[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6474-S6475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           QUALITY CHILD CARE

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in responding to the amendment of the 
Senator from Vermont, as also addressed by the Senator from 
Connecticut, let me state that I share the goal of seeking ways to 
provide quality child care. This is something that I have supported, 
have worked on with the Senators. Clearly, as we are looking 
particularly at welfare reform, we are going to have increasing need 
for child care. We all want that to be quality child care.
  The goal that I had when we worked on the ABC bill several years ago 
was to make sure that the options available to parents for child care 
were not limited in any particular way. I was concerned about 
certification requirements. I was concerned about quality standard 
requirements because, clearly, at that time, and it is still the case 
today, the choice of the majority of parents relative to child care for 
their children is not a child care center but taking care of that child 
in the home, often by a neighbor, by a friend, by a relative, placing 
their child in a family child care situation, whether it is a church or 
a home or some other entity.
  Several Senators on this floor have talked in the welfare debate 
about training welfare mothers in projects or allowing them to be child 
care providers as other people under welfare will be seeking work. All 
that makes a great deal of sense. My concern with the Jeffords 
amendment is that it gives preferential treatment to just one choice, 
and therefore places those other forms of child care at a disadvantage. 
It doesn't take away options, I concede that, but it does place them at 
a disadvantage because you are biasing the choice.
  Now, it is a worthy goal to attempt to encourage a better quality 
care. But, of course, every time we get into this debate and 
discussion, it is always the State that defines what the quality care 
is, and the concern is that what is quality care to a State agency or a 
State bureaucracy is not the same standards of quality care that a 
parent might choose for their child.
  In a sense we are getting back to the same argument as we had before, 
and that is who is in a better position to determine what is best for 
the child in the interest of the child. Is it the parent who is in a 
better position to determine what their child needs in terms of child 
care and what the quality of that care is, or is a Government entity in 
a better position, or a piece of legislation able to describe what a 
better quality child care would be?
  So in this provision we are giving a preferential treatment to only 
one kind of child care, and that is child care selected by less than a 
majority of parents who place their children in child care. The latest 
figures I have are that 32.9 percent of parents place their children 
with relatives for child care, and those parents will not qualify, 
necessarily qualify for a bonus. They may not have the education, meet 
the educational criteria. They might not meet what the State determines 
as the quality criteria for their child, but as a parent I can tell you 
I would much rather place my child with a relative than I would with a 
child care center.

  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second?
  Mr. COATS. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DODD. We are very sensitive to these concerns, as my colleague 
has raised these issue on numerous occasions. I should have stated at 
the outset that the Senator from Indiana chairs the Subcommittee on 
Children and Families, on which I have been proud to serve as ranking 
member. He has been instrumental for so many years in helping children 
and families. I hold him in high regard on this issue.
  If I can read this briefly from the amendment for my colleague from 
Indiana--the terms credentialing and accreditation are used to refer to 
formal credentialing and accreditation processes by a private nonprofit 
or public entity that is State recognized (minimum requirements: age-
appropriate health and safety standards, age-appropriate developmental 
and educational activities as an integral part of the program, outside 
monitoring of the program/individual accreditation/credentialing 
instruments based on peer-validated research programs/facilities meet 
any applicable state and local licensing requirements, and on-going 
staff development/training which includes related skills testing). 
There are several organizations and a few states that currently provide 
accreditation and/or credentialing for early childhood development 
programs, child care and child care providers.
  That language was drafted with help by religious and non-profit 
groups. We specifically provide that they may create standards. We have 
really gotten away from the notion that standards must be set at the 
Federal level. Centers and providers certified and accreditated by 
private nonprofits would qualify for the tax credit.
  Mr. COATS. But the Senator would agree, would he not, that it does 
provide a preference that is not available to many providers of child 
care that might be perfectly acceptable providers of child care for the 
children of those parents?
  Mr. DODD. I do not disagree. There is an incentive. You still get the 
credit for using a non-accredited provider, but you simply get a larger 
one if you use one that has been accredited or certified. Our goal here 
is to try and get standards up for all child care setting, whether a 
home-based care program, a church-based care program, or a public 
setting.
  I am not arguing that a parent or a grandparent can't provide 
terrific child care. But, we just want to make sure that at least we 
are encouraging quality standards, whether State established or private 
nonprofit standards, to increase the opportunity for that child to get 
the proper kind of care.
  Mr. COATS. I understand the motivation. My concern is that there will 
be a large number of child care providers who will not meet those 
standards, will be put in a position that is less preferential than 
those who do meet the standards, and yet the standards might not 
necessarily be what the parent determines to be the best care and the 
best nurturing for that particular child.
  For instance, let us say a child care provider does not read, cannot 
read. Would that person ever be able to qualify for the standards? 
Probably not, because we are talking about a developing child. Yet, if 
the Senator had the privilege, as I and many of us did, of attending 
the national prayer breakfast this year, Dr. Ben Carson, head of 
neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University, one of the world's foremost 
neurosurgeons, was raised by a mother who could not read. After I saw 
what product came out of that child rearing, I would want my child 
raised by his mother. Yet, obviously, the Senator's bill would not take 
away that choice, but clearly that individual would not qualify, with 
those standards, for the preference given under the Jeffords amendment.

