keep our food and drug supplies safe, that support public health preparedness, fight devastating wildfires, invest in critical infrastructure, and otherwise protect and support our economy and economic freedom.

All of these investments are made responsibly. In each of our bills within this package, we have found savings, gotten rid of waste, fraud, and duplication, and increased oversight to ensure that no taxpayer dollar is misspent, but we still have more work to do. This is the next step in the process, but it is not the end.

We must also address new needs arising from terrible flooding and damage

inflicted by Hurricane Harvey, which is affecting hundreds of thousands of people across Texas and Louisiana, as well as continue all government operations until the final appropriations package can be conferenced with the Senate and signed into law.

This legislation today represents the House priorities and shows the American people that this Chamber is moving forward, governing effectively, and getting things done here in Washington.

Before I close, I would like to thank the members of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work over the past few months, and the staff that allows us to consider this bill today, especially the 12 chairs of the subcommittees. The committee drafted, considered, and marked up all 12 appropriations bills in under 2 months, a record- breaking pace, and as a result, we have a fine package of solid bills on the floor this afternoon.

I particularly would like to thank the chairs and ranking members of the committee of the bills we are considering today, as well as the ranking member of the full committee, Mrs. Lowey, for her partnership and friendship throughout this process. I would also like to extend my personal thanks to our staff on both sides of the aisle for their efforts on these bills.

This package is a product not only of the committee's work, but also of the contribution of all Members of this body. While drafting these bills that compose this package, we took Members' submissions very seriously, creating a more representative bill that reflects the will of the American people.

In July, the House took the first responsible step of providing funding for critical national security priorities. With this bill, we complete our work on all 12 of our appropriations bills for the fiscal year.

This morning, the House came together on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis to pass desperately needed emergency funding for the victims in Texas and Louisiana whose lives were destroyed by Hurricane Harvey. Funding these important responsibilities of the Federal Government is our constitutional duty to the people we serve.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.115

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.117

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.124

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.125

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.126

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.128

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.129

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.130

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.131

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.132

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.134

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.135

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.136

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.137

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.138

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.139

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, my predecessor as full chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman to thank the staff.

Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with the remarks of Ms. Kaptur.

Taunja, thank you for your service to our Nation, your help to both Republicans and Democrats, and to the Nation. We are indebted to you. Good luck to you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, who spoke so eloquently this morning.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations. As I learned this morning, he is a true son of Houston, whose eloquence and compassion we heard this morning.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), the chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for the purpose of three colloquies.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side? I am prepared to yield back, if the gentlewoman is prepared.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.D-GA-2 · Sep 6, 2017

Mr. Chairman, let me just say I believe that we are missing out on the opportunity to effectively do our jobs. As elected Members of Congress, we are here to fight for what is right, what is fair,…

Mr. Chairman, let me just say I believe that we are missing out on the opportunity to effectively do our jobs.

As elected Members of Congress, we are here to fight for what is right, what is fair, and what is just. When presented with the administration's budget, it is Congress that is charged to serve as the first line of defense for the needs of the American people.

And the agriculture bill before us, as a part of this omnibus, is our attempt at doing just that. However, the progress made in the agriculture bill will end here because we do not have a budget resolution to conference, and it is entangled with other very contentious bills, and that is most unfortunate.

In light of the draconian budget request presented by the President, Congressman Aderholt and I, along with our bipartisan Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee colleagues, worked diligently to protect as much of our country's agriculture and food and drug safety systems as we could.

In order to inflict the least amount of damage, the funding reductions were spread across several programs. But let me be clear, the communities that make up this great Nation need these programs to be robustly funded in order to keep us competitive in the global marketplace.

The United States of America will not continue to be the Nation that produces the safest, most abundant, highest quality, most economical food and fiber anywhere in the industrialized world if sufficient resources are not made available by this Congress.

While we were able to maintain McGovern-Dole at the 2017 level, the Food for Peace program was reduced.

This bill provides $830.4 million for research and education activities, which includes approximately $161 million in funding, consistent with fiscal year 2017, for minority serving land-grant institutions. These funds will assist in increasing minority representation and participation in the multidisciplinary agriculture community in fields such as agriculture research, agribusiness, as well as farming and ranching.

