[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18699-18703]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        PLACING CONDITIONS ON CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6469) to amend section 17 of the Richard 
B. Russell National School Lunch Act to include a condition of receipt 
of funds under the child and adult care food program.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6469

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. 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.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kline) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative 
days in which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous 
material on H.R. 6469 into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, today we take up a suspension that 
requires all participating child care feeding situations to run 
background checks on people participating in those settings. We do so 
in support of children across this country who are hungry and who don't 
have access to nutritious meals and who couldn't vote in November, and 
support of this legislation will allow us to pass a clean child 
nutrition bill. They are the ones who don't have a voice but need our 
help.
  Yesterday we postponed final consideration of the child nutrition 
legislation so we could fully address the issues of protecting our 
children while also ensuring passage of the child nutrition 
legislation. Our children cannot afford any more delays. Time is 
running out in this Congress.
  This bill before us today ensures, along with State and Federal laws, 
that all children will be protected in child care. I support this bill 
and hope that it will pass.
  In an effort to prevent passage of the child nutrition bill, the 
Republicans decided yesterday to offer a motion to kill the bill and 
unfortunately to play politics with two important issues--our 
children's safety and our children's health. Make no mistake about it: 
If we accept the motion to recommit, we will kill the child nutrition 
bill.
  Today, this House can take action to both keep children safe and keep 
them healthy by voting for this suspension, against the killer motion 
to recommit, and for the child nutrition bill.
  H.R. 6469 is identical to the background check provisions offered by 
the minority and will help ensure that our Nation's children are 
protected from individuals with a history of criminal or abusive 
behavior. This legislation helps parents by giving them assurance that 
any child care provider participating in the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program has undergone criminal background checks.
  Today's Federal law requires all participants in day care centers and 
homes that participate in the Child and Adult Care Feeding Program to 
be licensed and approved to provide care by State or local agencies. 
There is more to be done to keep children safe and in child care, and I 
hope the Republicans will join me in working to make this happen when 
we take up the reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block 
Grant.
  In the area of background checks for child care programs, most States 
have acted already in some fashion. For example, all but two States 
require criminal background checks for child care center employees. 
Furthermore, all but seven States require screening for child abuse and 
neglect. This legislation goes a step further by ensuring comprehensive 
background checks have been done for the providers at all child care 
programs participating in the Child and Adult Care Feeding Program.
  This legislation is an important opportunity to vote in favor of 
protecting our Nation's children from harm. I urge our colleagues to 
join me in supporting this legislation and later today to vote against 
the motion to recommit and for passage of the child nutrition bill, the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Members on the other side of the aisle talked a great deal 
yesterday--and even again today--about playing politics and gotchas 
here on the House floor, so I feel compelled to take a moment to set 
the record straight.
  Yesterday, the House was supposed to debate and vote on a bill to 
reauthorize Federal child nutrition programs. Rather than allowing 
Members to offer amendments and fully engage in the legislative 
process, the majority decided the U.S. House of Representatives should 
have no say in these programs that affect childhood health and 
wellness. Members of the House would have no involvement in writing 
initiatives to spend an additional $4.5 billion in hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars on legislation that imposes significant operational and 
financial costs on our local school districts.
  They brought this massive child nutrition bill--$4.5 billion in new 
spending and 17 new or expanded Federal programs--to the floor under a 
closed rule. For the record, it was the 97th closed rule in the 4 years 
Democrats have controlled the people's House, 97th closed rule. 
Apparently it's easier

[[Page 18700]]

