PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 3, 2026
Feeding Our Rural Kids Act of 2026 or the FORK Act of 2026
This bill establishes a summer meal delivery vehicle pilot program as part of the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). (The SFSP is a federally funded, state-administered program that reimburses providers that serve no-cost, healthy meals and snacks to children and teens at summer sites in low-income communities.)
Under the bill, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) must award one-year grants of up to $100,000 for service institutions (e.g., school food authorities) to purchase, retrofit, or repair vehicles to facilitate noncongregate meal distribution. This is meal distribution outside of the typically required group, or congregate, setting (e.g., grab-and-go meal service).
Among other things, USDA must give priority to service institutions located in an area in which poor economic conditions exist and that serve a high proportion of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. USDA must also ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that service institutions receiving grants are located in different states.
People & committees
Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 15, 2026. 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 H.R.10038 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 H.R.10038 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 H.R.10038 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 H.R.10038 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Feeding Our Rural Kids Act would create grants to help meal-service institutions buy, modify, or repair vehicles for delivering summer meals that children can eat away from a group meal site. It would prioritize institutions based on local economic conditions, geography, and student disadvantage. The bill would authorize funding; it would not itself provide the money.
This Act may be cited as the Feeding Our Rural Kids Act of 2026 or the FORK Act of 2026.
to award grants to eligible entities to purchase, retrofit, or repair vehicles to facilitate the distribution of noncongregate meals made available pursuant to this section.
the Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities located in— (i) an area in which poor economic conditions exist; (ii) an area outside a core-based statistical area (as defined in section 4 of the MAPS Act of 2021 (31 U.S.C. 6102 note; Public Law 117–219)); and (iii) an area that serves a high proportion of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the pilot program $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2029.
Section 2 would add the pilot program to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Eligible applicants would be “service institutions,” a term whose underlying statutory definition is not supplied.
Section 13(a) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(A) Definition of eligible entity In this paragraph, the term eligible entity means a service institution.
The Secretary would have to establish the pilot, with operations beginning in the first summer following the date 180 days after enactment. Grants would support vehicle purchases, modifications, or repairs for distributing noncongregate meals—meals eaten away from a group meal setting—under the existing statutory section.
(B) Establishment The Secretary shall establish a pilot program (referred to in this paragraph as the pilot program), to be carried out beginning with the first summer following the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this paragraph, to award grants to eligible entities to purchase, retrofit, or repair vehicles to facilitate the distribution of noncongregate meals made available pursuant to this section.
The Secretary would have to prioritize eligible institutions in areas with poor economic conditions, outside a “core-based statistical area,” and serving a high proportion of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. The geographic classification is defined by reference to another law, which is not reproduced.
(C) Priority In awarding grants under the pilot program, the Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities located in— (i) an area in which poor economic conditions exist; (ii) an area outside a core-based statistical area (as defined in section 4 of the MAPS Act of 2021 (31 U.S.C. 6102 note; Public Law 117–219)); and (iii) an area that serves a high proportion of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Secretary would have to spread grant recipients across different states to the maximum extent practicable. This is a qualified requirement, rather than a guaranteed allocation to every state.
(D) Locations In awarding grants under the pilot program, the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that eligible entities receiving grants are located in different States.
Each grant would last one year and could not exceed $100,000. Recipients could use no more than 10 percent of their grant for administrative expenses.
(i) Term The term of a grant awarded under the pilot program shall be 1 year. (ii) Maximum amount The amount of a grant awarded under the pilot program shall not exceed $100,000. (iii) Administrative expenses An eligible entity awarded a grant under the pilot program shall use not more than 10 percent of grant funds for administrative expenses.
Recipients would have to report periodically on how they used the money and its impact, including the number and types of sites benefiting and the number of children served. The Secretary would set the reporting intervals.
(iv) Report requirement An eligible entity awarded a grant under the pilot program shall periodically submit to the Secretary, at such intervals as determined by the Secretary, a report describing the use and impact of the grant funds, including— (I) the number of sites, and type of sites, that benefitted from the pilot program; and (II) the number of children served as a result of the pilot program.
The Secretary would have to provide technical assistance and share best practices with grant recipients.
(F) Technical assistance; best practices The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to, and share best practices with, eligible entities that receive grants under the pilot program.
Within four years after establishing the pilot, the Secretary would have to report to Congress on its administration and summarize recipients’ reports.
(G) Report Not later than 4 years after the date of establishment of the pilot program, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the administration of the pilot program, including a summary of the reports received by the Secretary under subparagraph (E)(iv).
The bill would authorize Congress to provide $1 million for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2029. An authorization permits future funding legislation; it does not itself appropriate, or supply, those funds.
(H) Authorization of appropriations There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the pilot program $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2029.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 15, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on August 3, 2026. It does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-15T13:11:07Z. 2026-08-03: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-08-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This text-only conclusion does not establish the absence of formal earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified beyond the program’s intended coverage and general priority criteria. This conclusion is limited to the complete supplied introduced text.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 15, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI