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 · Mar 13, 2014
Helping Hungry Students Learn Act - Amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (Russell Act) to raise the eligibility level for free lunches under the school lunch program to 185% of the poverty level. (Currently it is set at 130%.)
Eliminates reduced price lunches, for which eligibility is currently set at 185% of the poverty level.
Amends the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to require schools participating in the school breakfast program to provide a free breakfast to each student who desires one. Sets the national average payment for each breakfast served to any child at the national average payment for each free breakfast served during the school year.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires states to provide additional assistance, in the form of higher breakfast reimbursement rates, to schools in which there is an alternative breakfast serving model to increase participation in the school breakfast program, such as by serving breakfast in the classroom or having a school breakfast cart.
Amends the Russell Act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to award grants to assist states with the initial costs of participating in a summer electronic benefits transfer for children program to improve children's access to food during the summer months.
Directs the Secretary to implement a pilot program providing commodities, on a competitive basis, to states to enable nonprofits to serve nutritious food to at-risk school children on weekends and during extended school holidays during the school year. (At-risk school children are those who participate in the school lunch program and reside in an area served by a school in which at least 50% of the students receive free or reduced price meals under the school lunch or breakfast programs.) Includes elementary and secondary schools, school food authorities, food banks or pantries, homeless shelters, and other Secretary-approved emergency feeding agencies as eligible nonprofit program participants. Requires the nonprofits serving such commodities to satisfy safe food storage, handling, and delivery standards established by the Secretary.
People & committees
Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1] · D–NV
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.4249 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.4249 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.4249 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.4249 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.