[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1539-S1569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2014
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume legislative session and proceed to consideration of S. 1086,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1086) to reauthorize and improve the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other
purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
S. 1086
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSES.
Section 658A of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9801 note) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 658A. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSES.
``(a) Short Title.--This subchapter may be cited as the
`Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990'.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subchapter are--
``(1) to allow each State maximum flexibility in developing
child care programs and policies that best suit the needs of
children and parents within that State;
``(2) to promote parental choice to empower working parents
to make their own decisions regarding the child care that
best suits their family's needs;
``(3) to assist States in providing high-quality child care
services to parents trying to achieve independence from
public assistance;
``(4) to assist States in improving the overall quality of
child care services and programs by implementing the health,
safety, licensing, training, and oversight standards
established in this subchapter and in State law (including
regulations);
``(5) to improve school readiness by having children,
families, and child care providers engage in activities, in
child care settings, that are developmentally appropriate and
age-appropriate for the children and that promote children's
language and literacy and mathematics skills, social and
emotional development, physical health and development, and
approaches to learning;
``(6) to encourage States to provide consumer education
information to help parents make informed choices about child
care services and to promote involvement by parents and
family members in the education of their children in child
care settings;
``(7) to increase the number and percentage of low-income
children in high-quality child care settings; and
``(8) to improve the coordination and delivery of early
childhood education and care (including child care).''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 658B of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is amended by striking
``subchapter'' and all that follows, and inserting
``subchapter, such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2015 through 2020.''.
SEC. 4. LEAD AGENCY.
(a) Designation.--Section 658D(a) of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858b(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``chief executive officer'' and inserting
``Governor''; and
(2) by striking ``designate'' and all that follows and
inserting ``designate an agency (which may be an appropriate
collaborative agency), or establish a joint interagency
office, that complies with the requirements of subsection (b)
to serve as the lead agency for the State under this
subchapter.''.
(b) Collaboration With Tribes.--Section 658D(b)(1) of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858b(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) at the option of an Indian tribe or tribal
organization in the State, collaborate and coordinate with
such Indian tribe or tribal organization in the development
of the State plan.''.
SEC. 5. APPLICATION AND PLAN.
(a) Period.--Section 658E(b) of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858c(b)) is
amended, by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``3-year''.
(b) Policies and Procedures.--Section 658E(c) of the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or established'' after
``designated'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting a comma after ``care
of such providers'';
(B) by striking subparagraphs (D) through (H); and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Monitoring and inspection reports.--The plan shall
include a certification that the State, not later than 1 year
after the State has in effect the policies and practices
described in subparagraph (K)(i), will make public by
electronic means, in a consumer-friendly and easily
accessible format, organized by provider, the results of
monitoring and inspection reports, including those due to
major substantiated complaints about failure to comply with
this subchapter and State child care policies, as well as the
number of deaths, serious injuries, and instances of
substantiated child abuse that occurred in child care
settings each year, for eligible child care providers within
the State. The results shall also include information on the
date of such an inspection and, where applicable, information
on corrective action taken.