  You used the words ``nurturing'' and ``caring.'' Nurturing and 
caring, as we learned in our hearing on development of the brain and 
other hearings on child care, is the most important aspect of early 
child care. It is not flash cards, it is not introducing kids to 
computers, it is the one-on-one bonds that are formed. Yet, we are 
putting those people at a different level. We are saying they really 
don't qualify for the higher accountability standards because they have 
not had the training, they have not had the education, they have not 
met the standards of whatever group sets those standards.
  I am simply saying I think the parents ought to set the standards. I 
think the parents ought to determine what is in the best interests of 
the child without a bias against someone who they deem is best in favor 
of someone who happens to meet the standard set by a particular group.
  It is a dilemma. I understand what the Senators are trying to do 
because that is a goal I think we ought to work toward. But I think it 
does so by sending a message that this level of child care that meets 
the standards is better for your child than the determination that you 
might make in terms of having a relative, of having a neighbor, of 
having someone down the street who doesn't necessarily qualify. That is 
my concern.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. There is nothing the Senator says that we disagree 
with. But if you take a look at the studies that give you an idea of 
children who

[[Page S6475]]

are being placed in situations which do not have that kind of care, the 
question is whether you should reward them the same as you do others 
that do have good health care. In this study, 40 percent of the health 
care provided infants in child care centers was potentially injurious. 
Fifteen percent of center-based child care for all preschoolers was so 
bad that the child's health and safety were threatened; 70 percent were 
mediocre. This is the study.
  If you are faced with those, and you understand the dramatic problems 
that can cause in a child, then you ought to have some way to give the 
parents of children a means of determining that they can be assured 
they are not going to have their child damaged. Granted, family 
situations or whatever else is some of the best care, obviously, and 
loving and nurturing. A parent is probably better than most child care 
things you can do. But at least people ought to know that there is 
someone who is saying your child is not going to be injured in that 
care. That is all we are trying to do.
  Mr. COATS. We can all quote studies. I could also pull out the study 
that shows that children are at a much higher risk of infection and 
illness and even accidents in child care centers than they are in the 
arms of a next-door neighbor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for time just to 
make one quick point to my colleague here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Just a quick point. I want to point out this amendment of 
ours is phased in over 5 years, so there will be plenty of notice and 
time here for providers to try to get themselves ready to met quality 
standards. We do not rush this in; we allow time for providers and 
families to learn about and to prepare for higher quality care.
  My second point is that accredited or certified settings cost a bit 
more. If parents want to place their children in those situations, 
given the fact it costs more, our providing a tax incentive with a bit 
more of a break makes sense. I thank my colleague for allowing me to 
make those points to my colleague.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. If I may follow on that just very briefly, again, 
studies say--

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute so the Senator can finish his point and I can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to point out that one-quarter of all 
parents contacted in a nationwide survey said they would like to change 
their present child care arrangements, but they cannot find or afford 
better quality care. This is big reason for this amendment. We are 
trying to help people with limited resources by shifting the money 
where it will do best, provide access to best child care.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, just in response, I would say I think it 
sends a signal. It sends a signal if you have a State stamp of approval 
or certified group stamp of approval that your child is going to get 
better quality care there than if you do not have that. Yet, we know 
parents' preferences are, for a majority of parents, to place their 
children in situations where they don't have any State or certifying 
agency stamp of approval, but they are going to be looked at 
potentially as secondary care when it is not secondary care. It is in 
many cases superior care. Because they trust a relative, they trust a 
neighbor, they trust a family home care, even though it doesn't 
necessarily qualify for the certification standards. That is my concern 
with the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, before he starts, I wonder if I might just 
make a point. As I understand it, each Senator has 8 minutes, is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The hour is late. I hope everybody will stick by their 
assigned 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________