At the same time, the Commodities Future Trade Commission was deprived of the $2 million of funds that it needs to protect U.S. customers from nefarious trade activity. Unprecedented language was inserted into the bill that allows the CFTC Chairman to reduce the pay and benefits of his employees if he deems it necessary to avoid a RIF or furlough, whether or not it abrogates established collective bargaining agreements.

And unfortunately, the amendment I submitted to strike that provision was not made in order by the House Rules Committee.

Funding for the Food and Drug Administration remains flat, which is in stark contrast to the Trump budget that sought to cut it by more than $900 million. And still, funding for this agency that oversees the safety of our food, drugs, and medical devices will not grow, despite our significant dependence on their activities and the increasing workload each and every year.

FDA is being forced to do more with less resources, and that limits its ability to adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of the American people.

Nutrition. Mandatory funding for SNAP and child nutrition were funded consistent with the current estimates. That is good. Additionally, school kitchen grants are funded at $25 million, which the Trump administration requested be zeroed out. I thank the committee for this.

Now, we just voted for a bill to provide aid for the victims of Hurricane Harvey just as the potential impact of Hurricane Irma looks over us. Instead of being proactive to ensure our citizens who have been and will be impacted by impending natural disasters are protected, we are going to the floor with a package which inadequately funds our Federal agencies and does not completely meet the needs of the citizens of this great Nation.

This approach to funding our government for fiscal year 2018 all but guarantees our short term, if not a full year, continuing resolution. But just like every year, Democratic votes will be needed to enact an appropriations law. Working together on a bipartisan basis will be absolutely necessary for it to move forward.

Mr. Chairman, we still have a lot of work to do to discharge our obligations to the American people.

Mr. Chairman, regretfully, this bill falls short.

I would like to thank Mr. Aderholt for his work as chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman Frelinghuysen, and both of them for conducting the Appropriations Committee markups fairly and collegially, and Mrs. Lowey, our full committee ranking member, for her very strong and inspiring leadership.

And with that, let me thank our staffs on the majority and minority sides for all of their cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to note a few concerns with items in the en bloc amendment. I am not opposing it, but I want to lay down some markers.

On the amendment by the gentleman from Florida relating to ag research, my major concern about the amendment is that the intent is, in effect, to earmark USDA competitive research grants. That really is a no-no. USDA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative is one of the jewels in our bill. We have built up funding for it over time and have zealously protected it against any efforts by Congress to say what research is and is not funded.

The agency in charge, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, has a complex internal process for deciding what areas to focus on, and that is free from political interference. For AFRI to retain its credibility, we must not start micromanaging that process and specifying research areas and amounts, as the amendment does.

My other concern is that cutting the Agricultural Marketing Service by $2 million is not a wise choice. In many ways, AMS is the little engine that could. Of critical importance to many Members on both sides of the aisle is its role in overseeing the National Organic Program and the Specialty Crops Program.

Similarly, on the gentleman's NRCS amendment, I want to point out that cutting the National Agricultural Statistics Service, as the amendment would do, is not a good idea. NASS is USDA's premier statistics agency.

Anyone in the agriculture business can tell you that statistics are extremely important to farmers, to ranchers, and industry. NASS produces information on production and prices for virtually every crop grown in the United States, and the major livestock categories, floraculture, organic farming, farm income, land values, and even computer usage on farms; so this is an important agency that needs every penny that we give it.

The amendments relating to watershed and flood prevention operations and specialty crops for Members on my side of the aisle, unfortunately, make reductions to the Offices of General Counsel and the Chief Economist, both very important parts of USDA.

Again, I do not oppose the en bloc amendment, but I did want to make these points.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chair, I find it troubling that Congress, having enacted numerous laws governing the oceans and coasts, and having put 11 departments and 4 different agencies in charge of administering those laws, now seems to pause in the effort to bring consistency to that process.

The USDA has an extremely limited role in ocean policy, and it is so little that I often wonder why the majority feels it necessary to stop it.

I also wonder why anyone in a rural area would want the USDA's voice to be excluded from any discussion of policy. Shouldn't the interests of the farmers and the ranchers who are served by the USDA be taken into consideration?

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, what the Davis-Bacon Act does is protect the government, as well as the workers, in carrying out the policy of paying decent wages on government contracts.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work.

It requires that every contract for construction of which the Federal Government is a party in excess of $2,000 contains a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of labors and mechanics.

