iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

House Republicans Stall Child Nutrition Bill (VIDEO)

First Posted: 12/01/10 07:10 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

Lunch

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans have temporarily blocked the $4.5 billion legislation that would expand eligibility for national school lunch programs and establish baseline nutrition standards.

Arguing that the nutrition package is too expensive and an example of government overreach, the GOP sought to amend the bill using a procedural maneuver -- seeking to tack on a provision that would require background checks for childcare workers -- thereby delaying final passage.

"Everyone recognizes the importance of extending child nutrition programs, but extending these programs does not mean expanding them," said Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee. "We could expand these programs and improve them with no added costs to taxpayers."

Democrats countered that Republicans are merely attempting to derail the bill.

"It is disappointing that Republicans decided to pull a political stunt to delay passage of this bill at the expense of the deserving children who need healthy meals," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

House Democrats opted to push the final vote back to Thursday and bring up the Republican amendment as a standalone bill, rather than vote on the amendment's incorporation into the broader legislation Wednesday.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act would provide 20 million additional after-school meals every year to U.S. schoolchildren, and raise the reimbursement rate by 6 cents per lunch for any school adhering to the new standards. The current federal reimbursement for a school lunch provided at no cost to the student is $2.72. The additional funding is primarily aimed at lunch programs in public schools, but nonprofit private schools may also be eligible if they meet comparable safety and year-round operational standards.

If passed, the bill would mark the first time since 1973 that Congress has increased funding for school lunch programs, aside from adjustments for inflation.

Hear Kline's critique of the legislation below:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has called passing the nutrition bill "the right, moral thing for us to do," arguing that hunger impedes education and thus the nation's future "competitiveness."

But the legislation only recently received widespread support among the more liberal Democrats due to concerns that food stamp funds would be cut to pay for it.

In August, more than 100 House Democrats signed a letter in protest of a Senate-approved version of the bill which offset costs by cutting future funding for food stamps. "This is one of the more egregious cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul," they wrote.

The White House has promised to find other vehicles with which fund the food stamp program before any cuts take effect. After meeting with the president on Tuesday, many liberal Democrats were persuaded to support the bill after all.

"The administration will work with the Congress to restore those funds," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told reporters after the meeting. "We look forward to passing this legislation with those assurances in mind."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans have temporarily blocked the $4.5 billion legislation that would expand eligibility for national school lunch programs and establish baseline nutrition standards. Argu...
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans have temporarily blocked the $4.5 billion legislation that would expand eligibility for national school lunch programs and establish baseline nutrition standards. Argu...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,184
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (25 total)
Tim The Enchanter
Gary Johnson 2016
08:57 PM on 12/02/2010
Every student should get 3 meals per day, a free computer, an apartment and a car.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
only livin boy in NY
07:56 PM on 12/02/2010
let them eat cake
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MG Metiva
For Great Justice, I shall post.
08:46 PM on 12/02/2010
And get type 2 diabetes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
only livin boy in NY
01:20 AM on 12/03/2010
but not healthcare
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
07:41 PM on 12/02/2010
Its funny, society thinks that we teachers can overcome all the societal ills of poverty and teach all students like they come from solid middle-class households. Oh, but if something like nutrition-one of the largest issues with poverty-wants to be addressed, we're overstepping our bounds? It is empirical truth that our nation's children are overweight. So, in the small ways our Federal Government can affect public health, it tries to make school lunches healthier. And people object to that? Fine! Why not get rid of the requirement of immunizations to be in public schools! Heck, get rid of the FDA so it is always a crapshoot whenever you open a can of tuna whether it will be poison or not!
Parents have abdicated their role in keeping their children healthy. If they aren't going to do it, well, its just another thing that gets loaded onto teachers, so we may as well take it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cananna
I like trees and bunnies.
07:49 PM on 12/02/2010
F & F.
I was raised in the Canadian arctic and we had in immunizations, fly-in dentistry, and a daily vitamin program at my school.
There were so many kids who didn't have food. It was really sad. Lot's of kids ate the traditional diet, but some who from backgrounds of alcoholism had nothing. I may have been six years old, but I shared my lunch a lot.
(I am from way farther north than silly Sarah)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cananna
I like trees and bunnies.
07:54 PM on 12/02/2010
I'll correct my own poor usage: *lots* (plural), rather than *lot's* (possessive)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sydneymoon
Dismiss what insults your own soul - WW
09:43 PM on 12/02/2010
Thanks to that generous six year old from years ago. You learned early on to take care of your neighbor. Awesome.
06:51 PM on 12/02/2010
Another way for the Federal Government to over step their bounds. Let the State or Local Government's take care of the children.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:29 PM on 12/02/2010
OK Huffy.. Typical GOP boiler plate response. Just yelling the current slogan presented by the party of ME.
02:07 PM on 12/03/2010
The first thing is I'm an Independent and I believe people and Churches should help the poor and hungry not the federal Government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
07:37 PM on 12/02/2010
Yes. The Federal Government, which helps fund school lunch programs, is overstepping their bounds by demanding some control over what it funds. My school is 100% Title 1- that means most of the kids get free lunch-paid for by the Federal Government. OH THE HUMANITY! THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS SCHOOL LUNCHES TO BE HEALTHIER!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicole Dixson
06:12 PM on 12/02/2010
I don't think this bill being approved will make much difference. As long as there is free will, there will be obese children. The food at school may be healthier, but who is going to reform what is being served at home?
Gutts
If I were a Transformer, I would be Ultra Magnus
06:50 PM on 12/02/2010
I think the purpose is to teach the children that there are other choices.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicole Dixson
07:07 PM on 12/02/2010
Parents can teach that. We don't need a bill for everything.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cananna
I like trees and bunnies.
06:51 PM on 12/02/2010
You discount the power of education. I've gone shopping with my mom as a kid and told her about the healthier choices. I see it all the time in my second job in a deli:
Kids saying "No, I don't want the baloney. It's bad for you. I want fat-free turkey for my sandwich"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicole Dixson
07:08 PM on 12/02/2010
Ok, fair enough, but if the bill is not passed, are you saying there are not other ways to eductate kids on healthy eating? There shouldn't be a need to legislate everything.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MG Metiva
For Great Justice, I shall post.
06:09 PM on 12/02/2010
Congress has no more business in the school kitchens than Agribusiness does. Of course, that means both like to force their ideals.
06:06 PM on 12/02/2010
Can anybody explain why Congress has to be in charge of our nutrition? There is a vast array of resources available to people who want to improve their or their child's fitness and/or nutrition. It's all available without spending a single dime of taxpayer money. Why even bother with this sort of spending bill?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MG Metiva
For Great Justice, I shall post.
06:11 PM on 12/02/2010
Congress is filled with bureaucrats who want more power. Always has been that way since the idea of pork spening appeared in the Gilded Age.
06:24 PM on 12/02/2010
Let's see, 12 minutes and not a single response to why Congress even needs to be involved in nutrition. That's pretty typical around here. I'm surprised they didn't have some response about "Tea Baggers" and "gubmint".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cananna
I like trees and bunnies.
06:53 PM on 12/02/2010
Maybe because America is obese, and needs some education when it comes to food choices?
Maybe because childhood type 2 diabetes is a very real threat to the nation's children?
05:15 PM on 12/02/2010
I suggest parents and community leaders stop waiting for Congress to act and fix the system at the local level. A committee of parents, working with the each school's nutrition staff could quickly and easily implement a food label system like this http://bit.ly/eHII7p which all children would inherently understand. We have to implement a simple system that teaches our children how to make better food choices on their own. What is more easy that Red Yellow Green?

