Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the DREAM Act.

This is common sense, bipartisan legislation that is a win for our economy.

First, in this economy, we need the best, the brightest, the most capable and the most qualified to be a part of the American workforce.

This legislation will allow a limited group of very capable, high achieving young people to help contribute to the economic well-being of this country.

These are young people who didn't come to this country through their own free choice.

But, they are young people who have worked hard to graduate high school or obtain a GED.

These are young people who have contributed to their communities and to this country.

If we turn our backs on these students, then we're turning our backs on a qualified and competitive workforce.

Second, Madam Speaker, simply put, this legislation is the right thing to do.

Critics who argue that the DREAM Act would diminish opportunities for students in this country with full citizenship must not know anything about our colleges and universities.

Our Nation's higher education institutions have the capacity to welcome these students, as many already do, without closing the door for other students.

This Congress has passed historic legislation to increase college access and opportunity for all students.

The bill before us today continues to provide that access to a higher education not only by providing these students a path to citizenship, but allowing them access to critical student aid through loans and work-study.

The financial cost of a higher education is too often a barrier to attending higher education.

It is critical that this bill ensures access to student aid, and gives students a chance at affording a higher education.

It is important to note that this bill allows students to enter into a conditional nonimmigrant status for an initial period of 5 years, which shall be extended for an additional five years as long as they have fulfilled all requirements for extension.

After 10 years in this conditional status, eligible students may apply for lawful permanent residence. Once applicants receive conditional non-immigrant status, DREAM Act participants, like lawful permanent residents and unlike many nonimmigrants, are considered to be residing in the United States lawfully without being required to maintain a residence outside the U.S. or have an intent to leave the U.S. As such, conditional nonimmigrants under the DREAM Act should be considered as' residents of the states that they reside in when considering tuition rates at public institutions of higher education, as long as they meet all other residency requirements for in-state tuition.

By passing this legislation, we can reward smart, civic-minded, goal- oriented students and provide access to the American dream.

Let's not punish students and the future of this country.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6547) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require criminal background checks for school employees.

Madam Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6547 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all children in our country. I rise for all parents who send their children to school with the understanding that their children will be safe.

Last week, the Committee on Education and Labor released a disturbing, outrageous report from the Government Accountability Office highlighting cases where convicted sexual offenders were working at schools. In 11 of the 15 cases, sexual offenders who were hired or retained by schools had previously targeted children, and in six of those cases, the sex offenders used their job to target and abuse more children, and this is unacceptable.

This report is frightening insight into what happens when rules aren't followed or simply aren't in place. It showed that in many cases comprehensive background checks could have easily prevented these crimes from occurring. It also showed that some school districts knowingly passed on a potential predator to another school district, allowing the offender to resign instead of reporting him or her. It is outrageous that a sexual or violent predator of children can be passed from school to school.

The Government Accountability Office found that school systems either did not have complete information or, perhaps worse, chose to ignore the problem or to make it worse by providing positive recommendations about the employee, knowing that they had abused children in their care. In many places, the current system of ensuring our students' safety is broken. It has huge gaps that are allowing our children to be vulnerable to sexual predators.

Madam Speaker, this Congress can do more to protect our children. The Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act will help keep our

children safe in school by requiring States to take commonsense steps. First, schools will be required to comprehensively conduct background checks for any employees using State criminal and child abuse registries and the FBI's fingerprint database.

Second, schools will be prohibited from hiring or retaining anyone who has been convicted of certain violent crimes, including crimes against children, crimes involving rape or sexual assault, and child pornography.

This bill will prevent more children from being put in unsafe environments because the adults who are responsible for their well- being failed to do their jobs.

A 2004 Department of Education report estimated that millions of students are subjected to sexual misconduct by school employees at some time between kindergarten and the 12th grade. Coupled with the findings of last week's GAO report, it is very clear that this legislation is absolutely critical. Parents have a right to believe that their children are safe in schools, and schools have an obligation to fulfill that promise.

This bill is only part of the solution, but it is an important step forward. The GAO report sent shock waves through households across the country. We owe it to parents and to the children and to the honorable school officials who follow the rules to pass this legislation. We also owe it to them to send a strong message that people who abuse children or do not do their jobs to keep children safe will face serious consequences.

I hope that the next Congress will be able to take an even more comprehensive approach to protect children in our schools, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would quickly say that I would like to thank the gentlelady from Illinois for her cooperation on this. I know this isn't the best process, but at the end of the session, having the Government Accountability Office report land on our desk on our watch, I felt it was important that we pass this legislation today to clearly send a very strong message to school districts across the country that they have to meet their responsibility to keep our children safe during school hours. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for all of his work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act.

This legislation makes strategic and smart investments in students pursuing degrees in the science, technology, engineering or math fields.

It continues the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, which encourages students studying in STEM fields to earn a teaching credential and enter the classroom.

It makes changes to encourage more colleges and universities to participate in these programs.

This will ensure we have prepared teachers in our nation's science and mathematics classrooms to educate and inspire the next generation of engineers and entrepreneurs.

The COMPETES Act also continues funding for the Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs--programs that set high standards and give students the advanced skills they need for the workforce of tomorrow.

This legislation couldn't come at a more important time. It invests in our future competitiveness at a time when our global reputation is not where it should be.

Over just the past few years we have begun to reinvigorate and awaken the American drive to innovate, but we have much further to go.

Earlier this month, the results of the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment showed that the United States ranks average, or 17th out of the 33 other industrialized nations.

The difference between the countries at the top of these rankings and the U.S. is that the countries that are outperforming us have made developing the best education system in the world a national goal.

They've recognized that the strength of their economy will be inextricably tied to the strength of their education system in the 21st century.

It is time we decide as a nation that we can no longer afford to stay just average.

By passing this legislation, we will continue our efforts to strengthen the STEM fields. We will improve our global competitiveness and our economic stability.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson today to recognize the great accomplishments of our friend Byron Leydecker, who recently announced that he will conclude operation of Friends of the Trinity River, the organization he founded eighteen years ago and has led ever since.