The House has taken numerous votes on this issue, and on every vote, this body has voted to maintain Davis-Bacon requirements. In fact, most recently, during consideration of the FY18 security omnibus, the House firmly rejected a similar amendment 249-178. I hope that we will defeat the amendment before us today and move on to more substantive matters.

I would also note that it is somewhat ironic that this amendment is being offered on the agriculture appropriations bill because the Davis- Bacon Act specifically protects rural community workforces. It requires that prevailing wage determinations for rural counties be based solely on local workforce costs. Wage data from urban areas must be excluded.

This requirement, I would note, came into force during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. I urge all Members to vote ``no.'' I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Since President Bush ordered Federal agencies to comply with E-Verify back in 2007, this amendment, if it only applies to hiring at Federal agencies, would do absolutely nothing. I am not aware of any effort by the Trump administration to undo President Bush's order, so it is a needless use of the House's time.

I believe the gentleman's language would also require every one of the local county employees or local folks to be E-Verified. Wouldn't this add another burden on USDA when it has to implement the new farm bill?

If so, I would like to ask the gentleman what he expects would happen in an emergency, such as we experienced from Hurricane Harvey, when USDA may need to bring on employees quickly. They would have to wait for E-Verify clearance.

I would also submit that it is not clear whether the language also covers every single person who receives any of the funds in this bill as a grantee. I think it is unclear and would risk requiring every single one of the thousands of grantees to go through E-Verify. Then you would impose a truly undue burden on many small farmers, ranchers, and businesses that receive grants in this bill. I would strongly oppose that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. Robert B. AderholtR-AL-4 · Sep 6, 2017

Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2018 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill before you today as part of the Make…

Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2018 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill before you today as part of the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act.

I do want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his commitment to the annual appropriations process. Under his steadfast leadership, the House is scheduled to vote on all 12 appropriations bills, which is an extraordinary achievement.

I would also like to thank Ranking Member Lowey and Ranking Member Bishop for their cooperative spirit. Mr. Bishop is the new ranking member for the Agriculture Subcommittee, and I have enjoyed working with him over the past several months as we have moved forward to try to help rural America and rural communities.

The Agriculture Appropriations bill responsibly targets funds to national programs that provide the most benefit to the American people and to the United States economy. The bill received bipartisan support throughout the process, even though much of the funding and policies reflect a conservative policy.

The overall total for both discretionary and mandatory spending in the bill equals $144.9 billion. That is $4.1 billion above the President's request and $8.6 billion below the FY17 enacted level. The bill includes $20 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is $1.1 billion below the FY17 enacted level when adjusting for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The mandatory funds in this bill support USDA's farm production, conservation, crop insurance, and nutrition programs.

I would like to thank all the Members who have submitted requests and gave input as we have moved forward and crafted this legislation. Knowing what programs Members are interested in has helped us direct funding to support rural communities across the country and also combat animal and plant pests and disease threats, promote U.S. agricultural exports, support food safety and medical product safety, provide U.S. commodities to those in need overseas, and address the critical needs of research.

We protected our most vulnerable populations in this bill by providing funding for all of USDA's nutrition programs at levels that ensure all eligible participants will receive the nutrition assistance that they need. We made sure that the farm loan programs will meet current estimates of demand during the current economic downturn in several areas of the farm economy.

Furthermore, the bill provides $5.2 billion to the Food and Drug Administration, including the preservation of nearly $2.8 billion in discretionary resources to assist the FDA in protecting and promoting public health. The bill continues to support the food safety activities associated with the Food Safety Modernization Act and provides $60 million in new funds to the 21st Century Cures Act.

In closing, I would like to especially thank the staff on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, my personal staff, the minority staff, and Mr. Bishop's staff.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate, again, the bipartisan cooperation that went into crafting this bill. It is very important.

Mr. Chair, I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic to the gentleman from Iowa's concerns regarding the reduction in the bill's mandatory energy programs in the farm bill, in particular, the Rural Energy for America Program.

The gentleman from Iowa is indeed a valued member of our subcommittee, and he was very instrumental in developing many parts of the overall bill, and I appreciate his input greatly.

A number of factors went into our decision for which programs to reduce in order to achieve the $1.1 billion reduction in the bill's funding level over this last year.