``(E) Consumer education information.--The plan shall
include a certification that the State will collect and
disseminate (which dissemination may be done, except as
otherwise specified in this subparagraph, through resource
and referral organizations or other means as determined by
the State) to parents of eligible children and the general
public--
``(i) information that will promote informed child care
choices and that concerns--
``(I) the availability of child care services provided
through programs authorized under this subchapter and, if
feasible, other child care services and other programs
provided in the State for which the family may be eligible;
``(II) if available, information about the quality of
providers, including information from a Quality Rating and
Improvement System;
``(III) information, made available through a State
website, describing the State process for licensing child
care providers, the State processes for conducting background
checks, and monitoring and inspections, of child care
providers, and the offenses that prevent individuals and
entities from serving as child care providers in the State;
``(IV) the availability of assistance to obtain child care
services;
``(V) other programs for which families that receive child
care services for which financial assistance is provided in
accordance with this subchapter may be eligible, including
the program of block grants to States for temporary
assistance for needy families established under part A of
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
Head Start and Early Head Start programs carried out under
the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), the program
carried out under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act
of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), the supplemental nutrition
assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the special supplemental
nutrition program for women, infants, and children
established under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of
1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), the child and adult care food program
established under section 17 of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766), and the Medicaid
and State children's health insurance programs under titles
XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et
seq., 1397aa et seq.);
``(VI) programs carried out under section 619 and part C of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1419, 1431 et seq.); and
``(VII) research and best practices concerning children's
development, including language and cognitive development,
development of early language and literacy and mathematics
skills, social and emotional development, meaningful parent
and family engagement, and physical health and development
(particularly healthy eating and physical activity);
``(ii) information on developmental screenings, including--
``(I) information on existing (as of the date of submission
of the application containing the plan) resources and
services the State can deploy, including the coordinated use
of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment
program under the Medicaid program carried out under title
XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) and
developmental screening services available under section 619
and part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431 et seq.), in conducting developmental
screenings and providing referrals to services, when
appropriate, for children who receive assistance under this
subchapter; and
``(II) a description of how a family or eligible child care
provider may utilize the resources and services described in
subclause (I) to obtain developmental screenings for children
who receive assistance under this subchapter who may be at
risk for cognitive or other developmental delays, which may
include social, emotional, physical, or linguistic delays;
and
[[Page S1540]]
``(iii) information, for parents receiving assistance under
the program of block grants to States for temporary
assistance for needy families under part A of title IV of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and low-income
parents, about eligibility for assistance provided in
accordance with this subchapter.
``(F) Compliance with state licensing requirements.--
``(i) In general.--The plan shall include a certification
that the State involved has in effect licensing requirements
applicable to child care services provided within the State,
and provide a detailed description of such requirements and
of how such requirements are effectively enforced.
``(ii) License exemption.--If the State uses funding
received under this subchapter to support a child care
provider that is exempt from the corresponding licensing
requirements described in clause (i), the plan shall include
a description stating why such licensing exemption does not
endanger the health, safety, or development of children who
receive services from child care providers who are exempt
from such requirements.
``(iii) Requests for relief.--As described in section
658I(d), a State may request relief from a provision of
Federal law other than this subchapter that might conflict
with a requirement of this subchapter, including a licensing
requirement.
``(G) Training requirements.--
``(i) In general.--The plan shall describe the training
requirements that are in effect within the State that are
designed to enable child care providers to promote the
social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of
children and that are applicable to child care providers that
provide services for which assistance is provided in
accordance with this subchapter in the State.
``(ii) Requirements.--The plan shall provide an assurance
that such training requirements--
``(I) provide a set of workforce and competency standards
for child care providers that provide services described in
clause (i);
``(II) are developed in consultation with the State
Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care
(designated or established pursuant to section
642B(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9837b(b)(1)(A)(i)));
``(III) include an evidence-based training framework that
is designed to promote children's learning and development
and school readiness and to improve child outcomes, including
school readiness;
``(IV) incorporate knowledge and application of the State's
early learning and developmental guidelines (where
applicable), and the State's child development and health
standards; and
``(V) to the extent practicable, are appropriate for a
population of children that includes--
``(aa) different age groups (such as infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers);
``(bb) English learners;
``(cc) children with disabilities; and
``(dd) Native Americans, including Indians, as the term is
defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b) (including Alaska
Natives within the meaning of that term), and Native
Hawaiians (as defined in section 7207 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7517)).
``(iii) Progression of professional development.--In
developing the requirements, the State shall develop a
statewide progression of professional development designed to
improve the skills and knowledge of the workforce--
``(I) which may include the acquisition of course credit in
postsecondary education or of a credential, aligned with the
framework; and
``(II) which shall be accessible to providers supported
through Indian tribes or tribal organizations that receive
assistance under this subchapter.
``(iv) Alignment.--The State shall engage the State
Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care, and
may engage institutions of higher education (as defined in
section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002)), and other training providers in aligning training
opportunities with the State's training framework.