The Trinity River flows through mountains in coastal northern California and is the largest tributary of the Klamath River. These rivers supported huge bountiful populations of both Chinook and Coho salmon, steelhead and other fish that sustained native Americans for millennia and visitors from other continents for the past two centuries. The impacts of ill-advised and poorly managed development had devastated both the Trinity and the Klamath. Thanks in large part to Byron, the Trinity is on its way to recovery.

He pushed the Department of the Interior to develop and then implement the historic 2000 Trinity Record of Decision, he has worked tirelessly ever since to ensure that the Trinity restoration program goes forward as intended, and he has pushed the agencies to follow the science.

Byron has led an active and vigorous organization over the years, devoting his time, energy, and financial resources to make a real difference in the direction of the Trinity River restoration program, which is today one of the leading efforts of its kind.

Byron and FOTR have worked with the usual alphabet soup of government agencies, as well as tribes, fishermen, and water and power interests, to develop and implement the restoration plan. Byron has always been consistent and persistent, cooperative when possible and tough when needed.

Thanks to Byron and the work of FOTR, the Trinity River is now in better shape than at any time since the 1960s--we have seen increased flows, a healthier fishery, and a stronger scientific foundation for its management.

While there will always be snags and eddies in these undertakings, the successful restoration of the Trinity River will serve as a national model of a restored river below a federal dam. The Trinity River could have no better friend than Byron Leydecker. We are grateful to Byron for his leadership, and thank him for all his work on behalf of healthy rivers and sustainable fisheries.

Madam Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman John Garamendi, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman Jerry McNerney, and Congressman Pete Stark to recognize East Bay Municipal Utility District General Manager Dennis M. Diemer and congratulate him as he approaches his well-earned retirement.

Mr. Diemer's career in public service demonstrates his lifelong commitment to the citizens and communities of the East Bay. We are grateful to him for his service to our constituents.

He began his career with EBMUD in 1981 as a senior environmental engineer, and over the ensuing years he was promoted to positions of increasing responsibility at the agency. In 1995, the board of directors selected him to serve as acting general manager, and he was appointed as general manager on February 13, 1996.

In California, where our water fights are legendary, Dennis' collaborative approach helped EBMUD make strides toward a secure water future. Working with the district's board of directors, Dennis and his team focused on identifying and working with partners for water supply projects. He played a significant role in ending years of water wars between the East Bay, the Sacramento area, and the environmental community, an effort which evolved into the Freeport Regional Water Project.

Dennis' work has made a long-term difference in the environmental quality of the Bay Area. He has long promoted protection of San Francisco Bay, from his work in the 1980s managing a collaborative effort with local communities to abate uncontrolled sewage discharges into San Francisco to more recent efforts to forge agreements that put EBMUD and local communities on a long term path toward controlling wet weather discharges to the Bay. In addition, under his watch, the district's new long range plan included a pioneering analysis of the potential impacts of climate change on future water supply. These actions will result in better protection of public health and the environment.

Dennis has demonstrated exceptional leadership for EBMUD, making the organizational and process improvements necessary to anticipate and adapt to changes in regulations, technology, the environment, and the world around us.

Madam Speaker, I invite our colleagues to join us in honoring General Manager Dennis Diemer for his dedicated service to the people of California and the Bay Area. We are pleased to join with his family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating Dennis on a long and highly successful career and wish him a happy and healthy retirement.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time to speak on this legislation.

It is very clear, because of the fragile state of our economy, that there are many important provisions in this tax bill before us. For middle income families, it means their tax rates will not go up. For people in need of unemployment insurance, it extends those benefits another 13 months. And for families struggling to make ends meet, this bill extends tax credits for them so that they can pay for their children's education and they can take care of their children. These are lifelines for hardworking families that are struggling in this economy.

I have fought my entire public career for these tax breaks to support middle income families to make college more affordable. These provisions help some 155 million Americans in this economy.

But that's not all that's in this tax bill. Tragically, these 155 million Americans were held hostage to a ransom that the Republicans would only help these families, help these individuals, help these students struggling in school if we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country. It is as if the wealthy don't have enough money and struggling middle class

families have too much. But that was the price that was extracted for this legislation to help these 155 million Americans struggle through this economic downturn.

So we see that some $25 billion will be lavished on 6,600 of the wealthiest estates in this country. These are estates in excess of $10 million for a husband and wife. These are estates that have used all of the tax laws to minimize the size of that estate to their advantage before they pay the estate tax. But the Republicans were not prepared to give unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are struggling to find work unless they could provide this money to the wealthiest people in the country. This is not fair, it will unnecessarily increase the deficit, and it has no stimulative value.

Economist after economist has told us what happens with this money when you give it to the wealthiest people in the country. They put it in the bank, and some day they may use it or they won't use it. It's not like middle income families that have to pay the rent, pay the lights, send their kids to school. It's a completely different operation.

So no stimulative value to giving billions and billions of dollars to the richest 2 percent of the people in the country; it's not fair in terms of the resources of this country being used for those individuals while other families struggle; and it creates deficit unnecessarily. If you're going to create the deficit, at least it ought to be stimulative, at least it ought to grow the economy; that's not what this does. It should be rejected for this reason because this deficit, beginning the first of the year, will start immediately coming out of the hides of programs that support these very same middle income families and the education of their children.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, as amended, that will give an opportunity to both sides to address what, I think, is an egregious provision in this bill. It, unfortunately, I think, also mirrors another provision in this bill, which is the tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of the people in this country and to a handful of estates, to some 6,000 estates. It gives them a $25 billion tax cut at a time when working families are struggling to keep their families together.

Also is the fact that it does nothing in terms of stimulus, in terms of job creation. These tax cuts to the wealthy, so many economists have said, is the least stimulative thing you can do. They simply don't spend the money in a timely fashion because they don't need to spend that money. The second one, of course, is that the estate tax provides no stimulative impact either to the economy. In talking

about doing this for the sake of the economy, what we are really doing is cutting taxes to people and to estates that will not contribute to economic growth, so we are creating debt that is unnecessary to create.

You know, we are a couple of weeks away from the debt commission. We are a couple of months away from when people were concerned whether the United States was going to look like Greece or Spain or Portugal. Along we come now, and we're not even prepared to make the distinction as to whether or not we would create debt for, hopefully, stimulative purposes and/or just hand out tax breaks to people who don't need them and who won't contribute to the improvement of the economy. Yet it will clearly be put on the debt of this Nation, and it will clearly have to be dealt with in the ensuing Congresses where it will drive a series of decisions that aren't necessary, but neither was the debt necessary.

I do think this rule is an improvement because it will give the opportunity for those individuals who want to vote against this tax cut for this limited number of estates to do so. Then whether they vote for that or against that or whether that prevails or doesn't prevail, the individuals will still have the ability to vote against this legislation as this is not to suggest that the amendment addresses all that is wrong with this legislation.

It doesn't address the tax cuts for the high income. It doesn't address the complications of the payroll holiday and what that means to the financing of Social Security over the long term, the ability of this Congress to change that a year from now, the fact that that can lead to tax increases for individuals, and that it's less progressive than the higher provision that was in the original Recovery Act to provide assistance to middle-income families.

There are a number of good provisions in this legislation. There are tax provisions in here to help educate their children, to take care of their children, and the extension of unemployment for a year, but I would hope that we would support the rule. As inadequate as this legislation is, I would hope that we would support the rule.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for a negotiated solution to the decades-long conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I will be voting in favor of the resolution introduced by my friend from my home state of California, Congressman Berman, as I believe that only a negotiated solution to which all parties agree will achieve lasting peace.

However, I would like to note that I believe that this resolution unwisely addresses only one issue standing in the way of Israeli- Palestinian peace, even while numerous other issues continue to plague the peace process. I believe that the resolution is fully correct that the Palestinian Authority should not seek statehood unilaterally. Yet, I do not believe that unilateral actions by either side that undermine efforts to achieve a negotiated solution are helpful in achieving our shared goal of peace in the region. In fact, I believe that they are extremely counterproductive.

Moreover, I believe that it is critical that this Congress support the Obama Administration's continued efforts to negotiate with each of the parties over substantive issues to make progress toward a settlement so that an eventual return to direct negotiations can be successful. Indeed, Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell is in the region now working to make substantive progress.

Once again, I support this resolution, but I believe that it unfairly only addresses one of a number of complex issues standing in the way of achieving a negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, S. 3307, to reauthorize and improve the child nutrition programs and the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC. Further, I wish to expand upon my floor remarks to clarify the intent of my support for specific provisions included in this legislation.

This legislation makes important improvements to improve children's access to the child nutrition programs, improve quality of nutrition benefits provided, protect the Federal investment, and promote financial solvency of program providers. S. 3307 provides robust reforms that inspire public-private partnerships, ensure better stewardship of Federal funds, and better meet the nutritional needs of children.

Many of these provisions included in S. 3307 were also considered in H.R. 5504, The Improving Nutrition for America's Children Act, which was reported favorably out of the Committee on Education and Labor on July 15, 2010 with a bipartisan vote of 32-13. I am pleased that both pieces of legislation share many critical priorities to strengthen the child nutrition programs and provide the following clarifications on provisions within S. 3307.

Improving Access to School Meal Programs

First, this legislation authorizes the Secretary to directly certify eligible children for free school meals using Medicaid data. Direct certification is a method to automatically enroll eligible low-income children for free school meals using data from specific means tested programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

Direct certification of eligible children for free schools meals reduces household and administrative burden, and can improve program integrity by relying on electronic data matching systems rather than household income applications. Direct certification using Medicaid data has the potential to be a very promising mechanism to substantially reduce the number of families that have to complete a household application for school meals in addition to other Federal means tested programs with similar income requirements.

While H.R. 5504 established a nationwide option for all States to utilize direct certification using Medicaid data, S. 3307 limits implementation to a demonstration project in school districts selected by the Secretary. Despite the more limited scope, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision will connect approximately 115,000 more eligible children with free school meals each year that currently do not participate.

Furthermore, I commend the Secretary of Agriculture for committing to take additional administrative action to bolster this legislation and further improve children's access to the school meal programs by testing new effective methods for maximizing the use of direct certification to improve eligible children's access to free and reduced price school meals. Upon passage of this legislation, I urge the Secretary to maximize the potential of direct certification using Medicaid data by using the pilot authority established in section 18(c) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to test specific methods that may more effectively identify eligible children. Specifically, I encourage the Secretary to use this authority to identify effective statewide direct certification systems using Medicaid data, or to test methods by which Medicaid data may be effectively used to directly certify eligible children for reduced price meals.

Secondly, this legislation creates new alternatives for low-income schools and districts to count and claim reimbursable meals by establishing additional community-data based methods rather than household applications. Section 104 of this legislation allows the Secretary to reimburse high-poverty schools or districts based on an approximation of the number of students who would qualify for free or reduced priced meals. The Secretary will make this determination based on data from direct certification or other rigorous community survey data to determine the percent of children attending schools or districts that are income eligible for free or reduced price school meals. This provision makes school meals more accessible to low-income children and will significantly reduce administrative burden for schools.

It is important that the Secretary recognize that the authority provided by this provision allows these alternative counting and claiming methods to be available to any school or district nationwide, consistent with the parameters of the provision. There are approximately 12,000 schools in which more than 80 percent of students are certified for free or reduced price meals. I urge the Secretary to ensure that these new options for counting and claiming reimbursable meals be available to all eligible high-poverty schools that elect to participate, to conduct appropriate outreach, and to provide necessary technical assistance to support adoption and compliance.

Increasing Participation in the School Breakfast Program

I am pleased that this legislation includes section 105, an authorization of grants to expand the school breakfast program. This provision recognizes the important role that the school breakfast program plays in promoting diet quality, learning, and curbing child hunger. This section authorizes the Secretary to focus technical assistance and support to increase children's access to this program by implementing best practices to provide breakfast, including through tested best practices such as breakfast in the classroom or by offering the meal service as part of the school day.

I am disappointed, however, that this legislation does not provide critical funds to help schools overcome initial start-up barriers, such as minor equipment costs or inadequate staffing. Barriers such as these can preclude schools from moving toward sustainable school breakfast program improvements. I appreciate, though, that the Secretary has expressed his commitment to expanding children's access to this important program through administrative actions which encourage best practices in school breakfast programs such as meal delivery outside of the cafeteria and the offering of school breakfast as an integral part of the school day. The Secretary's commitment will help to ensure that children who want to participate are able to participate in school breakfast programs.

Improving Diet Quality through the School Meals Programs

I understand the Secretary is currently working to promulgate proposed regulations to update the school meal nutrition standards to reflect the recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. The last time that the nutrition standards for school meals were revised was in 1995. Improvements to reflect current science are long past due and I urge the Secretary to work expeditiously to promulgate proposed regulations to update school nutrition standards.

There have been concerns expressed by stakeholders that the improvements necessary for the school meal patterns to reflect current

nutrition science will require additional investment to cover higher food costs and other increases in foodservice costs. The Institute of Medicine, in their report to the Secretary that included science-based recommendations to update the school meal patterns, estimates that if the Secretary were to fully implement their recommendations that food costs may increase by 4 to 9 percent for lunch and 18 to 23 percent for breakfast.

S. 3307 provides an additional 6 cent reimbursement for all reimbursable lunches served that meet the new nutrition requirements, and provides a total of $100 million over 2 years for technical assistance to support implementation of new requirements for healthier meals. This additional Federal support is adequate to make important changes to the quality and safety of the school meals programs. I remain concerned, however, about imposing unfunded mandates on schools and urge the Secretary to ensure that the final nutrition standards consider cost and additional burden that would be borne by school districts and school foodservice for compliance.

National Nutrition Standards for Foods Sold in Schools

This legislation includes a provision, section 208, that requires the Secretary to update nutrition standards for foods sold in competition with the school meals through vending machines, a la carte lines, and school stores. The sale of unhealthy foods and sodas in schools undermines the annual $12 billion federal investment in these programs.

The standards would apply to foods sold throughout the school campus and during the school day. Section 208 requires the Secretary to establish standards based on the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans and take into consideration authoritative scientific recommendations, existing State, local, and voluntary industry nutrition standards, and the practical application of the standards. Section 208 does not affect school parties or classroom celebrations, and provides a special exemption for school-sponsored and approved fundraisers that occur infrequently within the school during the official school day.

Current regulations for competitive foods have not been updated in 30 years, despite significant improvements in our understanding of nutrition science, and escalating childhood obesity rates. Current competitive food regulations apply only to a limited number of items sold in the food-service area during meal times. While there have been many voluntary improvements at the State and local levels, as well as across the food and beverage industry, there continues to be drastic inconsistencies that impact schools' economies of scale, as well as failing to ensure children, regardless of where they live and attend school, have access to school environments that give them opportunities to make healthful decisions. This provision would give the Secretary authority to ensure schools apply minimum nutrition standards throughout the school day and the school campus.

There have been concerns expressed by certain stakeholders that these nutrition standards will reduce important revenue generated to support school programs and activities. According to studies conducted by the Department of Agriculture, the Center for Disease Control, and the Center for Weight and Health at U.C. Berkeley, the majority of schools switching to healthier competitive foods don't lose money, but actually increase revenue.

I urge the Secretary to work expeditiously to promulgate regulations to establish nutrition standards for foods sold in schools. In developing and implementing these regulations, I further urge the Secretary to ensure that there is ample opportunity for public comment and engagement to ensure that this important reform is implemented in a responsible manner, that prioritizes children's health, and ensures necessary flexibility for schools.

Improving Diet Quality in the Child and Adult Care Food Program

The Child and Adult Care Food Program is critical to improving young children's diets, reducing the risk of unhealthy weight gain, and helping them start school ready to learn. More than 3.5 million children under age five are cared for in childcare centers, and many more are cared for in less formal arrangements. Children spend more than 30 hours a week in childcare, on average. Childcare providers share significant responsibility in promoting children's healthy growth and development.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program helps to provide critical support to childcare providers to ensure children have access to healthy meals, snacks, and childcare environments. Research has shown that children who consume meals at childcare through the Child and Adult Care Food Program eat healthier food than children who bring meals and snacks from home.

Many childcare providers participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program have made significant improvements recently to improve the quality of food provided in the program, as well as to promote healthier childcare environments. Childcare providers, especially those providing less formalized care in family homes, can benefit from information on best practices employed by other providers, as well as ongoing technical assistance and guidance.

Section 221 of this legislation supports the identification and dissemination of best practices to promote healthy childcare environments, nutrition quality, and physical development and activity opportunities for young children. I strongly encourage the Secretary, and in providing guidance to States, to ensure that costs associated with improving nutrition and wellness in childcare be given significant consideration before making any voluntary or required improvements to the nutrition quality of meals and snacks provided through the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

I urge the Secretary to ensure that providers have access to technical assistance and guidance that specifically addresses ways to improve the quality of meals and snacks without increasing costs. If the Secretary identifies that additional Federal support is necessary to ensure that reimbursable meals and snacks provided in the Child and Adult Care Food Program reflect current nutrition science, I urge the Secretary to provide Congress with legislative recommendations to ensure that this Program continues to meet the nutritional needs of young children.

Adequate resources for quality school meals

School meal programs are funded through a long-standing partnership of Federal, State, local governments, and support from parents. This partnership has ensured the success of these programs and helped them remain financially solvent. However, a USDA study found that the average revenue collected for meals served to children not eligible for the meal program equaled only about 81 percent of the federal reimbursement provided for free lunches.

I recognize that the Federal reimbursement for free meals is intended to cover, on average, the average costs of providing a reimbursable meal that meets the nutrition requirements. All children, however, regardless of whether they receive free, reduced price, or paid meals must have access to the same reimbursable meals. I am concerned that school food authorities often do not generate adequate supplemental revenue from non-Federal sources to cover the average costs of providing a reimbursable meal that meets the Federal nutrition requirements. As a result, many school food authorities must cut costs that compromise the quality, nutrition, taste, and service of school meals for all children. This undermines the intent of the Federal investment.