to dictate the outcome when you prevent legislators from legislating. 
Talk about a gotcha. That's why I offered a motion to recommit, the one 
and only chance we had to remove some of the bill's most harmful 
provisions and insert stronger protections for our children.
  My modest amendment included a pair of noncontroversial changes to 
the underlying bill that should have passed the House overwhelmingly, 
but that did not fit in the majority's plan. You see, as I said less 
than 24 hours ago, the clock is winding down on the 111th Congress, and 
there is a rush to push through as many bills at the last minute as 
this outgoing majority can manage.
  As we witnessed yesterday, the sprint to the finish means the 
sacrifice of a deliberative process. I don't know about anyone else, 
but this seems all too familiar. Perhaps that's because it was just 
this year when the Democrats passed a massive government takeover of 
health care under a closed process. They denied Members an opportunity 
to offer their ideas or amendments. They promised the country a 
fiscally responsible plan while cutting backroom deals to hide the true 
cost of the legislation. All this was done in an effort to pass a 
partisan bill the American people have rejected.
  Instead of letting lawmakers do our job and pass the best bill we 
can, the majority shut down the legislative process to defeat 
improvements to legislation while pretending to support them. Talk 
about playing politics.
  Members will come to the floor shortly to support this bill, and why 
shouldn't they? This proposal, taken from my motion to recommit, the 
child nutrition legislation, protects children by requiring background 
checks for child care providers participating in Federal meal programs. 
It's a good proposal, which is why it belongs in the child nutrition 
legislation. Instead, we understand the majority party plans to execute 
a stunning same-day flip-flop, voting for these background checks now 
only to oppose them when they really count, as an improvement in the 
broader bill.

                              {time}  1250

  They will be for it before they are against it. This procedural 
gimmick may fix the political problem but leaves the policy broken. For 
anyone still wondering why the American people hold their elected 
representatives in such low regard, I believe this is it.
  Notably absent from this so-called cover vote is the other piece of 
our motion to recommit. The Republican plan would eliminate the middle 
class tax hidden in the child nutrition legislation. The Democrats' 
bill imposes an unprecedented Federal price mandate for paid school 
meals. As a result, many schools may have to increase the prices they 
charge children who pay for their meals.
  The National Governors Association and leading school groups oppose 
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. Our proposal would have blocked this harmful tax 
on working families.
  We proposed, during the one and only opportunity we had to do so, a 
modest pair of corrections that would have made the bill better, our 
children safer, all while protecting working families. The majority 
party wants to defeat those corrections, but they cannot do so without 
political cover. So here we stand.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding 
the time.
  I know full well from my experience in the State legislature, as well 
as working on the transition team here, that when one speaks of 
procedural issues, usually people's eyes glaze over. They are boring 
issues. However, good procedures do create good policy. Poor procedures 
create what we are doing here today.
  As was said by the gentleman from Minnesota, had the motion to 
recommit, an amendment, been approved by this body, it would be 
attached in its entirety to the entire bill. This bill, if it goes to 
the President's desk, would have all of that language in it.
  By changing the procedure, pulling the bill from the floor before the 
vote and now stripping out part of the motion to recommit and doing it 
as a suspension, it allows us once again to have political coverage 
that won't take place in reality of making changes in what happens to 
this bill or in the real world. For we all know the suspension that we 
pass here has a very high likelihood of dying in this session.
  So we can come down here and say, yes, we want to protect our kids 
from predators and vote for the suspension knowing full well that that 
probably will never go into effect. It will die over in the Senate, if 
it gets that far, and then we'll vote for a bill that no longer has 
that concept that the House seemed, or at least appeared that it 
wanted, to add to this provision part of that.
  And one of the rationales for doing that is because, well, most of 
the States already have those types of procedures. I hate to say this, 
but that argument can be used for almost all of this bill. See, one of 
the things that would not be included if indeed the suspension passes 
and then the motion to recommit fails is the deal with section 205, 
which, as was mentioned earlier, deals with the amount of money that 
people will pay--not for reduced lunches--but people will pay just 
because they don't qualify for reduced lunches.
  I hate to use a personal example, but I've got to. As many of you 
know, I was a school teacher before I joined this august body. Now, 
this is not something great to note, but as a school teacher, I 
qualified under the standards for reduced lunches for my five kids. And 
as a school teacher who qualified for those reduced lunches, I refused 
to take advantage of that opportunity. I figured that no one had a gun 
to my head when I had the kids; it was my responsibility now to take 
care of my kids.
  I don't think I'm unusual in that respect. I think there are hundreds 
of thousands of people who have the same attitude, that they want to 
take the responsibility for their progeny and the responsibility for 
what takes place. And, unfortunately, if this provision, section 205, 
is allowed to stay in the bill, it means the Federal Government--not 
local school districts, not boards where you actually have a chance to 
talk to people and they understand the demographics and the reasons--
they will make the decision of what people who are paying the full 
price will pay for that price.
  It can go up whenever someone wants it to go up, and has been 
mentioned, it becomes a disincentive for people to be responsible, to 
not ask the government to bail them out, to take responsibility and pay 
for at least school lunches for their own kids or school breakfasts or 
whatever the process has.
  It becomes a counterintuitive argument that harms the process. And 
why? It's because the decision on what level that payment will be will 
no longer be made on the local school district level or at least at the 
State level. It will be made here where a one-size-fits-all program 
does indeed fail the process.
  Now, this is simply--I don't want to call it political gamesmanship, 
but it is poor procedure that will result in two votes: one vote that 
is totally meaningless and another vote that misses the mark and does 
not improve what we're trying to do or what we should do in schools, 
and that is, allow people who really understand the process to have the 
final say at the local level where kids are, where the parents are, and 
where reality should hit. Not here.
  Once again, this is not a school board. However often we have tried 
to act like one, we still are not.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman; and, 
frankly, I think it's important for my colleagues to recognize that we 
have been there, done that. And I don't know how the minority 
consistently managed to trample on a need that

