OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

House GOP Blocks Child Nutrition Bill

December 2, 2010 - by Donny Shaw

UPDATE: The Democrats managed to pass the bill this afternoon by holding a vote on the Republican sex-offenders amendment as a stand-alone bill. The Republicans still tried to kill the child nutrition bill with the same motion to recommit, which all but one Republican voted for, but the Democrats managed to hold strong against the motion knowing that they had already voted for the amendment and that the motion to recommit served no purpose other than to stop the bill.

Original post below…

You know things are getting ugly when a fully paid-for bill to provide poor children with healthy school lunches is blocked. Politico:

House Democrats scrapped plans to vote on an Obama-backed child nutrition bill Wednesday after Republicans threatened to force a procedural vote that would bar funds from going to child care institutions that employ individuals who refuse criminal sex-offender background checks, or lie on them.

The amendment created a bind for Democratic leaders: a vote in favor would send the bill back to the Senate, threatening its enactment in this Congress, and a vote against it would put Democrats on the record as opposing restrictions on federal funding for institutions that employ workers who have committed sex offenses against children.

The bill is S.3307, the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.” It would streamline the process for enrolling poor children in school lunch programs, increase the federal reimbursement rate for schools districts that comply with nutrition standards, help communities set up farm-to-school networks, and more. It’s paid for partially by reducing food stamp benefits.

The Democrats’ plan right now is to bring up the Republican sex offender amendment (which is actually a motion to recommit) as a separate bill this afternoon and then try again to pass the child nutrition bill. This could work, but it’s not guaranteed. The Republicans will still have the right to force a vote on a motion to recommit, and, if their sex-offender amendment was really just a poison pill (i.e. not meant as a substantive, constructive addition), there’s nothing stopping them from trying to sink the bill again by calling up some other politically-sensitive issue.

School lunch photo used under CC from Old Shoe Woman.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

itiswhatitisnt 02/12/2012 9:06pm

Thank you for the website. I enjoyed the information and the comments of your visitors.
roofing modesto

530i 12/03/2010 7:42am

The photo at the top says it all. Corn dog, tater-tots, chocolate milk, pork& beans (?) and a cinnamon roll. Thanks Uncle Sam! At least we know why so many kids are fat. The Federal Govt has no business in education or school lunch programs. This is a perfect example of the narcotic effect of Federal money further corrupting state organizations. School boards will continue to turn tricks to stay shacked up with their sugar-daddy.

beneficii 12/02/2010 11:50am
in reply to Kss Dec 02, 2010 9:11am

If the amendment does get added to the bill, then that means the bill must go back to the Senate. If you know anything about what’s been going on, that is not a good thing. That is why the Democratic leadership is making it a standalone bill.

beenblue 12/02/2010 11:06am

Is this political savvy on the Democrats part, to expose to the public the agenda of the Republican Party leaders, and further divide the party on sensitive matters especially where children are concerned in this economy. This is dangerous territory, as the Nation is a powder keg under a flame that`s about to explode under a variety of reasons already. I fear this could bring a tipping point to ones patients, as the Republicans run through the dry forest throwing matches behind them. I guess what`s confusing is that the Republicans have turned the Mexican, black, Islam, unemployed, and middle class Americans against them, and now put the Christian coalition into a corner. This has to be considered as an act of insanity, or they know something we don`t.

Kss 12/02/2010 9:11am

Why is this “bar funds from going to child care institutions that employ individuals who refuse criminal sex-offender background checks, or lie on them” described as ugly, rather than a reasonable amendment, which should have been included in the original bill?
Why the narrative implications? Is it not historically asserted that ‘capacity does not equal intention’?

BenjaWiz 12/02/2010 8:45am

Now this gets me angry to no end, the bill is already paid for plus the kids are in need of this program in their schools.

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.