Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to expand the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) to pay benefits during defined school-closure periods as well as summer months.
Liberals emphasize reducing child hunger; conservatives emphasize cost and federal overreach.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory amendment that specifies eligibility expansion, defines key terms, provides transitional administrative funding, and supplies a targeted implementation grant appropriation.
Amends the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act to expand the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) to pay benefits during defined school-closure periods as well as summer months.
Requires benefit amounts at least equal to the free breakfast, lunch, and snack daily value, phases federal reimbursement of state administrative costs from 100% in FY2026 down to 50% in FY2031 and later, defines "school closure period," and provides a one-time $50 million Treasury transfer for state data system implementation.
Narrow, administratively focused expansion of an existing program with specified funding makes passage plausible, subject to fiscal concerns and legislative priorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory amendment that specifies eligibility expansion, defines key terms, provides transitional administrative funding, and supplies a targeted implementation grant appropriation. It integrates directly into the existing statute with explicit edits and timelines.
Liberals emphasize reducing child hunger; conservatives emphasize cost and federal overreach.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize reducing child hunger; conservatives emphasize cost and federal overreach.
Likely strongly supportive because it closes a gap when children lose access to school meals and sets benefit levels at the free rate.
Praises the initial full admin funding and investment in state systems, while noting the need for sustained funding for benefits.
Generally favorable if implementation costs and funding are transparent.
Views the expansion as a reasonable safety net extension, but wants clear, durable budget authority and metrics to limit waste and administrative burden.
Likely opposed or skeptical due to expansion of federal involvement and potential ongoing costs.
May accept short-term emergency support but demands offsets, stricter eligibility, or sunset provisions to limit permanence.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administratively focused expansion of an existing program with specified funding makes passage plausible, subject to fiscal concerns and legislative priorities.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize reducing child hunger; conservatives emphasize cost and federal overreach.
Narrow, administratively focused expansion of an existing program with specified funding makes passage plausible, subject to fiscal concern…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory amendment that specifies eligibility expansion, defines key terms, provides transitional administrative funding, and supplies a targeted implemen…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.