[[Page 18701]]

America has had and that this Congress and this leadership and this 
President is trying to cure.
  Robert F. Kennedy was one of the first elected officials to draw our 
attention to the extensive poverty in America. Going into the 
Appalachian Mountains, he showed the world how children woke up hungry 
and went to bed hungry.
  It is well that the President's commitment and the first lady's 
charge have been to put our children on the front pages of America.
  So I rise to support the underlying Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, 
recognizing we're discussing a suspension that involves all manner of 
confusion.
  But I want America to understand what is really being addressed, 
which I hope my colleagues will overwhelmingly support. It is to 
complement the deficiencies of food stamps. It is to recognize that 
some children get their healthiest meals at breakfast and lunch and 
possibly, because of this program, through the weekend. It connects 
learning abilities with being well-nourished. And it speaks not to 
yesterday, but it speaks to tomorrow, the future of America.
  Now, many of us were concerned of how this was paid for. But if you 
look closely at it, it's an outlay. And the question of food stamps has 
been addressed by discussions that we have had, and no cuts in food 
stamps will occur at this time.
  But what will occur is that we will bring out of the drain of poverty 
those children that are our responsibility. I believe it is crucial 
that we support this legislation now and that we address all manner of 
information and representation that our friends have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. That we deal with the question of sexual 
predators which, as the chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, 
I've worked on extensively. We deal with questions of potential fraud, 
which I don't know where our colleagues are documenting that.
  But what we need to address is the 21 million meals provided through 
this provision that will offer more incentives for a more comprehensive 
school program and allow our children to learn and live. If America 
doesn't accept that as a challenge that it must connect with, then I 
don't know who we are as a people.
  I'm gratified that we have finally recognized that poverty must 
finally be extinguished. I ask my colleagues to vote for the bill going 
forward for our children and our country.
  I rise today to speak about S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids 
Act of 2010.
  S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, is the child nutrition 
reauthorization legislation that has already passed unanimously in the 
Senate. The legislation would dramatically improve the quality of meals 
children eat in school and in child care programs, increase the number 
of healthy meals available to needy children and provide the first real 
increase in the Federal reimbursement rate for school lunches in over 
30 years. The legislation would also eliminate junk food from schools 
by requiring schools, for the first time, to apply nutritional 
standards to food served outside the cafeteria.
  Mr. Speaker, while I wholeheartedly support what the Healthy, Hunger-
Free Kids Act will do, it is unfortunate that we will have to take 
money away from the SNAP program in order to fund it.
  I am concerned that the bill is paid for with a severe reduction in 
SNAP ARRA benefits and that it does not fully address the access 
improvements needed to connect children with those programs. In 
particular, I worry about the potential impact this could have on low-
income children and families. I remain strong in my position to ensure 
that those participating in the food stamp program will not face 
negative consequences as a result of the child nutrition bill. While 
the funding of this bill concerns me, both the SNAP benefits and the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act are necessary to reduce hunger and to 
improve our Nation's health. It would be a shame if either program were 
to fall by the wayside. Our President has indicated that he has all 
intention to ensure a positive commit to the restoration of SNAP funds; 
and given that commitment, I stand here today in support of the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Finally, I believe the 
commitment to cure any funding issue calls for strong support of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we should remember that this Act is not an attempt to 
borrow money from one social welfare program to fund another. The 
intention is to assure that both programs, which will benefit the 
health and wellbeing of children, are adequately funded. Under this 
bill, children who are on food stamps will receive healthy meals while 
at school, and should receive healthy dinners and weekend meals as 
well.
  I recognize that one in four children is at risk of hunger and that 
one in three is overweight or obese, our children cannot afford to wait 
for the improvements to child nutrition that are made in the Healthy, 
Hunger-Free Kids Act. Numerous organizations and advocacy groups that 