As I did mention, as he noted, in our full committee markup, I committed to working with the gentleman from Iowa to see where we could find alternative offsets, and we will continue to do that as we move forward. So I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention again here on the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 500, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the executive order on National Ocean Policy is an Obama administration policy. It lacks clear statutory authority. Instead of streamlining Federal management, it potentially adds layers of additional bureaucracy and Federal overreach.

The National Ocean Policy has the potential to harm both terrestrial and marine economic values by affecting sectors such as agriculture, fishing, construction, manufacturing, oil, gas, and renewable energy, among others.

This body has taken the position in the past to pause the implementation of the executive order on the National Ocean Policy as this uncertainty continues around the meaning of the policy, how will we implement it, and the unintended consequences.

The policy was developed unilaterally by the prior administration without involving or consulting with Congress.

Additionally, the Natural Resources Committee has expressed concern about the policy, as did a letter signed by over 80 groups supporting the provision in the underlying bill. We are not saying that ocean policy in general does not make sense or is something that we could not support.

My home State of Alabama is a coastal State. All I am saying is that I think we need to revisit this policy, take a bottom-up approach by working with stakeholders, and have something work its way through Congress.

Working to resolve ocean management challenges should be nonpartisan and something that this Congress could achieve; therefore, I oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I agree, it appears that the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration, known as GIPSA, is not currently implementing a provision from the 2015 Grain Standards Act Reauthorization.

Despite the efforts of my colleagues to try and work with the USDA to correct this interpretation, the agency continues down a path of unravelling a longstanding agreement that has allowed a designated official grain inspector to carry out inspections in another geographic area.

I hope this amendment sends a clear message to the Department that they are not following congressional intent, and they should reverse course.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his continuous work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. Each year, the Federal Government requires Davis-Bacon provisions on all sorts of constructions--as has already been mentioned, roads, bridges, dams, buildings, and the taxpayers pay more. You do the math. According to a recent study, Davis-Bacon inflates costs by 22 percent for construction costs. These added expenses come at a time when our Nation is nearly broke.

Therefore, I think it is time to put the taxpayers first, and I encourage my fellow Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe that schools should have more

local control in operating their meal programs, including the establishment of the price a family must pay for the meal. School meal prices differ from one community to the next, and they take into account local food and local labor costs and what families are willing and able to pay. I think it is always best to let the local schools make those decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, which has gained bipartisan support in our full committee. I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's concerns, and I trust his judgment an his experience as, currently, the only pharmacist that is serving in the House of Representatives.

This bill language is similar to the language in our House report. While the underlying bill did not go as far as limiting funds to be spent on the finalization, implementation, or enforcement of the proposed memorandum of

understanding between the FDA and the States, our committee report language is conditional in that the FDA should not finalize the proposed rule if it fails to distinguish between distribution and dispensing a compounded product to a specific patient.

Dispensing is not defined in the Drug Quality and Security Act, and the FDA should not unilaterally take it upon themselves to start regulating the practice of pharmacy since this function is regulated by the State Boards of Pharmacy under the laws of the State legislatures. Therefore, I support the intent of this amendment until FDA clarifies its policy, and I recommend the amendment's approval.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment here. I support what the gentleman is doing with this amendment. I also appreciate his willingness to make a slight change to the amendment in order to maintain support from staff in embassies across the world that help USDA staff open markets to U.S. goods.

With that being said, I would like to urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauroD-CT-3 · Sep 6, 2017

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. While I am glad to see the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill on the floor, this is the first time it has been…

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. While I am glad to see the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill on the floor, this is the first time it has been considered with amendments since the 2010 appropriations cycle. But even with that, I cannot support the underlying bill.

I will be blunt. This process is a sham. The combined omnibus would violate the Budget Control Act caps. It triggers a sequester of $72 billion from the Department of Defense. I am troubled to see the Labor- HHS bill, once again, bearing the brunt of Republican budget cuts.

The overall cuts to nondefense discretionary spending is $8 billion, and the Labor-HHS bill is cut by more than $5 billion. This cut, by the way, is completely unnecessary because the allocations that we approved are approximately $5 billion below what they have said we need for nondefense spending, which is allowed under the Budget Control Act. We have the resources available, yet the majority refuses to allocate them to the essential programs funded through this bill.

I will also note that when adjusting for inflation, the Labor-HHS bill is approximately $30 billion below what it was in 2010.