``(v) Credentials.--The Secretary shall not require an
individual or entity that provides child care services for
which assistance is provided in accordance with this
subchapter to acquire a credential to provide such services.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a
State from requiring a credential.
``(H) Child-to-provider ratio standards.--
``(i) Standards.--The plan shall describe child care
standards, for child care for which assistance is made
available in accordance with this subchapter, appropriate to
the type of child care setting involved, that address--
``(I) group size limits for specific age populations;
``(II) the appropriate ratio between the number of children
and the number of providers, in terms of the age of the
children in child care, as determined by the State; and
``(III) required qualifications for such providers.
``(ii) Construction.--The Secretary may offer guidance to
States on child-to-provider ratios described in clause (i)
according to setting and age group but shall not require that
States maintain specific child-to-provider ratios for
providers who receive assistance under this subchapter.
``(I) Health and safety requirements.--The plan shall
include a certification that there are in effect within the
State, under State or local law, requirements designed to
protect the health and safety of children that are applicable
to child care providers that provide services for which
assistance is made available in accordance with this
subchapter. Such requirements--
``(i) shall relate to matters including health and safety
topics (including prevention of shaken baby syndrome and
abusive head trauma) consisting of--
``(I) the prevention and control of infectious diseases
(including immunization) and the establishment of a grace
period that allows homeless children to receive services
under this subchapter while their families are taking any
necessary action to comply with immunization and other health
and safety requirements;
``(II) handwashing and universal health precautions;
``(III) the administration of medication, consistent with
standards for parental consent;
``(IV) the prevention of and response to emergencies due to
food and other allergic reactions;
``(V) prevention of sudden infant death syndrome and use of
safe sleeping practices;
``(VI) sanitary methods of food handling;
``(VII) building and physical premises safety;
``(VIII) emergency preparedness and response planning for
emergencies resulting from a natural disaster, or a man-
caused event (such as violence at a child care facility),
within the meaning of those terms under section 602(a)(1) of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195a(a)(1));
``(IX) the handling and storage of hazardous materials and
the appropriate disposal of biocontaminants;
``(X) identification of and protection from hazards that
can cause bodily injury such as electrical hazards, bodies of
water, and vehicular traffic;
``(XI) for providers that offer transportation, if
applicable, appropriate precautions in transporting children;
``(XII) first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and
``(XIII) minimum health and safety training, to be
completed pre-service or during an orientation period,
appropriate to the provider setting involved that addresses
each of the requirements relating to matters described in
subclauses (I) through (XII); and
``(ii) may include requirements relating to nutrition,
access to physical activity, or any other subject area
determined by the State to be necessary to promote child
development or to protect children's health and safety.
``(J) Compliance with state and local health and safety
requirements.--The plan shall include a certification that
procedures are in effect to ensure that child care providers
within the State, that provide services for which assistance
is made available in accordance with this subchapter, comply
with all applicable State and local health and safety
requirements as described in subparagraph (I).
``(K) Enforcement of licensing and other regulatory
requirements.--
``(i) Certification.--The plan shall include a
certification that the State, not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 2014, shall have in effect policies and
practices, applicable to licensing or regulating child care
providers that provide services for which assistance is made
available in accordance with this subchapter and the
facilities of those providers, that--
``(I) ensure that individuals who are hired as licensing
inspectors in the State are qualified to inspect those child
care providers and facilities and have received training in
related health and safety requirements, child development,
child abuse prevention and detection, program management, and
relevant law enforcement;
``(II) require licensing inspectors (or qualified
inspectors designated by the lead agency) of those child care
providers and facilities to perform inspections, with--
``(aa) not less than 1 prelicensure inspection for
compliance with health, safety, and fire standards, of each
such child care provider and facility in the State; and
``(bb) not less than annually, an inspection (which shall
be unannounced) of each such child care provider and facility
in the State for compliance with all child care licensing
standards, which shall include an inspection for compliance
with health, safety, and fire standards (although inspectors
may or may not inspect for compliance with all 3 standards at
the same time); and
``(III) require the ratio of licensing inspectors to such
child care providers and facilities in the State to--
``(aa) be maintained at a level sufficient to enable the
State to conduct inspections of such child care providers and
facilities on a timely basis in accordance with Federal and
State law; and
``(bb) be consistent with research findings and best
practices.
