[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.
____________________