FISCAL Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]
ID: F000479
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
(sigh) Oh joy, another exercise in legislative theater. Let's dissect this farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The FISCAL Act (because "Freedom" is always a great marketing gimmick). This bill claims to promote "freedom" by forcing schools to offer a variety of milk options, including plant-based alternatives. How noble. In reality, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to appease the dairy and plant-based lobbies.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to require schools to offer multiple types of milk, including fluid milk and plant-based milk. Because, you know, kids were just dying for more options in their school lunches. (eyeroll) The changes are largely semantic, with some cleverly worded amendments that essentially boil down to "we're going to make sure the dairy industry is happy."
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Schools, students, parents, and – most importantly – the dairy and plant-based industries. Because who doesn't love a good lobbying effort? The bill's sponsors (Fetterman, Kennedy, and Booker) are likely just pawns in this game of special interest politics.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo." It won't actually improve the quality or nutritional value of school lunches. Instead, it'll create more bureaucratic red tape for schools to navigate while appeasing powerful lobbies. The real impact will be felt by taxpayers, who'll foot the bill for this unnecessary legislation.
Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Special Interest-itis," a disease characterized by an overabundance of lobbying efforts and a complete disregard for actual policy effectiveness. Symptoms include meaningless amendments, cleverly worded language, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Treatment: a strong dose of skepticism and a willingness to call out the obvious lies.
In short, this bill is a joke. A cynical attempt to curry favor with special interests while pretending to care about the well-being of students. (chuckles) Ah, politics. Where the only thing more abundant than the spin is the stupidity.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 16 nodes and 23 connections
Total contributions: $73,500
Top Donors - Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]
Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 302 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Re-evaluate excessive regulation. As for baby formula regulations generally, labeling regulations and regulations that unnecessarily delay the manufacture and sale of baby formula should be re-evaluated.80 During the Biden Administration, there have been devastating baby formula shortages. Return to the Original Purpose of School Meals. Federal meal programs for K–12 students were created to provide food to children from low-income families while at school.81 Today, however, federal school meals increasingly resemble enti- tlement programs that have strayed far from their original objective and represent an example of the ever-expanding federal footprint in local school operations. The NSLP and SBP are the two largest K–12 meal programs provided by federal taxpayer money. The NSLP launched in 1946 and the SBP in 1966, both as options specifically for children in poverty.82 During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal policymakers temporarily expanded access to school meal programs, but some lawmakers and federal officials have now proposed making this expansion per- manent.83 Yet even before the pandemic, research found that federal officials had already expanded these programs to serve children from upper-income homes, and these programs are rife with improper payments and inefficiencies. Heritage Foundation research from 2019 found that after the enactment of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) in 2010, the share of students from middle- and upper-income homes receiving free meals in states that participated in CEP doubled, and in some cases tripled—all in a program meant for children from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line (Children from homes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for free lunches, while students from families at or below 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced-priced lunches).84 Under CEP, if 40 percent of students in a school or school district are eligible for federal meals, all students in that school or district can receive free meals. However, the USDA has taken it even further, improperly interpreting the law85 to allow a subset of schools within a district to be grouped together to reach the 40 percent threshold, As a result, a school with zero low-income students could be grouped together with schools with high levels of low-income students, and as a result all the students in the schools within that group (even schools without a single low-in- come student) can receive free federal meals.86 Schools can direct resources meant for students in poverty to children from wealthier families. Furthermore, the NSLP and SBP are among the most inaccurate federal programs according to PaymentAccuracy.gov, a project of the U.S. Office of Man- agement and Budget and the Office of the Inspector General.87 Before federal auditors reduced the rigor of annual reporting requirements in 2018, the NSLP had wasted nearly $2 billion in taxpayer resources through payments provided to ineligible recipients.88 Even after the auditing changes, which the U.S. Government
Introduction