``(ii) Construction.--The Secretary may offer guidance to a
State, if requested by the State, on a research-based minimum
standard regarding ratios described in clause (i)(III) and
provide technical assistance to the State on meeting the
minimum standard within a reasonable time period, but shall
not prescribe a particular ratio.
``(L) Compliance with child abuse reporting requirements.--
The plan shall include a certification that child care
providers within the State will comply with the child abuse
reporting requirements of section 106(b)(2)(B)(i) of the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5106a(b)(2)(B)(i)).
``(M) Meeting the needs of certain populations.--The plan
shall describe how the State will develop and implement
strategies (which may include the provision of compensation
at higher payment rates and bonuses to child care providers,
the provision of direct contracts or grants to community-
based organizations, or other means determined by the State)
to increase the supply and improve the quality of child care
for--
``(i) children in underserved areas;
``(ii) infants and toddlers;
``(iii) children with disabilities, as defined by the
State; and
[[Page S1541]]
``(iv) children who receive care during nontraditional
hours.
``(N) Protection for working parents.--
``(i) Minimum period.--
``(I) 12-month period.--The plan shall demonstrate that
each child who receives assistance under this subchapter in
the State will be considered to meet all eligibility
requirements for such assistance and will receive such
assistance, for not less than 12 months before the State
redetermines the eligibility of the child under this
subchapter, regardless of a temporary change in the ongoing
status of the child's parent as working or attending a job
training or educational program or a change in family income
for the child's family, if that family income does not exceed
85 percent of the State median income for a family of the
same size.
``(II) Fluctuations in earnings.--The plan shall
demonstrate how the State's processes for initial
determination and redetermination of such eligibility take
into account irregular fluctuations in earnings.
``(ii) Redetermination process.--The plan shall describe
the procedures and policies that are in place to ensure that
working parents (especially parents in families receiving
assistance under the program of block grants to States for
temporary assistance for needy families under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)) are
not required to unduly disrupt their employment in order to
comply with the State's requirements for redetermination of
eligibility for assistance provided in accordance with this
subchapter.
``(iii) Period before termination.--At the option of the
State, the plan shall demonstrate that the State will not
terminate assistance provided to carry out this subchapter
based on a factor consisting of a parent's loss of work or
cessation of attendance at a job training or educational
program for which the family was receiving the assistance,
without continuing the assistance for a reasonable period of
time, of not less than 3 months, after such loss or cessation
in order for the parent to engage in a job search and resume
work, or resume attendance at a job training or educational
program, as soon as possible.
``(iv) Graduated phaseout of care.--The plan shall describe
the policies and procedures that are in place to allow for
provision of continued assistance to carry out this
subchapter, at the beginning of a new eligibility period
under clause (i)(I), for children of parents who are working
or attending a job training or educational program and whose
family income exceeds the State's income limit to initially
qualify for such assistance, if the family income for the
family involved does not exceed 85 percent of the State
median income for a family of the same size.
``(O) Coordination with other programs.--
``(i) In general.--The plan shall describe how the State,
in order to expand accessibility and continuity of quality
early childhood education and care, and assist children
enrolled in prekindergarten, Early Head Start, or Head Start
programs to receive full-day services, will coordinate the
services supported to carry out this subchapter with--
``(I) programs carried out under the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), including the Early Head Start programs
carried out under section 645A of that Act (42 U.S.C. 9840a);
``(II) programs carried out under part A of title I, and
part B of title IV, of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq., 7171 et seq.);
``(III) programs carried out under section 619 and part C
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1419, 1431 et seq.);
``(IV) the maternal, infant, and early childhood home
visiting programs authorized under section 511 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 711), as added by section 2951 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-
148);
``(V) State, Indian tribe or tribal organization, and
locally funded early childhood education and care programs;
``(VI) programs serving homeless children and services of
local educational agency liaisons for homeless children and
youths designated under subsection (g)(1)(J)(ii) of section
722 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)); and
``(VII) other Federal programs supporting early childhood
education and care activities, and, where applicable, child
care programs funded through State veterans affairs offices.
