PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 665.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Dec 8, 2016
Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016
This bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to reauthorize and modify: (1) child nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and other institutional food service programs; and (2) the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
The bill extends the authorizations for:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
the Summer Food Service Program,
WIC,
the WIC Farmer's Market Nutrition Program, and
State Administrative Expenses.
(Under current law, several programs such as the NSLP and the School Breakfast Program are permanently authorized.)
For the child nutrition programs, the bill makes policy changes that:
establish a demonstration project to permit up to three states to receive a block grant instead of open-ended funding currently provided by several child nutrition programs;
require the Department of Agriculture to review school meal regulations every three years and make any necessary revisions;
increase reimbursement rates for the School Breakfast Program;
increase the eligibility threshold for participation in the Community Eligibility Provision that permits schools in high poverty areas to serve all meals free of charge;
permit states to provide summer meals away from a congregate site (specific sites where children come to eat and are supervised) in rural or low-income areas without access to summer service; and
revise application verification requirements for the school meal programs.
For WIC, the bill:
authorizes appropriations at the current FY2016 level for the next five years,
permits commercial availability and participant demand to be considered when amending the list of supplemental foods, and
modifies the competitive bidding and contract award process for infant formula and infant foods.
People & committees
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN-4] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 665.
Committee on the Budget discharged.
Committee on the Budget discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 114-852, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 114-852, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 14.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.5003 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.5003 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.5003 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.5003 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.