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 · Aug 5, 2015
Hunger Free Summer for Kids Act of 2015
This bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to establish electronic benefit (EBT) cards and off-site consumption as two alternative delivery options for schools and service institutions in the summer food service program for children.
These options shall be available to a child only if the child lives either in a rural area or outside of an area in which poor economic conditions exist, or, in the case of off-site consumption, if the summer program is available to the child at a congregate feeding site but the site is inaccessible, as specified by the bill. A state may not operate the EBT card option and the off-site consumption option simultaneously in the same area.
Each state desiring to participate in the summer food service program shall include in its annual management and administration plan the state's plans for using one or both of these alternative delivery options.
People & committees
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR] · R–AR
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.1966 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.1966 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.1966 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.1966 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.