``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in clause (i) shall
be construed to affect the priority of children described in
clause (i) to receive full-day prekindergarten or Head Start
program services.
``(P) Public-private partnerships.--The plan shall
demonstrate how the State encourages partnerships among State
agencies, other public agencies, Indian tribes and tribal
organizations, and private entities to leverage existing
service delivery systems (as of the date of the submission of
the application containing the plan) for early childhood
education and care and to increase the supply and quality of
child care services for children who are less than 13 years
of age, such as by implementing voluntary shared services
alliance models.
``(Q) Priority for low-income populations.--The plan shall
describe the process the State proposes to use, with respect
to investments made to increase access to programs providing
high-quality early childhood education and care, to give
priority for those investments to children of families in
areas that have significant concentrations of poverty and
unemployment and that do not have such programs.
``(R) Consultation.--The plan shall include a certification
that the State has developed the plan in consultation with
the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and
Care designated or established pursuant to section
642B(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9837b(b)(1)(A)(i)).
``(S) Payment practices.--The plan shall include a
certification that the payment practices of child care
providers in the State that serve children who receive
assistance under this subchapter reflect generally accepted
payment practices of child care providers in the State that
serve children who do not receive assistance under this
subchapter, so as to provide stability of funding and
encourage more child care providers to serve children who
receive assistance under this subchapter.
``(T) Early learning and developmental guidelines.--
``(i) In general.--The plan shall include an assurance that
the State will develop or implement early learning and
developmental guidelines that are appropriate for children
from birth through entry into kindergarten, describing what
such children should know and be able to do, and covering the
essential domains of early childhood education and care and
early childhood development for use statewide by child care
providers. Such child care providers shall--
``(I) be licensed or regulated under State law; and
``(II) not be a relative of all children for whom the
provider provides child care services.
``(ii) Alignment.--The guidelines shall be research-based,
developmentally appropriate, and aligned with State standards
for education in kindergarten through grade 3.
``(iii) Prohibition on use of funds.--The plan shall
include an assurance that funds received by the State to
carry out this subchapter will not be used to develop or
implement an assessment for children that--
``(I) will be the sole basis for a child care provider
being determined to be ineligible to participate in the
program carried out under this subchapter;
``(II) will be used as the primary or sole basis to provide
a reward or sanction for an individual provider;
``(III) will be used as the primary or sole method for
assessing program effectiveness; or
``(IV) will be used to deny eligibility to participate in
the program carried out under this subchapter.
``(iv) Exceptions.--Nothing in this subchapter shall
preclude the State from using a single assessment (if
appropriate) for children for--
``(I) supporting learning or improving a classroom
environment;
``(II) targeting professional development to a provider;
``(III) determining the need for health, mental health,
disability, developmental delay, or family support services;
``(IV) obtaining information for the quality improvement
process at the State level; or
``(V) conducting a program evaluation for the purposes of
providing program improvement and parent information.
``(v) No federal control.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal
Government to--
``(I) mandate, direct, or control a State's early learning
and developmental guidelines, developed in accordance with
this section;
``(II) establish any criterion that specifies, defines, or
prescribes the standards or measures that a State uses to
establish, implement, or improve--
``(aa) early learning and developmental guidelines, or
early learning standards, assessments, or accountability
systems; or
``(bb) alignment of early learning and developmental
guidelines with State standards for education in kindergarten
through grade 3; or
``(III) require a State to submit such standards or
measures for review.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``as required under''
and inserting ``in accordance with'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``The State'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--The State'';
(ii) by striking ``and any other activity that the State
deems appropriate to realize any of the goals specified in
paragraphs (2) through (5) of section 658A(b)'' and inserting
``activities that improve access to child care services,
including use of procedures to permit immediate enrollment
(after the initial eligibility determination and after a
child is determined to be eligible) of homeless children
while required documentation is obtained, training and
technical assistance on identifying and serving homeless
children and their families, and specific outreach to
homeless families, and any other activity that the State
determines to be appropriate to meet the purposes of this
subchapter (which may include an activity described in clause
(ii))''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Child care resource and referral system.--
``(I) In general.--A State may use amounts described in
clause (i) to establish or support a system of local or
regional child care resource and referral organizations that
is coordinated, to the extent determined appropriate by the
State, by a statewide public or private nonprofit, community-
based or regionally based, lead child care resource and
referral organization.