And the beauty is the rest of the "grown up" world could simply follow the example set by our children. Change happens locally.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elkhawk
Alternate your future
04:18 PM on 12/02/2010
This bill passed! You can change the story now, HP.
photo
Arashi
comfort the afflicted; afflict the comfortable
03:33 PM on 12/02/2010
Rethugs propose dro wning puppies, and the country is agahst.
Then they say, "But it'll cut taxes", and half of Americans line up behind them.
The amendment passes.
The rich get richer off the tax cut.
The country is awash in dea d puppies.
Half of Americans step over them on their way home to watch Dancing with the Stars.
photo
babybecks
"because I am involved in Mankind;"
03:16 PM on 12/02/2010
I was surprised to hear even conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck saying Republicans were doing the wrong thing for kids with this bill. Perhaps she does have an ounce of a soul after all
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cananna
I like trees and bunnies.
07:56 PM on 12/02/2010
She is a shrill beast, but she does sometimes make sense.
02:32 PM on 12/02/2010
Although this is expected, it sure is disappointing. The food safety bill, too! More food for thought: http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm08autumn/school_lunch.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
denicci1977
35 yrs, female Georgia early voted 4 Obama2012!
02:01 PM on 12/02/2010
Did anyone really expect anything different ? Repugs will not help anyone except the rich. I have a feeling many teabags would've benefited from all the things thugs have blocked. Their racism towards Obama hurts them more than anybody else.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thrugreeneyez
01:50 PM on 12/02/2010
I'm outraged that these Republicans refuse to invest in our society's most precious resource- our children!!!! What is wrong with these people?! Our nation's kids need the best, healthiest, highest quality food to be provided with the proper foundation for their development. Also, our nation's kids are suffering from obesity and a diabetes epidemic. How could they not pass this?! Simply unconscionable!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cananna
I like trees and bunnies.
02:02 PM on 12/02/2010
because the lobbyists probably told them not to, and gave them lots of money?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MG Metiva
For Great Justice, I shall post.
06:12 PM on 12/02/2010
More food spending means more obesity not LESS.
06:21 PM on 12/02/2010
A serving of potato chips has more calories than a serving of fresh strawberries. A serving of potato chips cost less than a serving of strawberries. Fresh, healthy foods tend to cost more than processed food, so it costs more to feed people healthy food than it does to feed them processed foods.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Benedictus70
12:54 PM on 12/02/2010
I wonder how well correlated waistline is to political persuasion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thrugreeneyez
01:52 PM on 12/02/2010
My observation is that more Repubicans are fat or obese than Democrats. Just sayin'. Sorry if that's mean but has anyone else noticed this?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thrugreeneyez
01:58 PM on 12/02/2010
I read about a study conducted that looked at the correlation between religion and obesity. The study found that evangelical Christians had a higher rate of obesity than other religions, and also other non-evangelical Christians. Very interesting. Also related to geography in that southern states where may evangelical Christians live have higher obesity rates. I don't know if anyone has looked at political party and obesity, but I bet the results would show that Republicans have higher rates of obesity than Democrats. Someone should do this study, it would be interesting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MG Metiva
For Great Justice, I shall post.
06:14 PM on 12/02/2010
In the Midwest and South it is the same rate. Coastal States have more obese Rpublicans but then Republicans are less common.