Instead of moving this bill, we ought to be negotiating a bipartisan budget deal to lift the sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense programs, then we could begin working on a bipartisan basis to draft a reasonable Labor-HHS bill that adequately funds the programs that support the middle class.

The biggest economic challenge of our time is that too many people are in jobs that just don't pay them enough to live on. The programs in this bill provide opportunities for hardworking Americans to improve themselves and for our economy to grow. We need a country that works for the middle class and the vulnerable, not just the wealthy and those with the most lobbyists.

Right now, we grow jobs, but not incomes. The Federal Government has long played a key role in helping American workers learn and grow through workforce development and connecting businesses with talent. But the programs that help grow our economy, educate our students, and protect our women and seniors cannot operate if the Labor-HHS bill is starved for funding, which is why I oppose the underlying bill.

I admit that there are a few bright spots. I strongly support the increases for NIH research, emergency preparedness, special education, and the TRIO and GEAR UP programs. Unfortunately, the modest increases in this bill are far outweighed by decimating cuts to programs that ought to be seeing increases.

This bill fails our students and is fundamentally anti-teacher. It fails to make new investments in Title I. It eliminates $2 billion for supporting effective instruction grants--what that is is teacher training.

This bill's approach to women's health pushes a dangerous and harmful ideological agenda and eliminates funding for Title X Family Planning. It also eliminates the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, and it includes ideological riders that would block funding for Planned Parenthood and effectively block lifesaving research that use stem cells from fetal tissue.

The bill cuts access to the Mental Health Block Grant and the Substance Abuse Prevention Program. It cuts nurse training, tobacco prevention, and it completely eliminates the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative.

It hurts workers by eliminating the Employment Service, which helped nearly 6 million unemployed workers, including veterans, find jobs in 2015. It eliminates grants expanding the highly effective Registered Apprenticeship model that connects jobseekers with good-paying jobs that employers are desperate to fill. It also cuts funding for other job training programs like Job Corps and the Dislocated Workers Program.

Why would we eliminate programs that for so long have been about economic opportunity and a ladder to the middle class?

There are the riders, which I mentioned. This bill blocks funding for the Affordable Care Act. It continues to prohibit funding for gun violence prevention, which has had a chilling effect on gun violence research.

Finally, it prohibits the Department of Labor from ensuring that financial advisers act in the best interests of their clients. This week we expect to see several more harmful riders added to the bill.

At full committee markup, we proposed more than 40 amendments to strengthen and improve this bill, but the majority rejected all of them.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this minibus because the funding in this bill fails to meet our country's needs, and it breaks our promises to women, to seniors, to students, and to our workforce.

While I am strongly opposed to this bill, I do want to thank the committee staff--majority and minority--the ranking member; the chair of the committee; and the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Cole.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it undermines the Drug Quality and Security Act, which we passed here in 2013 to protect patients from contaminated compounded medications, which are drugs that are tailored to the specific needs of an individual patient.

By the way, there is bipartisan opposition to the Carter amendment: myself, Congressman Fred Upton, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, and Congressman Mike Bishop. This is bipartisan opposition.

Let me be clear. The intent of the law was not to go after local compounding pharmacies but, rather, the larger compounding pharmacies who act as big drug companies. Traditional pharmaceutical companies that make vast quantities of drugs are held to robust safety standards. If these large compounding pharmacies intend to manufacture large quantities of drugs like a traditional pharmaceutical company and ship them across State lines, then they should be held to a similar safety standard.

This amendment would change the law and put patients at risk. Some people can potentially die. This is not hyperbole, given that a meningitis outbreak in 2012 was caused by unsafe compounded drugs. That was less than 5 years ago. I am astonished that we would entertain further undermining of the law. The meningitis outbreak associated with the New England Compound Center in 2012 led to 64 deaths and more than 750 illnesses across State lines.

There are inherent risks with compounding medications, and particularly with compounded medications shipped across State lines. That is why, in fact, we passed the Drug Quality and Security Act. By prohibiting the FDA from implementing this law, this amendment exposes patients to a potentially life-threatening catastrophe.

