PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORHIP - Mr. Larsen (WA) asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 783, a bill originally introduced by Representative Young, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 3, 2021
Summer Meals Act of 2021
This bill revises provisions related to the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA), which provides meals to children and teens in low-income areas during the summer months when school is not in session.
The bill redefines areas in which poor economic conditions exist, where the SFSP may operate, as areas in which at least 40% (currently, 50%) of the children have been determined to be eligible for free or reduced price school meals under the school lunch and breakfast programs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill reimburses service institutions (other than school food authorities) for up to one meal and one snack per child each day during after-school hours, weekends, and school holidays during the regular school calendar. Currently, such institutions are reimbursed for meals and snacks served to children over the summer months or to children who are on vacation under a continuous school calendar.
USDA may award competitive grants to service institutions to increase participation in the summer food service program for children at congregate feeding sites through innovative approaches to limited transportation and mobile meal trucks.
Service institutions that are participating in the summer food service program for children may serve up to three meals, or two meals and one snack, during each day of operation. Currently, this option is reserved for camps and service institutions that serve meals primarily to migrant children.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORHIP - Mr. Larsen (WA) asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 783, a bill originally introduced by Representative Young, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.783 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.783 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.783 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.783 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.