— 302 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Re-evaluate excessive regulation. As for baby formula regulations generally, labeling regulations and regulations that unnecessarily delay the manufacture and sale of baby formula should be re-evaluated.80 During the Biden Administration, there have been devastating baby formula shortages. Return to the Original Purpose of School Meals. Federal meal programs for K–12 students were created to provide food to children from low-income families while at school.81 Today, however, federal school meals increasingly resemble enti- tlement programs that have strayed far from their original objective and represent an example of the ever-expanding federal footprint in local school operations. The NSLP and SBP are the two largest K–12 meal programs provided by federal taxpayer money. The NSLP launched in 1946 and the SBP in 1966, both as options specifically for children in poverty.82 During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal policymakers temporarily expanded access to school meal programs, but some lawmakers and federal officials have now proposed making this expansion per- manent.83 Yet even before the pandemic, research found that federal officials had already expanded these programs to serve children from upper-income homes, and these programs are rife with improper payments and inefficiencies. Heritage Foundation research from 2019 found that after the enactment of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) in 2010, the share of students from middle- and upper-income homes receiving free meals in states that participated in CEP doubled, and in some cases tripled—all in a program meant for children from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line (Children from homes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for free lunches, while students from families at or below 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced-priced lunches).84 Under CEP, if 40 percent of students in a school or school district are eligible for federal meals, all students in that school or district can receive free meals. However, the USDA has taken it even further, improperly interpreting the law85 to allow a subset of schools within a district to be grouped together to reach the 40 percent threshold, As a result, a school with zero low-income students could be grouped together with schools with high levels of low-income students, and as a result all the students in the schools within that group (even schools without a single low-in- come student) can receive free federal meals.86 Schools can direct resources meant for students in poverty to children from wealthier families. Furthermore, the NSLP and SBP are among the most inaccurate federal programs according to PaymentAccuracy.gov, a project of the U.S. Office of Man- agement and Budget and the Office of the Inspector General.87 Before federal auditors reduced the rigor of annual reporting requirements in 2018, the NSLP had wasted nearly $2 billion in taxpayer resources through payments provided to ineligible recipients.88 Even after the auditing changes, which the U.S. Government — 303 — Department of Agriculture Accountability Office said results in the USDA not “regularly assess[ing] the pro- grams’ fraud risks,” the NSLP wasted nearly $500 million in FY 2021.89 The SBP now wastes nearly $200 million annually.90 Despite the ongoing effort to expand school meals under CEP and the evidence of waste and inefficiency, left-of-center Members of Congress and President Biden’s Administration have nonetheless proposed further expansions to extend federal school meals to include every K–12 student—regardless of need.91 The Administra- tion recently proposed expanding federal school meal programs offered during the school year to be offered during the summer as part of the “American Families Plan,” and also proposed expanding CEP. Other federal officials, including Senator Bernie Sanders (I–VT), have, in recent years, proposed expanding the NSLP to all students.92 To serve students in need and prevent the misuse of taxpayer money, the next Administration should focus on students in need and reject efforts to transform federal school meals into an entitlement program. Specifically, the next Administration should: l Promulgate a rule properly interpreting CEP. The USDA should issue a rule that clarifies that only an individual school or a school district as a whole, not a subset of schools within a district, must meet the 40-percent criteria to be eligible for CEP. Education officials should be prohibited from grouping schools together. l Work with lawmakers to eliminate CEP. The NSLP and SBP should be directed to serve children in need, not become an entitlement for students from middle- and upper-income homes. Congress should eliminate CEP. Further, the USDA should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes. Currently, students can get meals from schools even if they are not in summer school, which has, in effect, turned school meals into a federal catering program.93 l Restore programs to their original intent and reject efforts to create universal free school meals. The USDA should work with lawmakers to restore NSLP and SBP to their original goal of providing food to K–12 students who otherwise would not have food to eat while at school. Federal school meals should be focused on children in need, and any efforts to expand student eligibility for federal school meals to include all K–12 students should be soundly rejected. Such expansion would allow an inefficient, wasteful program to grow, magnifying the amount of wasted taxpayer resources. Reform Conservation Programs. Farmers, in general, are excellent stewards of the land, if not for moral or ethical considerations, then out of self-interest to
