PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2025
Renaming the National School Lunch Program Act of 2025
This bill renames the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act as the Jean E. Fairfax National School Lunch Act.
People & committees
Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12] · D–NJ
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 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 H.R.1967 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.1967 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.1967 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.1967 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 · 2025-03-06 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.
This proposal would rename the federal school lunch law from the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to the Jean E. Fairfax National School Lunch Act. It would also update references to that law throughout the listed federal statutes. The bill presents the renaming as recognition of Fairfax’s civil rights work and advocacy for children underserved by the school lunch program.
The first section of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 note) is amended by striking Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and inserting Jean E. Fairfax National School Lunch Act.
Each of the following provisions of law is amended by striking Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and inserting Jean E. Fairfax National School Lunch Act:
That Jean E. Fairfax was a civil rights activist
advocating for increased funding of the National School Lunch Program to serve children in areas of concentrated poverty that were disproportionately minorities
Section 1 names this proposal the “Renaming the National School Lunch Program Act of 2025.” Section 3(a) would change the existing school lunch law’s official short title to honor Jean E. Fairfax.
This Act may be cited as the Renaming the National School Lunch Program Act of 2025.
The first section of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 note) is amended by striking Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and inserting Jean E. Fairfax National School Lunch Act.
The bill’s findings credit Fairfax with organizing a study of school lunch participation, testifying about children the program failed to reach, and contributing to reforms. These are the proposal’s stated reasons for the change.
Congress finds the following:
(A) organizing five national women’s organizations and creating the Committee on School Lunch Participation to study the National School Lunch Program; (B) testifying before Congress on multiple occasions to reveal that the implementation of the National School Lunch Program was failing to reach children that needed it most;
(D) having her findings incorporated in National School Lunch Program reform legislation that led to the program becoming more inclusive.
The findings also criticize the current namesake for opposing civil rights legislation and school integration and supporting segregation in the school lunch program. These statements are legislative findings in the proposal.
(3) The National School Lunch Program is named after an individual who— (A) objected to anti-lynching bills and civil rights legislation in Congress and affirmed his belief in white supremacy; (B) opposed school integration and was a contributor to the creation of the Southern Manifesto;
(D) believed that segregation should be maintained while implementing the National School Lunch Program.
Section 3(b) would replace the old law’s name with the new name in the listed statutory references. These are matching name changes, called “conforming amendments.”
(b) Conforming amendments Each of the following provisions of law is amended by striking Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and inserting Jean E. Fairfax National School Lunch Act:
The supplied action snapshot, updated July 21, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on March 6, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-21T19:44:15Z. 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-06. 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 is limited to that version and does not establish absence in 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 particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence 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 treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 21, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI