PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 8, 2017
Anti-Lunch Shaming Act of 2017
This bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to establish requirements for the treatment of a child who is a student at a school participating in the National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program and is unable to pay for a meal at the school.
The bill applies to a child who either does not have funds to pay for a meal or has outstanding credit that was extended by a school food authority (SFA).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A SFA may not permit public identification or stigmatization of the child, such as by requiring a wristband or hand stamp. The child also may not be required to: (1) perform chores or activities that are not required of students generally, or (2) dispose of food after it has been served to the child.
Any communication related to outstanding credit must be directed to the child's parent or guardian. A child may be required to deliver a letter regarding outstanding credit that is addressed to a parent or guardian if the letter is not distributed to the child in a manner that stigmatizes the child.
The bill also expresses the sense of Congress regarding several issues regarding the administration of the school meal programs.
People & committees
Sen. Udall, Tom [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.1064 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 S.1064 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 S.1064 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 S.1064 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.