This legislation includes a provision, section 205, to ensure that school foodservice programs have adequate resources to provide nutritious meals that meet the minimum nutritional requirements and balance the budget at the end of the year. Section 205 requires that school districts account for revenue generated for the school lunch program from Federal and non-Federal sources, and if the district is generating an average revenue that is less than the Federal reimbursement for a free school meal, then the district must increase the average price across the district by (a) the margin of difference; or (b) no more than 10 cents, whichever is less.

This provision does not require school food authorities to raise school meal prices and it does not penalize families who must pay for their school meal. School districts retain the authority to establish local prices for paid meals and it is up to the school district to determine how to ensure there is adequate revenues to support the foodservice program in the school, based on the parameters established in this provision. Furthermore, this provision does not require that a school district charge the same price or generate the same revenue for each lunch served in each school. Schools and school districts retain local authority to determine prices, to generate adequate revenue, and to manage their programs to best meet their needs. I feel that this provision will offer schools greater flexibility in operating a high quality school nutrition program.

I urge the Secretary to provide guidance to school foodservice, school districts, and school administrators on all options for increasing non-Federal revenue. Options include, but are not limited to, local contributions, increasing State-level contributions, and generating revenue through greater use of school foodservice equipment. Schools should account for all revenue and exhaust all other revenue options prior to raising the prices charged to households with children not eligible for free or reduced price meals.

I am concerned that raising the price of a school lunch can place a burden on some households and about the impact that higher prices may have on participation. Participation in the school lunch program by children from all income levels is critical to ensuring that the school meal programs promote the health and well-being of all children, not just low-income children. I urge the Secretary to make the importance of participation a priority when promulgating regulations to implement section

205 and ensure that implementation does not negatively impact children's access to the program.

I also further request that the Secretary provide the Committee on Education and Labor and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee in the Senate, annual reports describing implementation and an assessment of any consequences or impact from implementation. These reports should also include any recommendations for administrative or legislation adjustments to the policy, if necessary.

Protecting Students Privacy and Reducing Stigma of Participation in the

Child Nutrition Programs

The school environment has an important influence on children's behavior and their choices, which can strongly impact their health and wellbeing. The cafeteria and food service setting, such as the display of foods, the integration of reimbursable school meals with foods sold outside of the reimbursable meal programs, and methods of payment can result in the unintentional identification of children by their household income status, or in social stigma for receiving reimbursable meals.

Children should be able to participate in the child nutrition programs with dignity and without consequence of social stigma. Currently, the Richard. B. Russell National School Lunch Act requires that school food authorities ensure children eligible for free or reduced price school meals are not overtly identified as low-income by their participation in the school meal programs. I am concerned, however, that the current guidance to school districts to ensure that children participating in the school meal programs are not overtly identified is not keeping up with the modern school food environment.

Section 143 of this legislation requires the Secretary to review local policies on meal charges and the provision of alternate meals for compliance with requirements for preventing overt identification. I urge the Secretary to also include in the review an examination of the design of the school foodservice area, the methods for conducting payment transactions, and policies for providing reimbursable meals to children from households with outstanding debt to identify ways in which these practices may result in a negative social or nutritional impact on children.

There are increasing examples of schools implementing policies to provide alternate reimbursable meals for children that lack sufficient resources to pay for the meal. I understand the critical importance of balancing school district and school foodservice budgets, and many schools are not in a position to cover the additional cost of offering meals at no charge to children who are not eligible for free reimbursable meals. However, I believe it is important for schools to establish thoughtful policies to address circumstances in which children lack sufficient resources to pay for school meals to ensure that these policies do not stigmatize children, and to ensure that children are not forced to go hungry because of situations outside of their control. For example, if a school has a policy to provide a different meal to children that lack sufficient resources to pay for a reimbursable meal, this practice can identify the child for having insufficient resources and can result in social stigma.

As part of this review, the Secretary should also identify ways in which the modern school food environment may inadvertently stigmatize children or fail to protect their privacy. For example, there is concern that when school foodservice areas separate lines for children with cash for non-reimbursable food and meals and children selecting reimbursable meals into other lines, that children selecting a reimbursable meal may be identified as low-income or otherwise differentiated from children paying cash for food.

In addition to the review and follow up actions required under provision 143 of this legislation, I urge the Secretary to provide schools with technical assistance and guidance to prevent overt identification. Furthermore, I urge the Secretary to reinforce policies regarding meal charges and alternate meals with guidance to States and school districts regarding appropriate efforts to determine whether children of households in arrears for school meal program payments may be eligible for free or reduced price school meals. Finally, in addition to enhanced technical assistance and guidance, I urge the Secretary to enhance oversight of schools' compliance with requirements to prevent overt identification to ensure schools are taking the necessary steps to protect the privacy of children participating in the school meal programs.

Conclusion

I feel strongly that these provisions are critical to the robust reforms to improve access to the child nutrition programs to end child hunger, to improve the quality of these programs to curb childhood obesity, and to better protect the Federal investment.

I look forward to working with the Secretary upon passage of this legislation to ensure effective implementation of this important legislation.

Today, I am pleased to support the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3817, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Reauthorization Act of 2010.

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Reauthorization Act is the only Federal legislation exclusively dedicated to preventing, assessing, identifying, and treating the effects of child abuse and neglect. This reauthorization includes a number of important reforms for more use of the best practices in the child welfare system.

First, the bill focuses on the vulnerable populations, unaccompanied homeless children, as well as children with disabilities. Second, the bill improves and strengthens data collection and analysis to improve the State coordination of overall services to help prevent child abuse. Third, we improve the training of people who work with abused or neglected children to ensure that best practices are followed, that families remain whole, when possible, and that children are removed from dangerous situations when needed.

This Democratic Congress has taken swift action in the past to address issues of the safety of our children in school, in child care and in treatment facilities. It is clear we need to do more to help our children in their homes. This bill will also address domestic violence by reauthorizing the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act.