are working to reduce hunger and improve nutrition amongst children are 
in support of this legislation.
  In turn, it is also important to recognize that the Healthy, Hunger-
Free Kids Act will also provide more meals for children at risk. 
Included in this act is a provision that will reimburse the Child and 
Adult Care Food Programs (CACFP) in all fifty states for meals provided 
to children after-school. It is widely known, that children who are 
able to stay after school, and not unsupervised on the streets, are 
more apt to succeed academically. The 21 million meals provided through 
this provision will offer more incentives for more comprehensive after 
school programs that will subsequently improve our nation's overall 
academic performance.
  The United States' obesity rates are higher than the majority of 
civilized countries in the world. Nutrition and healthy living is a 
learned behavior, one that is best learned at young ages. Children will 
not have proper nutrition if their parents and guardians do not provide 
it for them. While parents undoubtedly have their children's best 
interest at heart, it is an unfortunate fact that many families simply 
cannot afford to provide their children with elements of a nutritious 
diet composed of healthier ingredients.
  In a 2008 American School Health Association study, published in the 
Journal of School Health, the effects of a healthy diet on academic 
performance were examined and the findings were incredible. It was 
deduced that a diverse selection of food, to meet the recommended 
number of servings of each food group, along with a higher consumption 
of fruit and vegetables, are critical to strong academic performance. 
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 provides access to healthier 
food services to our Nation's children. America's children deserve the 
opportunity to eat healthily, to live healthily, and to succeed 
academically.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stand here to speak on behalf of my constituents in 
Houston, and on behalf of all Texans, I support this child nutrition 
initiative. According to the Texas Department of Agriculture, there are 
approximately 2.9 million participants in the school lunch programs 
statewide. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act will undoubtedly support 
those school lunch programs, and will also ensure that our youth 
receives a healthy, balanced meal while at school. Though these meals 
are offered only at school, they encourage healthier eating habits that 
will hopefully extend throughout the day and throughout their lives. It 
is absolutely imperative that our Nation's schools educate children at 
a young age about healthy active lifestyles and smart food choices.
  I support the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 because of its 
nutrition initiatives aimed at our Nation's youth and because it 
portends billions of dollars in savings over the next ten years. Both 
nutrition and savings are important to our children's futures. This Act 
will save $1 billion over the next ten years by requiring that 12% of 
Federal support for the National School Lunch Program will be provided 
in the form of commodity foods. Furthermore, approximately $1.3 billion 
will be saved over the next ten years by restructuring the education 
component of the SNAP into a new grant program; it will eliminate the 
requirement for States to provide matching funds, and will distribute 
Federal funds instead.
  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is an important step towards a 
healthier future for our children. However, I maintain that it is 
absolutely necessary that SNAP funds are restored, and that that 
program is not foregone in our efforts. I urge my colleagues to mirror 
the Senate, and to support this bill, while calling for a commitment to 
restoring the SNAP funds.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  We're told that in a few minutes we will resume the debate on child 
nutrition where we left off yesterday before we were abruptly 
interrupted by the majority's strategy to prevent legislators from 
legislating.

[[Page 18702]]



                              {time}  1300

  I urge my colleagues, if you support these sensible and important 
protections for children and working families, support our commonsense 
motion to recommit. Listen to the National School Boards Association, 
who in a letter today wrote, ``The motion to recommit recognizes that 
Federal regulation of the paid meal price is not in the best interest 
of school districts implementing school meal programs.'' They are 
urging Congress to support the motion to recommit.
  Listen to child care experts with the National Association of Child 
Care Resource & Referral Agencies, who today announced strong support 
for the motion to recommit to require a background check on all child 
care providers who participate in Federal child nutrition programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the suspension. I ask my colleagues to support 
this suspension. But please, support the motion to recommit and provide 
the real protections our children and families need and deserve.

