H.R. 1662 (111th): Anthony DeJuan Boatwright Act

Introduced:
Mar 23, 2009 (111th Congress, 2009–2010)
Sponsor:
Rep. John Barrow [D-GA12]
Status:
Died (Passed House)
See Instead:
This bill was re-introduced as H.R. 4283 (112th) on Mar 28, 2012.

The bill’s title was written by the bill’s sponsor. H.R. stands for House of Representatives bill.

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.


6/2/2009--Passed House without amendment.
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced.
The summary of that version is repeated here.) Anthony DeJuan Boatwright Act - Amends the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to require a state to include, as part of its regulatory process for issuance and renewal of licenses to providers of child care services, a recommendation to each provider that it carry current liability insurance.
Requires state plans for the use of child care and development block grant funds to certify that there are in effect state or local health and safety requirements that each child care provider:
(1) post publicly and conspicuously in the service area of its premises a notice specifying whether it carries current liability insurance; and
(2) give written notice to parents about whether it carries such insurance, obtain the signature of at least one parent per child acknowledging receipt of such notice, and maintain records of such signed notice while a child receives services.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.


This summary can be found at http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr1662.

Background

On September 9, 2001, fourteen month old Anthony DeJuan Boatwright fell into an unattended bucket of water at his state licensed family day care center in Augusta, Georgia and suffered severe brain damage that has left him in a semi-comatose state and dependent on a ventilator.  The day care center did not have liability insurance coverage and was not required to be insured by state or federal law. 

On September 29, 2007, the House passed a similar bill by voice vote.  

Summary

H.R. 1662 requires that each State include as part of its regulatory process for issuing and renewing licenses of child care providers a recommendation that each provider carry current liability insurance. 

The bill further requires that each child care provider must post "publicly and conspicuously in the service area of its premises" a sign specifying whether or not the provider has current liability coverage applicable to its services and its premises.

Under H.R. 1662, child care providers will also be required to issue a written notice stating whether or not the provider has liability insurance to the parents of each child under the provider's care.  The provider will be required to obtain the signature of at least one parent of each child under the provider's care on the notice, and must maintain such notice (or a copy of such notice) as signed by such parents (or a copy of the signed notice) in provider's records during the period in which the child receives such services.  

Cost

The Congressional Budget Office did not have a cost estimate available for H.R. 1662 as of June 2, 2008. 

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.

The bill contains the following citations to other parts of U.S. law:

United States Code

The United States Code is the compilation of permanent laws enacted by Congress. Temporary and other non-permanent laws do not appear in the United States Code. (About half of the United States Code is the law itself, called positive law. The other half is merely a compilation of the laws but has no legal significance.)