PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 2, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to make child care institutions ineligible for funding under the child and adult care food program if they employ a child care staff member who: (1) refuses to consent to a criminal background check that includes a search of specified databases; (2) makes a false statement in connection with such background check; (3) is or is required to be registered on a state sex offender registry or the National Sex Offender Registry; or (4) has been convicted of a specified felony.
Lists those felonies as: (1) homicide; (2) child abuse or neglect; (3) crimes against children; (4) spousal abuse; (5) crimes involving rape or sexual assault; (6) kidnapping; (7) arson; and (8) physical assault, battery, or drug-related offenses, committed within the past five years.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 416 - 3 (Roll no. 601). (text: CR H7869-7870)
House roll call 601 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 416 - 3 (Roll no. 601).(text: CR H7869-7870)
House roll call 601 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7887-7888)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6469.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7869-7874)
Mr. Miller, George moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6469 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6469 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6469 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6469 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.