``(II) Local or regional organizations.--The local or
regional child care resource and referral organizations
supported as described in subclause (I) shall--
``(aa) provide parents in the State with consumer education
information referred to in paragraph (2)(E) (except as
otherwise provided in that paragraph), concerning the full
range of child care options, analyzed by provider, including
child care provided during nontraditional
[[Page S1542]]
hours and through emergency child care centers, in their
political subdivisions or regions;
``(bb) to the extent practicable, work directly with
families who receive assistance under this subchapter to
offer the families support and assistance, using information
described in item (aa), to make an informed decision about
which child care providers they will use, in an effort to
ensure that the families are enrolling their children in
high-quality care;
``(cc) collect and analyze data on the coordination of
services and supports, including services under section 619
and part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431 et seq.), for children with
disabilities (as defined in section 602 of such Act (20
U.S.C. 1401));
``(dd) collect and analyze data on the supply of and demand
for child care in political subdivisions or regions within
the State and submit such data and analysis to the State;
``(ee) work to establish partnerships with public agencies
and private entities to increase the supply and quality of
child care services in the State; and
``(ff) as appropriate, coordinate their activities with the
activities of the State lead agency and local agencies that
administer funds made available in accordance with this
subchapter.'';
(C) in subparagraph (D)--
(i) by striking ``1997 through 2002'' and inserting ``2015
through 2020''; and
(ii) by striking ``families described in paragraph (2)(H)''
and inserting ``families with children described in clause
(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (2)(M)''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Direct services.--From amounts provided to a State
for a fiscal year to carry out this subchapter, the State
shall--
``(i) reserve the minimum amount required to be reserved
under section 658G, and the funds for costs described in
subparagraph (C); and
``(ii) from the remainder, use not less than 70 percent to
fund direct services (provided by the State) in accordance
with paragraph (2)(A).'';
(4) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Payment rates.--
``(A) In general.--The State plan shall certify that
payment rates for the provision of child care services for
which assistance is provided in accordance with this
subchapter are sufficient to ensure equal access for eligible
children to child care services that are comparable to child
care services in the State or substate area involved that are
provided to children whose parents are not eligible to
receive assistance under this subchapter or to receive child
care assistance under any other Federal or State program and
shall provide a summary of the facts relied on by the State
to determine that such rates are sufficient to ensure such
access.
``(B) Survey.--The State plan shall--
``(i) demonstrate that the State has, after consulting with
the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and
Care designated or established in section 642B(b)(1)(A)(i) of
the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837b(b)(1)(A)(i)), local child
care program administrators, local child care resource and
referral agencies, and other appropriate entities, developed
and conducted (not earlier than 2 years before the date of
the submission of the application containing the State plan)
a statistically valid and reliable survey of the market rates
for child care services in the State (that reflects
variations in the cost of child care services by geographic
area, type of provider, and age of child);
``(ii) demonstrate that the State prepared a detailed
report containing the results of the State market rates
survey conducted pursuant to clause (i), and made the results
of the survey widely available (not later than 30 days after
the completion of such survey) through periodic means,
including posting the results on the Internet;
``(iii) describe how the State will set payment rates for
child care services, for which assistance is provided in
accordance with this subchapter--
``(I) in accordance with the results of the market rates
survey conducted pursuant to clause (i);
``(II) taking into consideration the cost of providing
higher quality child care services than were provided under
this subchapter before the date of enactment of the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014; and
``(III) without, to the extent practicable, reducing the
number of families in the State receiving such assistance to
carry out this subchapter, relative to the number of such
families on the date of enactment of that Act; and
``(iv) describe how the State will provide for timely
payment for child care services provided in accordance with
this subchapter.