                                     National Association of Child


                            Care Resource & Referral Agencies,

                                  Arlington, VA, December 2, 2010.
     Hon. John Kline,
     Senior Republican Member, U.S. Committee on Education and 
         Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Kline: The National Association of 
     Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) strongly 
     supports your Motion to Recommit to S. 3307, Healthy, Hunger-
     Free Kids Act of 2010, to require a background check on all 
     child care providers who participate in federal child 
     nutrition programs.
       NACCRRA works with more than 700 state and local Child Care 
     Resource and Referral agencies (CCR&Rs) throughout the 
     nation. These agencies help ensure that families in 99 
     percent of all populated zip codes in the United States have 
     access to high-quality, affordable child care.
       NACCRRA has released several reports that examine state 
     laws and regulations with regard to child care centers and 
     family child care homes. The most recent state requirements 
     reveal that only half the states conduct effective background 
     checks on child care workers--state and federal fingerprint 
     record checks, a check of the sex offender and child abuse 
     and neglect registries. A name check alone leaves children to 
     chance.
       Without a comprehensive check, parents have no way of 
     knowing whether their child care provider has a criminal 
     history. In fact, NACCRRA's 2010 nationwide poll of parents 
     shows that 92 percent of parents support a background check 
     for child care providers. Parents want their children to be 
     safe. The reality is that background check requirements vary 
     greatly by state and most fail to ensure that providers with 
     a criminal history are not caring for children.
       NACCRRA commends your leadership on this issue. Your 
     efforts to ensure that all children are safe in child care 
     and that no one with a violent criminal history is paid to 
     provide child care with federal funds is a testament to your 
     dedication to helping parents know their children are safe 
     while they work.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Linda K. Smith,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            National School Boards


                                                  Association,

                                 Alexandria, VA, December 2, 2010.
     Re Motion to Recommit on S. 3307.

     Hon. George Miller,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John P. Kline,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Kline: The National 
     School Boards Association (NSBA), representing over 95,000 
     local school board members across the Nation through our 
     state school boards associations, is deeply committed to 
     fostering a healthy and positive learning environment for 
     children to achieve their full potential. However, NSBA 
     continues to have grave concerns about the financial and 
     operational impact of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (S. 
     3307) on school districts. The paid meal provision is one 
     example. S. 3307 regulates how districts establish prices for 
     unsubsidized meals, creating an access issue and a local 
     control issue. School districts may try to keep the price of 
     paid meals low in order to assure that children from low-
     income families that don't qualify for subsidized meals can 
     still afford a school lunch. Local school districts are in 
     the best position to determine how to price their meals in 
     order to balance what school districts can afford and what 
     families can afford in these economically challenging times. 
     The Motion to Recommit recognizes that federal regulation of 
     the paid meal price is not in the best interest of school 
     districts implementing school meal programs. We urge you to 
     support the Motion to Recommit as a means to enable the 
     Congress to give more thorough review of the entire bill and 
     to address several objections NSBA has to S. 3307 in its 
     current form.
       Questions regarding our concerns may be directed to Lucy 
     Gettman, director of federal programs at 703-838-6763; or by 
     e-mail at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael A. Resnick,
                                     Associate Executive Director.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it was said that 
yesterday we rose so that we would be able to defeat the motion to 
recommit on the child nutrition bill, that somehow this was a misuse or 
abuse of procedure. I think what we see today is that we were very wise 
to do that, because the intent of that motion to recommit on the child 
nutrition bill was to kill the bill.
  Now, ordinarily we would have accepted that motion to recommit on 
this bill. But we are all aware, we are beat over the head in this 
House with what's going on in the Senate. The Senate Republican leaders 
just sent a letter signed by all 42 Republicans that they would not 
consider any legislation until the tax cut legislation is dealt with. 
In The New York Times, it says it will cast a long shadow over all 
remaining legislation before their body. In The Wall Street Journal, 
The Wall Street Journal says that it throws a roadblock up before an 
array of other issues that have been proposed in the Senate.
  We knew yesterday that we were dealing with a bill that came from the 
Senate that was the subject of many hearings in the Senate committee, 
that passed after debate and amendment unanimously, bipartisanly out of 
the committee. It was reported to the floor and, after debate, was 
passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.
  We also know that we are not going to be able to offer the House bill 
that Mr. Kline, myself, our staffs, the members of our committee on 
both sides of the aisle worked on because we cannot get it considered 
in the Senate. We know that we must take, now, the Senate bill if we 
are going to make the progress on many of the issues that we agree on 
across this aisle that are in this bill. But we also know that we will 
not be able to change this bill from the Senate that passed unanimously 
and send it back into that Senate in the current array, because now any 
Senator will be able to object to what was previously done by unanimous 
consent because of other issues that are taking place in the Senate.
  While we agree on the substance of the motion to recommit, we could 
not let that kill this bill. So today the Members can make their 
concerns known and vote for the suspension. I hope they will on both 
sides of the aisle. That can be sent to the Senate. And if the Senate 
feels the same urgency that we do about the protection of our children, 
both to make them safe and make them healthy, they can take up that 
suspension vote by UC sometime late before Christmas and pass it.
  If not, I am sorry to say the gentleman will be chairman of the 
committee in January, and this can come out on--I am not sorry that you 
will be the chair--I am kind of sorry that you will be the chairman--
not that you will be the chairman, but the chairmanship will go to the 
other side of the aisle. But anyway, this can come up on suspension and 
be sent to the Senate.
  But we cannot risk the value of the underlying child nutrition bill. 
We cannot risk the changes that it makes to make those school lunches 
and breakfasts and nutrition programs safer for our children with the 
changes in the recall law when something goes very wrong in our food 
supply in this country and children's lives are threatened, their 
health is threatened, as are families of general recalls. The schools 
must be notified on a timely basis.
  We cannot give up the opportunity that's in this bill to provide for 
healthier meals to combat this incredible increase in our Nation of 
obesity