Again, as we saw in 2012, this amendment also takes away incentives for pharmacies to register as an outsourcing facility and gives these facilities no reason to raise their quality and safety standards and to submit to the FDA for inspection. We owe it to the American people to not put their health and their safety at risk. Sixty-four people died.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Chairman, why are we afraid of safety standards? The safety concerns with this amendment are also exacerbated by the fact that many States do not exercise appropriate oversight over compounding pharmacies.

A recent study revealed that nearly half of all States surveyed do not track the number of pharmacies that perform the sterile compounding in their State. They make proactive State oversight impossible.

Do we really want to allow these facilities to go unchecked? That is exactly what this amendment allows.

The FDA is a regulatory agency. It needs the ability to regulate large-scale shipment of compounded drugs across State lines, especially in certain States that have minimal, if any, safeguards for drugs compounded in pharmacies.

I was concerned that this law was weak to begin with, and this amendment would further weaken and threaten the safety of patients. Sixty-four people died, 22 of them in Michigan. We should ensure that any legislation passed by this body is not weakened. The safety of American children and our families and our kids are at stake.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This is not a road, a bridge, a helicopter, or anything else. This is people's lives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Rep. Nita M. LoweyD-NY-17 · Sep 6, 2017

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which would turn back the clock on American excellence, following President Trump's lead on divesting…

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which would turn back the clock on American excellence, following President Trump's lead on divesting from education, health, foreign assistance, science, and infrastructure.

The process for this bill has been outrageous, and this debate, frankly, is an utter waste of time. Just hours ago, Congressional leadership and the President agreed to pass a package including Hurricane Harvey assistance as well as a debt limit extension and a continuing resolution to keep government running until December 15. We should be working to pass that measure now so that we can work toward a bipartisan budget agreement instead of wasting days on a bill that undercuts economic growth and priorities on which families rely, and is so hyperpartisan it will never earn the Democratic support needed to be enacted.

Breaking from longstanding tradition that enables Members to advance amendments in an open process, the Rules Committee required amendments be submitted 12 days ago during the District work period and reported a restrictive, structured rule for relatively few of them so far.

The majority denied consideration of many amendments that would address timely, high-profile challenges, some of which cut to the core of our democracy, and would have been allowed under an open rule. In one of the most egregious examples, the majority blocked an amendment to provide safeguards to ensure the integrity of government reports on violent domestic extremism, the likes of which erupted in Charlottesville in recent weeks, resulting in the death of a young woman exercising her right to freedom of speech.

Not only were amendments to address the President's revocation of DACA deemed out of order, in an affront to the Appropriations Committee and to this institution, the majority removed a bipartisan amendment passed in committee that would have allowed DREAMers to work for the Federal Government.

My friends, we have a responsibility to pass the DREAM Act now. It is absurd that, after years of receiving bipartisan majority support, Republican leadership has refused to allow a vote.

The Rules Committee should make in order amendments to protect the integrity of our elections and the independence of the special counsel's Russia investigation.

This bill also fails on the merits. The nondefense bills are below sequestration levels set in law, slashing funding for teacher training, apprenticeship grants to help young adults train for good jobs, law enforcement grants that help keep our communities safe, environmental protections that ensure we drink clean water, breathe clean air, highway and transit grants that improve the quality of life for our constituents, and a number of scientific and research programs that are important for global competitiveness.

This bill is littered with riders with deep-rooted opposition, like cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. If the majority is serious about governing, loading must-pass spending bills with these policy riders is a surefire way to fail.

Turning to the State and Foreign Operations division of the bill, I want to thank Steve Marchese, Erin Kolodjeski, and Matt Washington with the subcommittee; Liz Leibowitz and Dean Fischer from my office; Craig Higgins, Susan Adams, Clelia Alvarado, David Bortnick, Winnie Chang, Lacy Kilraine, Megan O'Donnell, and Alex Pinson with the majority.

Diplomacy and development efforts are critical to protecting our country's national security and building stronger and more stable communities around the world. That is why cuts in this division are so deeply troubling.

As demonstrated through both the President's unworkable request and the subcommittee's unsustainable allocation, the majority does not fully embrace the vital role diplomatic and development activities add to our national security and economic interests abroad.

On the positive side, the bill sustains our bipartisan and unwavering support for our close ally and partner Israel, as well as Jordan. And I do appreciate Chairman Rogers protecting resources for basic education, water, sanitation, democracy, and some vital women's programs, which provide communities the foundations for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction.