``(C) Construction.--
``(i) No private right of action.--Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to create a private right of
action.
``(ii) No prohibition of certain different rates.--Nothing
in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent a State from
differentiating the payment rates described in subparagraph
(B)(iii) on the basis of such factors as--
``(I) geographic location of child care providers (such as
location in an urban or rural area);
``(II) the age or particular needs of children (such as the
needs of children with disabilities and children served by
child protective services);
``(III) whether the providers provide child care during
weekend and other nontraditional hours; or
``(IV) the State's determination that such differentiated
payment rates are needed to enable a parent to choose child
care that is of high quality.''; and
(5) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``(that is not a barrier
to families receiving assistance under this subchapter)''
after ``cost sharing''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 658F(b)(2) of the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858d(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``section 658E(c)(2)(F)''
and inserting ``section 658E(c)(2)(I)''.
SEC. 6. ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE.
Section 658G of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858e) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 658G. ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE.
``(a) Reservation.--
``(1) Reservation for activities relating to the quality of
child care services.--A State that receives funds to carry
out this subchapter for a fiscal year referred to in
paragraph (2) shall reserve and use a portion of such funds,
in accordance with paragraph (2), for activities provided
directly, or through grants or contracts with local child
care resource and referral organizations or other appropriate
entities, that are designed to improve the quality of child
care services and increase parental options for, and access
to, high-quality child care, provided in accordance with this
subchapter.
``(2) Amount of reservations.--Such State shall reserve and
use--
``(A) to carry out the activities described in paragraph
(1), not less than--
``(i) 6 percent of the funds described in paragraph (1),
for the first and second full fiscal years after the date of
enactment of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 2014;
``(ii) 8 percent of such funds, for the third and fourth
full fiscal years after the date of enactment; and
``(iii) 10 percent of such funds, for the fifth full fiscal
year after the date of enactment and each succeeding fiscal
year; and
``(B) in addition to the funds reserved under subparagraph
(A), 3 percent of the funds described in paragraph (1), for
the first full fiscal year after the date of enactment and
each succeeding fiscal year, to carry out the activities
described in paragraph (1) and subsection (b)(4), as such
activities relate to the quality of care for infants and
toddlers.
``(b) Activities.--Funds reserved under subsection (a)
shall be used to carry out not fewer than 2 of the following
activities:
``(1) Supporting the training, professional development,
and professional advancement of the child care workforce
through activities such as--
``(A) offering child care providers training and
professional development that is intentional and sequential
and leads to a higher level of skill or certification;
``(B) establishing or supporting programs designed to
increase the retention and improve the competencies of child
care providers, including wage incentive programs and
initiatives that establish tiered payment rates for providers
that meet or exceed child care services guidelines, as
defined by the State;
``(C) offering training, professional development, and
educational opportunities for child care providers that
relate to the use of developmentally appropriate and age-
appropriate curricula, and early childhood teaching
strategies, that are scientifically based and aligned with
the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of
children, including offering specialized training for child
care providers who care for infants and toddlers, children
who are English learners, and children with disabilities (as
defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401));
``(D) providing training concerning the State early
learning and developmental guidelines, where applicable,
including training concerning early mathematics and early
language and literacy development and effective instructional
practices to support mathematics and language and literacy
development in young children;
``(E) incorporating effective use of data to guide
instruction and program improvement;
``(F) including effective behavior management strategies
and training, including positive behavioral interventions and
supports, that promote positive social and emotional
development and reduce challenge behaviors;
``(G) at the option of the State, incorporating feedback
from experts at the State's institutions of higher education,
as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1002), and other early childhood development
experts and early childhood education and care experts;
``(H) providing training corresponding to the nutritional
and physical activity needs of children to promote healthy
development;
``(I) providing training or professional development for
child care providers to serve and support children with
disabilities;
``(J) providing training and outreach on engaging parents
and families in culturally and linguistically appropriate
ways to expand their knowledge, skills, and capacity to
become meaningful partners in supporting their children's
learning and development; and
``(K) providing training or professional development for
child care providers regarding the early neurological
development of children.