I want to thank the gentlewoman who just preceded me in the well, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, for her leadership and efforts to highlight this important issue.

It is a sad reality that, during economic downturns, domestic violence occurrences happen more frequently. We know that nearly one in four women is abused by a partner in her adult life, that three women are killed by their partners every day in this country, and that 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence each year. We know that women between the ages of 16 and 24 are at the greatest risk of being victims of domestic violence. That is why this legislation is so important and why we allow dating violence victims to be recognized as recipients of services under this legislation.

It is very important in this legislation to protect women from this violence. It was over 30 years ago when I visited the first Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was started by women in order to help protect women and to try to get them services. Later, there came to this Congress a first appropriation for services to shelters--protecting women from domestic violence situations and trying to show them how, if necessary, they would be able to live independently or that shelters would be able to provide counseling for their abusers and would see whether or not children could be protected.

That was a long time ago. We have come a long way in this country. This legislation is incredibly important, and we must continue this effort of protecting these most vulnerable partners who are abused in their relationships on an everyday basis in this country--still in numbers far too great for us to consider that this problem has been solved.

I want to thank Congressmen Kline, Guthrie, Platts, and others for their help on this legislation; and I want to thank Carolyn McCarthy, the subcommittee chair, for all of her work and all of her concern that she has expressed and devoted her time to with respect to both the issues of child abuse and of domestic violence, issues that resulted in this legislation.

I hope, with these quick few changes, we will be able to send this back to the Senate and that they will support it.

I want to thank the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands for managing this very important piece of legislation on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6495) to improve compliance with mine safety and health laws, empower miners to raise safety concerns, prevent future mine tragedies, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6495 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the House today considers urgently needed legislation to address life-threatening gaps in our Nation's mine safety laws. Despite progress made over several decades in mine safety, more than 600 miners have been killed on the job in the last 10 years. Most recently, 29 coal miners were killed in a massive explosion in April that killed miners over a 2-mile swath and twisted railcar tracks like pretzels.

Since that tragedy, we have learned a great deal about the systemic weaknesses in mine safety laws. After every major tragedy, promises are made by public officials to miners and their families--to the survivors--that timely action will be taken to make sure that this thing never happens again.

The Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act is our chance to finally make a downpayment on that promise.

First, the bill addresses the broken pattern of violation sanctions. With these fixes, those mine operators who repeatedly violate safety standards will be held accountable. Current law on the patterns of violations has so many loopholes that it invites delays and allows some coal mine operators to game the system.

Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine was a perfect example of an operator repeatedly skirting the law and putting workers' lives in the crosshairs. The Upper Big Branch mine was subject to 515 violations and to 54 withdrawal orders in 2009, more than any other mine in the country. Red flags were waving about this mine's repeated unwarrantable failures.

And yet, because Massey indiscriminately appealed many of those violations, it evaded the stronger sanctions that would have improved the conditions and perhaps saved lives.

The bill sets clear and fair criteria to identify mines with significant safety problems and eliminates the incentives for mine owners that game the system. Had this been in place, I believe the 29 miners who lost their lives in the Upper Big Branch mine would be alive today.

Second, the bill gives miners modern protections against retaliation if they speak up about the dangerous conditions under which they work.

Stanley ``Goose'' Stewart was working in the Upper Big Branch mine the day it exploded. He testified twice before the committee about the persistent fear and intimidation faced by workers from the Massey management. He said that in his years working for Massey, they took coal mining back to the early 1900s. He urged us to give miners the ability to stand up to rogue mine operators.

This bill empowers miners to speak up about safety concerns by strengthening whistleblower protection and gives miners the right to refuse to work in unsafe conditions.

Third, many have asked why the Mine Safety and Health Administration failed to close down unsafe mines, such as Upper Big Branch, with repeated violations of the law. This bill clarifies that MSHA can seek a court order to close a mine that engages in a course of conduct that endangers the miners.

Fourth, MSHA lacks sufficient subpoena power for investigation inspections. Under current law, MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, can only issue subpoenas in the context of witnesses for a public hearing. The legislation gives MSHA the subpoena power it needs for full investigations.

Fifth, miners testified that in many parts of the country MSHA does not inspect mines during weekends or night shifts. This legislation would require that inspections occur on all shifts and days of the week. If inspection times are unpredictable, operators will be motivated to work more safely across all shifts.

Sixth, the bill provides meaningful sanctions against those who intentionally provide advance notice of unannounced mine safety and health inspections. All too often, mine operators call ahead of inspectors and direct that violations be covered up, depriving mine inspectors of the ability to detect unsafe working conditions.

Finally, witnesses told us how safety devices like methane detectors were tampered with so that mining equipment would not automatically shut down and stop production if methane levels got too high. Today, this violation is a mere misdemeanor. Under this legislation, tampering with these devices would be a felony. These reforms will only apply to coal mines, underground mines that release significant amounts of methane and combustible gases, and underground metal mines.

The bill is the result of months of deliberations with stakeholders and experts, including miners, families, academics, State officials, and various sectors of the mining industry. The legislation is part of our ongoing commitment to the families of the Aracoma, Sago, Crandall Canyon, Darby, and, now, Upper Big Branch mine disasters that their loved ones' deaths would not be in vain and their calls for change would be heeded.

The legislation also honors the late Senator Robert C. Byrd, who was a champion of our Nation's miners. After the Sago and Aracoma tragedies, Senator Byrd said, ``if we truly are a moral Nation . . . then these moral values must be reflected in the government agencies that are charged with protecting the lives of our citizens.''

I agree. This legislation redeems that sentiment of Senator Byrd, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of our committee, the Education and Labor Committee, who spoke today, Ms. Woolsey, who is the subcommittee chair, Mr. Hare, and Ms. Shea-Porter, for their commitment to worker safety, whether it is in mines, or construction sites, or factories, or anywhere else in America. They have demonstrated over and over again their commitment to these workers.

I also want to thank Mr. Rahall for his support of this legislation. He has taught me a great deal, not just about mine safety, but about the culture of the communities that engage in this industry and in this employment and the impact that it has on them and their families when things go so very wrong in the mines with accidents, explosions, fires, and other incidents that take place.

