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 · Jul 8, 2016
Serve More Kids Act
This bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to make several changes to the Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) child nutrition programs.
USDA must: (1) award equipment assistance grants to states for the school lunch and breakfast programs, (2) provide commodity assistance to states for the School Breakfast Program (SBP), and (3) establish a pilot program for providing a third daily meal under the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
USDA may waive or modify the verification sample size requirements under the National School Lunch Program for local educational agencies that demonstrate that the requirement would increase the number of eligible children losing access to benefits or have a disproportionate and adverse impact on vulnerable populations such as migrants and homeless youth.
USDA may grant a request to allow children to consume SFSP meals off-site due to specified factors, including extreme weather, violence and other public safety concerns, or efforts to support innovative meal delivery methods to address transportation barriers and low program participation in rural areas.
The bill modifies the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to:
specify that the food must be nutritious;
specify certification periods for breastfeeding women, infants, and postpartum women;
require state agencies to submit plans and distribute information related to improving access for members of the Armed Forces; and
require USDA to provide additional annual performance bonus payments to state agencies for improving the proportion of breast-fed infants participating in the program.
The bill also reauthorizes USDA grants to states for expanding school breakfast programs.
People & committees
Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4] · D–WI
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.5699 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.5699 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.5699 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.5699 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.