While he rejected the most extreme proposals in the President's budget, the allocation is insufficient to respond to global challenges. We must reverse dangerous and shortsighted cuts for programs such as multilateral cooperation, international family planning, and climate change, as well as the expansion of the Global Gag Rule to all global health programs, and the prohibition on U.S. contributions to UNFPA.

The Rules Committee should have made in order amendments I submitted to strike the expansion of the Global Gag Rule and the ban on funding for the United Nations Population Fund, and to restore essential funding for international development and diplomacy.

Despite the administration's professed hope that other nations will fill the gaps created by cuts in this bill, we are at risk of that void being filled by those who oppose our values and interests, leaving the world far different from what we want for our children and grandchildren.

It is time for the majority to set aside its most extreme proposals, including the border wall and interior immigration enforcement, and work with Democrats to write bipartisan legislation that could actually be enacted.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the outstanding ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense.

(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

(Ms. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued May 8, 2017

115th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2401

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 8, 2017

Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico (for herself, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to prohibit the stigmatization of children who are unable to pay for meals.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Anti-Lunch Shaming Act of 2017.

Prohibition on stigmatization of children who are unable to pay for meals

Section 9(b)(10) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(10)) is amended—

(1)

by striking (10) No physical and inserting the following:

(10)

Discriminatory or stigmatizing treatment of children by schools

(A)

Discrimination based on eligibility

No physical

; and

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(B)

Stigmatization based on lack of funds or debt

(i)

Definition of covered child

In this subparagraph, the term covered child means a child who—

(I)

is a student at a school that participates in—

(aa)

the school lunch program established under this Act; or

(bb)

the school breakfast program established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773); and

(II)

(aa)

does not have funds to pay for a lunch or breakfast at the school; or

(bb)

has outstanding credit that was extended by a school food authority for a lunch or breakfast at the school.

(ii)

Requirements of school food authorities

(I)

In general

A school food authority shall not permit—

(aa)

the public identification or stigmatization of a covered child, such as by requiring the covered child to wear a wristband or display a hand stamp to identify the covered child as a covered child; or

(bb)

any requirement that a covered child, because of the status of the covered child as a covered child—

(AA)

perform chores or any other activity that is not required of students generally; or

(BB)

dispose of a lunch or breakfast after it has been served to the covered child.

(II)

Communications

(aa)

In general

Subject to item (bb), a school food authority shall require that any communication relating to an outstanding credit described in clause (i)(II)(bb) of a covered child shall be directed—

(AA)

to a parent or guardian of the covered child; and

(BB)

not to the covered child.

(bb)

Letters

A school food authority may permit a requirement that a covered child deliver a letter addressed to a parent or guardian of the covered child that contains a communication described in item (aa), subject to the condition that the letter shall not be distributed to the covered child in a manner that stigmatizes the covered child.

Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that—

(1)

(A)

to the maximum extent practicable, an application for a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) is distributed—

(i)

in an understandable and uniform format; and

(ii)

by not later than July 1 each year; and

(B)

a school food authority offers technical assistance to a parent or legal guardian to complete an application described in subparagraph (A);

(2)

each school food authority coordinates with—

(A)

the local educational agency liaison designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)) to ensure that homeless children and youths eligible to receive free lunches and breakfasts under section 9(b)(12)(A)(iv) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(12)(A)(iv)) receive those free lunches and breakfasts; and

(B)

the State agency responsible for administering the State plans under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 621 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) to ensure that foster children eligible to receive free lunches and breakfasts under section 9(b)(12)(A)(vii) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(12)(A)(vii)) receive those free lunches and breakfasts; and

(3)

a school food authority that participates in the school lunch program or the school breakfast program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), respectively—

(A)

shall provide to a child who requests a lunch or breakfast a lunch or breakfast, regardless of whether the child—

(i)

has money to pay for the lunch or breakfast; or

(ii)

owes money for a lunch or breakfast;

(B)

shall not provide to a child who qualifies for a free or reduced price lunch or breakfast an alternate meal that is not provided to students generally; and

(C)

should explore innovative ways to use technology to improve and coordinate communications with parents and guardians with respect to functions such as—

(i)

prepayment for meals;

(ii)

checking balances for school meals;

(iii)

adding funds to accounts for school meals;

(iv)

addressing outstanding debt for school meals; and

(v)

sending automatic emails when an account balance is low.