[[Page 18703]]

and diabetes and children presenting with adult diseases and illnesses 
because of diet. This is one of the first lines of defense against 
obesity and diabetes as designed by the American Pediatrics 
Association, the Nutrition Association, people who are concerned with 
and understand and deal with, on an everyday basis, the health of 
America's children. We are trying to incorporate that in this 
legislation. So that's what's at risk here.
  So we are trying to do it the best way for the Members of the House, 
where we don't have to put at risk the child nutrition bill, but we can 
clearly state that this is a priority of the House to protect our 
children in these settings by having background checks for the 
providers of those.
  I would suggest that it may be better done in the next session, when 
we can look at what is the cost of that on small providers, on family 
day care providers. There is some story out today suggesting it may be 
hundreds of dollars per provider or hundreds of dollars per employee. 
So we can look at that. But the fact of the matter is the letter sent 
by Senator McConnell to Senator Reid basically says no other issues 
will come up before the tax cuts are dealt with.
  Now, the tax cuts, what he is saying is, until they get the tax cuts 
for the wealthiest people in this country, the poor children in this 
country who need child nutrition, who need school lunches, who need 
school breakfasts will have to wait. This House has an alternative. We 
can vote to pass the child nutrition bill and we can send it to the 
President of the United States today, and then they will be assured 
that those school lunches that are healthier, that are safer will be 
there. And finally, let me say, they will also be assured, as will 
their parents and the taxpayers of this Nation, that the moneys that we 
appropriate for eligible children will be used on eligible children, 
that we are not going to cross-subsidize other activities in the school 
with Federal moneys designed for the lunches and the breakfasts and the 
snacks of poor children in this country.
  And I know that the other side apparently doesn't like this provision 
of 205, but this is about accountability. We don't allow people in the 
food stamp program to go out and subsidize other people in the 
supermarket who think they don't want to pay whatever the price is for 
what they are buying in the supermarket. We don't say, Oh, here. Take a 
couple food stamps and do that.
  We are not going to use Federal taxpayer dollars and child nutrition 
dollars to cross-subsidize other activities in schools and then risk 
the ability to pay for the lunches of the poorest children in this 
Nation.
  So today you can vote for this suspension bill on background checks; 
you can vote against the motion to recommit, save the child nutrition 
bill, and send it to the President of the United States and make it the 
law of the land. And I hope my colleagues will do that and will do it 
with great pride that we are making dramatic improvements in the child 
nutrition programs of this Nation to be more efficient, more 
transparent, to be healthier, and to be safer for this Nation's poor 
children.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6469.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________