PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 5, 2013
Reducing Federal Mandates on School Lunch Act - Prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing, administering, or enforcing a specified regulation, or promulgating or enforcing any new rule or regulation, establishing a maximum calorie limit or quantity of grains, meat, or meat alternatives for the school lunch program.
Prohibits the Secretary from implementing, administering, or enforcing specified rules and regulations with respect to any school food authority that certifies to its state that it: (1) has calculated the costs of complying with such rules and regulations; and (2) has determined, in a manner consistent with school district operational procedures, that it cannot operate a food service program without incurring increased costs for complying with those rules and regulations.
Identifies those rules and regulations as:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
the rule entitled "National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010";
any new rule regarding foods sold in schools that are not foods provided under the school lunch or breakfast programs;
a specified regulation and any new rule or regulation regarding school lunch price increases; and
a specified regulation and any new rule or regulation which establishes new food-based meal patterns, nutrition standards, or meal planning approaches for the school breakfast program.
Prohibits the Secretary from defining the phrase "costs of complying" or establishing or suggesting how a school food authority is to calculate those costs or increased costs for complying.
Maintains these prohibitions until a law is enacted that extends by at least five fiscal years the authorization or duration of one or more school lunch or breakfast programs.
People & committees
Rep. Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD-At Large] · R–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Mar 23, 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.3663 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.3663 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.3663 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.3663 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.