[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 155 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7814-H7815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 HEALTHY, HUNGER-FREE KIDS ACT OF 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, 
proceedings will now resume on the bill (S. 3307) to reauthorize child 
nutrition programs, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1742, the bill 
is considered read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third 
time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kline moves to recommit the bill S. 3307 to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendments:
       Amend section 205 to read as follows:

     SEC. 205. CONDITION OF RECEIPT OF FUNDS UNDER THE CHILD AND 
                   ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM.

       Section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1766) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(u) Ineligibility of Institutions.--An institution shall 
     be ineligible for funds under this section if such 
     institution employs a child care staff member who--
       ``(1) refuses to consent to a criminal background check 
     that includes--
       ``(A) a search of the State criminal registry or repository 
     in the State where the child care staff member resides and 
     each State where such staff member previously resided;
       ``(B) a search of State-based child abuse and neglect 
     registries and databases in the State where the child care 
     staff member resides and each State where such staff member 
     previously resided;
       ``(C) a search of the National Crime Information Center;
       ``(D) a Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check 
     using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification 
     System; and
       ``(E) a search of the National Sex Offender Registry 
     established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 
     Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.);
       ``(2) makes a false statement in connection with such 
     criminal background check;
       ``(3) is registered or is required to be registered on a 
     State sex offender registry or the National Sex Offender 
     Registry established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection 
     and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.); or
       ``(4) has been convicted of a felony consisting of--
       ``(A) homicide;
       ``(B) child abuse or neglect;
       ``(C) a crime against children, including child 
     pornography;
       ``(D) spousal abuse;
       ``(E) a crime involving rape or sexual assault;
       ``(F) kidnapping;
       ``(G) arson; or
       ``(H) physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense, 
     committed within the past 5 years.''.
       In section 206, strike ``(as amended by section 205)''.

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, with the clock winding down on 
the 111th Congress, there seems to be a rush to push through as many 
bills at the last minute as this majority can manage. Unfortunately, 
this sprint to the finish means the sacrifice of the deliberative 
process. This bill was sent to us from the other body with the demand 
that we accept it as is; that we cannot change a single comma or 
period, much less improve the policy.
  This is a bill that never received a hearing or vote in the Education 
and Labor Committee. Not a single amendment was made in order for 
debate, which means here on the House floor Members were not permitted 
to even discuss possible improvements to the bill.
  This motion to recommit is our last chance to improve the bill, our 
last chance to remove some of its most harmful provisions and insert 
stronger protections for our children; and that is exactly what we are 
attempting to do.
  First, to protect the safety of children receiving meals in a child 
care setting, the motion to recommit requires comprehensive background 
checks for all child care providers. A comprehensive background check 
searches various criminal databases housed at the State and Federal 
levels, as well as the National Sex Offender Registry. With taxpayers 
subsidizing these programs, parents need the peace of mind that comes 
with knowing that their children are not being left in the care of 
individuals with a history of violence, child abuse, or other criminal 
behavior. In fact, many parents today may wrongly believe these child 
care providers have been given a background check because of the tacit 
seal of approval that comes with being a federally funded program. 
Unfortunately, Federal law contains no comprehensive background check 
requirement for child care providers that receive funding under these 
nutrition programs. Currently, only 10 States have a comprehensive 
system that includes a check of the Child Abuse and Neglect Registry, a 
check of the Sex Offender Registry, and a State and Federal fingerprint 
check. Simply checking the fingerprint of a current or future child 
care worker will help advance the safety of countless children.
  Next, the motion to recommit eliminates the middle class tax included 
in this proposal. Any time the Federal Government forces a private 
citizen to reach into his or her own pocket and pay more for a good or 
service, it is a tax by any commonsense definition of the word, and 
that is exactly what this provision would do. It creates a Federal 
price floor for paid school lunches, a floor for paid school lunches, 
forcing many schools to increase the prices they charge the children 
who do not receive free or reduced price meals.
  The National Governors Association and leading school groups have 
spoken out in opposition to this provision because it will drive up 
costs for families and punish schools that have worked hard to hold 
down costs while providing higher quality meals.