Time and again when I have visited miners they have told me how he has stood with them and their families at the mine site and the accident site, if you will, in their churches, in their homes, out in their cars as they have slept overnight waiting to hear what the impact of the accident might be on their loved ones who are still inside of the mine, and I want to thank him for that kind of concern and for the help in drafting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate that the time is never right for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to engage in worker safety legislation. The fact is, they or their staff were invited numerous times to participate in the drafting sessions. All they wanted to do was see the language, not participate. This is over an 8-month period of time, the consideration of this legislation, where we met with groups all across the mining community, employers, employees, communities, governors, enforcement agencies, Federal, State and local, and all of that together.

We worked with the mining companies themselves. I am very honored to have two letters, one from Patriot Coal, the CEO of Patriot Coal, and one from the CEO of CONSOL Energy, reflecting on the process that we went through to arrive at this legislation and the improvements that were made.

They were grateful for the extent to which they had been included in this process. I don't say they support this legislation and every item in it. But the fact of the matter is, this was a very open process, and it was open for one reason: Because we wanted the best answers to provide for the safety of these miners and the security of their families.

This bill has the support of those who go into the mines every day. This bill has the support of the families of those who go into the mines every day. Why? Because they know how badly the system has been gamed by mine owners who really don't care about the safety of their workers, of their miners, of the members of their communities.

Unfortunately, it is too many mine owners. It is a small number, but it impacts a huge number of miners who work in those mines, where they disregard the law, where they instruct people to do things that are in violation of the law, where they disrupt the inspection process, where they disrupt the enforcement process. That is how they run their companies.

We have watched it play out on the financial pages of the newspapers. One of the very large mining companies, Massey Energy, struggled with the idea of whether or not they could keep their CEO, who was so strongly identified, so strongly identified, with being against the interests of miners, of working people in violation of the law, of overlooking the safety concerns of their miners. Finally, they decided that he should retire. Unfortunately, they also decided he should go with a very big golden parachute. But the fact of the matter is, this is about protecting miners.

I want to also thank Chairman Conyers of the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Scott of the Judiciary Committee for agreeing to this bill and letting us move it forward before the end of this session.

Finally, I want to thank a gentleman that Mr. Rahall introduced us to, and that is Stanley ``Goose'' Stewart, who was one of our witnesses who captured the attention of this committee on a bipartisan basis, the Governor of the State, and Senator Rockefeller from the State, as he explained what was going on in this mine to the detriment of the workers, leading to the deaths of these 29 men, and how they were prevented from speaking out, and how they were intimidated, and how people were discharged if they told the truth about what is taking place in the mines.

That's why this legislation is necessary, because there is no other place for these miners to go to get safety. There is no other place for them to go

to get justice. There is no other place for them to go to get enforcement of the law. And it's only the law that keeps them in a safe working place. But, unfortunately, there are still mine owners in this day and age who insist that they have a right to violate that law.

Today if you do it, you get a slap on the wrist. Pass this law and it's a felony. And that's what's, unfortunately, necessary. We've tried it the other way, with self-enforcement. We've tried it the other way, and it hasn't worked. I have interviewed too many families that have lost people in the mine, and the time has come to stop that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Let's honor the commitments that everybody makes the first 48 hours after one of these tragedies takes place that we are going to make sure it never happens again, but we haven't done it. But this is a big step forward. I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this legislation and urge their support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the DREAM Act. It is good for our country, it is good for our economy, and it is very important to the future contributions of these young people to American society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the DREAM Act.

This is common sense, bipartisan legislation that is a win for our economy.

First, in this economy, we need the best, the brightest, the most capable and the most qualified to be a part of the American workforce.

This legislation will allow a limited group of very capable, high achieving young people to help contribute to the economic well-being of this country.

These are young people who didn't come to this country through their own free choice.

But, they are young people who have worked hard to graduate high school or obtain a GED.

These are young people who have contributed to their communities and to this country.

If we turn our backs on these students, then we're turning our backs on a qualified and competitive workforce.

Second, Mr. Speaker, simply put, this legislation is the right thing to do.

Critics who argue that the DREAM Act would diminish opportunities for students in this country with full citizenship must not know anything about our colleges and universities.

Our Nation's higher education institutions have the capacity to welcome these students, as many already do, without closing the door for other students.

This Congress has passed historic legislation to increase college access and opportunity for all students.

The bill before us today continues to provide that access to a higher education not only by providing these students a path to citizenship, but allowing them access to critical student aid through loans and work-study.

The financial cost of a higher education is too often a barrier to attending higher education.

It is critical that this bill ensures access to student aid, and gives students a chance at affording a higher education.

By passing this legislation, we can reward smart, civic-minded, goal- oriented students and provide access to the American dream.

Let's not punish students and the future of this country.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I appreciate taking a moment to recognize Jim Oberstar's service to our country and to the Congress.

As one who came to the Congress with Congressman Oberstar, he had such a wealth of knowledge before he was elected as a Member of Congress because of his service in the Congress, on the committee, but just to see him every year become such a remarkable spokesperson for infrastructure and public works and the needs of this country in almost every conceivable form, in maintaining this country and its economy, and to see him become such an authority both in the Congress and across the Nation and around the world on the demands of our economy on the infrastructure and the interrelatedness of those two things. You can't really have one without the other. If you're not growing the infrastructure, you can't grow the economy.

You can't grow the economy if you're not growing the infrastructure. It's a lesson I think that we have maybe painfully learned over the last few months.

He was a spokesperson for doing much more on behalf of the infrastructure but also in behalf of the men and women who are employed in that effort and the people who would be employed in the future with modern airports, modern ports, modern rail systems, smart highway systems and an integrated transportation system. I have been very proud to serve with you all of this time, all of our time together in the Congress. Thank you for your knowledge and for your service.

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.

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.