Introduction
— 303 — Department of Agriculture Accountability Office said results in the USDA not “regularly assess[ing] the pro- grams’ fraud risks,” the NSLP wasted nearly $500 million in FY 2021.89 The SBP now wastes nearly $200 million annually.90 Despite the ongoing effort to expand school meals under CEP and the evidence of waste and inefficiency, left-of-center Members of Congress and President Biden’s Administration have nonetheless proposed further expansions to extend federal school meals to include every K–12 student—regardless of need.91 The Administra- tion recently proposed expanding federal school meal programs offered during the school year to be offered during the summer as part of the “American Families Plan,” and also proposed expanding CEP. Other federal officials, including Senator Bernie Sanders (I–VT), have, in recent years, proposed expanding the NSLP to all students.92 To serve students in need and prevent the misuse of taxpayer money, the next Administration should focus on students in need and reject efforts to transform federal school meals into an entitlement program. Specifically, the next Administration should: l Promulgate a rule properly interpreting CEP. The USDA should issue a rule that clarifies that only an individual school or a school district as a whole, not a subset of schools within a district, must meet the 40-percent criteria to be eligible for CEP. Education officials should be prohibited from grouping schools together. l Work with lawmakers to eliminate CEP. The NSLP and SBP should be directed to serve children in need, not become an entitlement for students from middle- and upper-income homes. Congress should eliminate CEP. Further, the USDA should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes. Currently, students can get meals from schools even if they are not in summer school, which has, in effect, turned school meals into a federal catering program.93 l Restore programs to their original intent and reject efforts to create universal free school meals. The USDA should work with lawmakers to restore NSLP and SBP to their original goal of providing food to K–12 students who otherwise would not have food to eat while at school. Federal school meals should be focused on children in need, and any efforts to expand student eligibility for federal school meals to include all K–12 students should be soundly rejected. Such expansion would allow an inefficient, wasteful program to grow, magnifying the amount of wasted taxpayer resources. Reform Conservation Programs. Farmers, in general, are excellent stewards of the land, if not for moral or ethical considerations, then out of self-interest to — 304 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise make sure their land and—by extension, their livelihoods—remain intact. Farmers are often called the original conservationists.94 When evaluating federal conservation programs, it is important to remember the importance of the land to farmers. In terms of USDA federal conservation programs, both the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) oversee numerous programs.95 As a general matter, the next Administration should ensure that these programs address genuine and specific environmental concerns with a focus on currently existing environmental problems, not those that are speculative in nature. These conservation programs should have clearly identifiable goals, with the success or failure of these programs being directly measurable. Any assistance to farmers to take specific actions should not be provided unless the assistance will directly and clearly help to address a specific environmental problem. Further, any assistance to encourage farmers to engage in certain practices should only be provided if farmers would not have adopted the practices in the first place. There are specific issues that the next Administration should address. The Conservation Reserve Program,96 which is run by FSA, pays farmers to not farm some of their land. This program has recently received attention, as agricultural groups rightfully seek to farm without penalty voluntarily idled land, in light of the consequences to food prices of Russia invading Ukraine.97 There is also a need to reform USDA’s conservation easements. These easements are a powerful tool to incentivize long-term preservation of ecosystems while still allowing farmers to benefit economically. However, when farmers and ranchers sign conservation easements with the USDA, they can be enforced in perpetuity. Future generations, be they the descendants of the landowner or new residents, are bound by those conditions. Ecosystems and topography naturally change over time, but without legislative change, easement requirements will not. The next Administration should: l Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program. Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land. If there is a desire to ensure that extremely sensitive land is not farmed, this should be addressed through targeted efforts that are clearly connected to addressing a specific and concrete environmental harm. The USDA should work with Congress to eliminate this overbroad program. l Reform NRCS wetlands and erodible land compliance and appeals. Problematic NRCS overreach could be avoided entirely by removing its authority to prescribe specific practices on a particular farm operation in order to ensure continued eligibility to participate in USDA farm programs,
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.