[[Page H7815]]

                              {time}  1510

  In a letter to Congress, the NGA wrote, this provision ``would 
establish a Federal mandate for every paid meal in every school in the 
country for the first time ever.'' They went on to say this will, 
``price out some low-income families from paid school meals and punish 
school districts that in good faith have worked to increase the quality 
of school meals, while simultaneously holding down the paid meal 
prices.''
  Allowing the Federal Government to create price mandates is a 
dangerous precedent and should not be set. By approving this motion to 
recommit, we can block this harmful tax on working families. We have 
thoroughly debated the broader objections to this legislation today, 
arguing against the spending and mandate, but that is not the debate 
we're having now.
  This motion to recommit is a modest pair of corrections that will 
make the bill better. It will make our children safer and protect 
working families, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, Members of the House, 
we have known for some time, and certainly known all today, that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this legislation, and 
that's what the gentleman, my colleague, Mr. Kline, just spoke to, his 
opposition to this legislation.
  They have opposed this legislation even though this legislation is 
fully paid for under the PAYGO rules. They've opposed this legislation 
even though it passed unanimously out of the Senate committee. They 
opposed this legislation even though it passed unanimously on the floor 
of the Senate and was sent to us, because they know that we're in the 
last days of this session, and if they can attach something to this 
legislation, they can kill this bill.
  They can kill the years of hard work that have gone into this 
legislation to make it less expensive for school districts, to make it 
more flexible for school districts, to make it easier on parents, to 
make it sure that we have safe meals so, when food is recalled, the 
school districts will be informed right away. Usually, they're the last 
to know that they're serving dangerous and maybe lethal food on the 
food recall.
  They know that what this bill does is create for the first time 
healthy meals so we can address the problems of diabetes and obesity 
that are swamping this Nation's health care system, that are swamping 
the health care budgets of families, of businesses, that start with 
children and have adult onset as a result of that. This effort is 
endorsed by the pediatrics association and every other health care 
association because they understand this is the front line if we're 
going to reverse this trend.
  So now what have they done, as they've talked about the Federal 
Government, extending the mandate of the Federal Government? The 
Federal Government is about to swoop in on family day care providers, 
more family day care providers than any other kind of day care provider 
in the country, very important in rural areas, very important in poor 
areas, person takes care of four or five of their neighbors' friends, 
they know these people. Now they have a mandate. They have to do a 
background check. These are marginal operations. Do they have to pay 
for that? Do they know with certainty who's going to do that? Who's 
going to do that check? And if they're in a school setting, does the 
school district pay for it? They've got to have a background check. If 
they're in a kindergarten as part of a child care program, do they pay 
for that?
  So what they're trying to do is kill this bill. It wouldn't matter 
what this amendment said. If it goes back to the Senate, we've 
struggled all of us mightily, on both sides of the aisle, with the 
nature of the Senate. But here we have the opportunity to have a major 
program, to improve the nutrition and flexibility and the health and 
the safety of this program, and now this is an effort to kill it.
  I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we all want to pursue the legislative process. 
One of the things that has undermined the legislative process in this 
House perhaps on both sides is the ``gotcha'' amendments. This 
amendment has a worthwhile objective, obviously, of protecting our 
children. We're going to give everybody an opportunity to vote on this 
amendment in just a few short hours, and then we're going to pass this 
bill--because the gentleman's debate had nothing to do with this 
amendment until the last few seconds of his remarks.
  His remarks went to the substance of this bill. He's opposed to this 
bill. He said he's opposed to this bill. This bill passed unanimously. 
Unanimously means that every Republican, as well as every Democrat, 
wanted to reach out to provide for child nutrition for America's 
children.
  This bill, I believe, enjoys the majority's support on this floor. 
We'll pass this bill, and we will pass it tomorrow, but we're going to 
give Members on this side of the aisle, as well as on your side of the 
aisle, an opportunity to pass an amendment that in effect says, okay, 
if you want to put these regulations on these small providers in these 
small jurisdictions, fine, we will do it; we want to protect children 
as much as you do. And I've said that during the substance of our 
debate, that we wanted to protect children, and I'm sure you want to 
make sure the children are well fed.
  So, my belief is that we will rise now. We will come back on this 
amendment, which is not related. We'll give you an opportunity to vote 
on your amendment, and then we are going to pass this bill and send it 
to the President of the United States, as the Senate of the United 
States unanimously voted to do.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of S. 3307 is postponed.

                          ____________________