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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1742, I call up the bill (S. 3307) to reauthorize child nutrition programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise for our Nation's children, for the poorest children in our country who are hungry and malnourished. I rise because children need our help. Child nutrition is not a political issue. It's not a partisan issue. It's a question of what's a moral thing to do for our children. It's about being on the right side of history and ensuring a healthy and productive future for our country. Our children will make and determine our future, and that is what is at stake.

In a country as great as ours, no child should go hungry, but, in fact, millions of children do go hungry at various times throughout the year and very often throughout the day. And the fact of the matter is we cannot afford to let that continue.

At the same time we are in the middle of this crisis of food insecurity, it's called, better known as hunger. We also face the public problem of obesity. And what we understand and what we know is that our schools, through the school nutrition programs and other programs that serve nutritional meals to children, are an opportunity to educate them about eating better, eating healthier. This legislation addresses those concerns because it provides the resources necessary so that we can improve the meal selection for our children in the various feeding programs.

It's very important for us because it also provides for increased transparency of the program, for increased efficiency of the program, for increased simplicity of the program both for parents who are enrolling their children, for school districts who are enrolling and accountable for those children and for those meals. Those combinations of accountability and transparency for healthier meals should be a goal and is the goal, in fact, of this Congress and of this Nation.

It also provides accountability within the legislation, and it also provides the means by which we can assure that we will have healthy foods during the school day for the children and in other educational settings and care settings for these children so that we can also address the problems of childhood obesity.

We have had hearings in our committee where we have had experts from various scientific organizations and health organizations, that we now have very young children presenting with adult diseases and illnesses. We spend some $140, $150 billion on the excess costs of obesity, much of which starts with children, with their diet.

That's what this legislation is really about, is making sure that we can, in fact, provide for a healthier school-age population, a smarter school-age population about the foods that they choose, a better meal program for them, and increased simplicity and transparency and accountability for those who administer the program.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. First of all, it's very clear in this legislation that it does not require school districts to raise any meal prices. In fact, in the best sense of local control, it lets school districts decide and determine how they will ensure that there's adequate revenue to support the paid meal program. We should not have the Federal taxpayers underwriting the support of meals for those who can afford it as is required by the law. This bill passed unanimously from the United States Senate. It passed unanimously because they knew that it is paid for.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn McCarthy, the subcommittee chair on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

(Mr. LOEBSACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The suggestion has been made by speakers on the other side that somehow this really isn't about a child nutrition bill, that somehow this isn't about child nutrition and the well-being of our schoolchildren.

The fact of the matter is that's what this bill is all about, and that's what this bill is directed to do. That's why it has received the support of the American Dental Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American School Health Association. These are the people who are intimately involved with the health of America's young children. These are the people who are with them in school settings. They see what happens when children don't have proper nutrition throughout the day, and they see the impact it has on their ability to learn, on their ability to focus, and on their ability to participate in class.

That's why this legislation is so important. That's why it has such broad support in the entire nutritional community, in the health care community, in the religious community, in the farm community, and in our urban communities, because they understand the importance of this to the well-being of these children and to the budget of our Nation when we have spent over $147 billion dealing with obesity and diabetes in our society, and we know that it starts, much of it, with a bad diet.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro and thank her publicly for all of her work on this legislation and on behalf of our children.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House, first of all, I want to begin by thanking the staffs of the committee on both sides of the aisle. We may not agree on this bill, but we spent a lot of time in this committee on hearings and the presentation of facts and the marshaling of those facts and the drafting of legislation. We had an awful lot of cooperation across the aisle, and I want to thank everybody for that effort.

Specifically, on the majority side, I want to thank Gabrielle Serra, Kara Marchione, Kim Zarish Becknell, Ria Ruiz, Jose Garza, Betsy Kittredge Miller, Melissa Salmanowitz, Denise Forte, and Jody Calemine; and Brian Ronholm from Ms. DeLauro's staff; Keith Stern from Mr. McGovern's staff; and Erik Stallman from the Speaker's staff. All of these individuals were helpful in the negotiations not only here in the House and the presentation of this legislation, but monitoring and looking at what was happening in the Senate where this legislation that we're considering today was not only passed out of the Senate with unanimous consent, but it was also passed out of the committee with unanimous consent, where it was given full consideration, where the hearings were made and built the confidence of the members of that committee on both sides of the aisle and built the confidence obviously on both sides of the aisle in the Senate so that it could pass with unanimous consent.

And why has that happened? Because this legislation deals with and addresses in the most profound way the problem of hunger among our schoolchildren, among poor schoolchildren in this Nation.

But we also address the needs of the various institutions that are involved in delivering this nutrition to these children. And that is to the local school districts, to the local schools. And we have simplified the program. We have made it more efficient. We have taken away much of the redundant activity that they used to have to go through to check the same kid four times a day in four different settings. And we got rid of that to reduce the costs of the program. And we received bipartisan support for that effort.

We also made it safer. Up until this legislation was passed, in many instances schools are the last to know that a food recall has taken place, and that the recall may be taking place where the food for the schools is produced. But because they are not on the list, they are not in the protocols, the schoolchildren are put at risk, as we have seen in the recent recalls. So it's safer for those children, it's healthier for those children.

The 6-cent increase in the meal program is the first one in 30 years. And it's with the designed purpose to improve the quality of the meal program. I know these children. I have seen these children. I know them through the Diabetics Association. I know them through the programs on obesity. We have a very serious problem. And this is an effort, agreed to by the Pediatrics Association and others, that this is the way to attack it and to start to build a barrier against childhood obesity and adult-onset obesity. And we have got to change that diet. And that's where major, major savings in health care come from.

So this is a bill that has been thought out in its entirety. It's a bill that is respectful of local control. It's respectful of the needs of school settings and their particular situations. We tried to do that. We listened to school food administrators for districts across this country, all of whom had ideas for efficiencies and improvements. And many of those are ingrained in this legislation. So I would hope that my colleagues, when they would come to the floor later to vote on this bill, will vote for this legislation. They will understand it's fully paid for. They will understand that it received unanimous consent in both the committee in the Senate and on the Senate floor.

With that, I urge the passage of this legislation.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3307.

I yield back the balance of my time.