``(2) Supporting the use of the early learning and
developmental guidelines described in section 658E(c)(2)(T)
by--
``(A) developing and implementing the State's early
learning and developmental guidelines; and
``(B) providing technical assistance to enhance early
learning for preschool and school-aged children in order to
promote language and literacy skills, foster school
readiness, and support later school success.
``(3) Developing and implementing a tiered quality rating
system for child care providers, which shall--
``(A) support and assess the quality of child care
providers in the State;
``(B) build on licensing standards and other State
regulatory standards for such providers;
[[Page S1543]]
``(C) be designed to improve the quality of different types
of child care providers;
``(D) describe the quality of early learning facilities;
``(E) build the capacity of State early childhood education
and care programs and communities to promote parents' and
families' understanding of the State's early childhood
education and care system and the ratings of the programs in
which the child is enrolled; and
``(F) provide, to the maximum extent practicable, financial
incentives and other supports designed to help child care
providers achieve and sustain higher levels of quality.
``(4) Improving the supply and quality of child care
programs and services for infants and toddlers through
activities, which may include--
``(A) establishing or expanding neighborhood-based high-
quality comprehensive family and child development centers,
which may serve as resources to child care providers in order
to improve the quality of early childhood education and care
and early childhood development services provided to infants
and toddlers from low-income families and to help eligible
child care providers improve their capacity to offer high-
quality care to infants and toddlers from low-income
families;
``(B) establishing or expanding the operation of community
or neighborhood-based family child care networks;
``(C) supporting statewide networks of infant and toddler
child care specialists, including specialists who have
knowledge regarding infant and toddler development and
curriculum and program implementation as well as the ability
to coordinate services with early intervention specialists
who provide services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities under part C of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.);
``(D) carrying out initiatives to improve the quality of
the infant and toddler child care workforce, such as
providing relevant training, professional development, or
mentoring opportunities and linking such opportunities to
career pathways, developing career pathways for providers in
such workforce, and improving the State credentialing of
eligible providers caring for infants and toddlers;
``(E) if applicable, developing infant and toddler
components within the State's quality rating system described
in paragraph (3) for child care providers for infants and
toddlers, or the development of infant and toddler components
in a State's child care licensing regulations or early
learning and developmental guidelines;
``(F) improving the ability of parents to access
information about high-quality infant and toddler care; and
``(G) carrying out other activities determined by the State
to improve the quality of infant and toddler care provided in
the State, and for which there is evidence that the
activities will lead to improved infant and toddler health
and safety, infant and toddler development, or infant and
toddler well-being, including providing training (including
training in safe sleep practices, first aid, and
cardiopulmonary resuscitation).
``(5) Promoting broad child care provider participation in
the quality rating system described in paragraph (3).
``(6) Establishing or expanding a statewide system of child
care resource and referral services.
``(7) Facilitating compliance with State requirements for
inspection, monitoring, training, and health and safety, and
with State licensing standards.
``(8) Evaluating and assessing the quality and
effectiveness of child care programs and services offered in
the State, including evaluating how such programs and
services may improve the overall school readiness of young
children.
``(9) Supporting child care providers in the pursuit of
accreditation by an established national accrediting body
with demonstrated, valid, and reliable program standards of
high quality.
``(10) Supporting State or local efforts to develop or
adopt high-quality program standards relating to health,
mental health, nutrition, physical activity, and physical
development and providing resources to enable eligible child
care providers to meet, exceed, or sustain success in meeting
or exceeding, such standards.
``(11) Carrying out other activities determined by the
State to improve the quality of child care services provided
in the State, and for which measurement of outcomes relating
to improved provider preparedness, child safety, child well-
being, or school readiness is possible.
``(c) Certification.--Beginning with fiscal year 2015, at
the beginning of each fiscal year, the State shall annually
submit to the Secretary a certification containing an
assurance that the State was in compliance with subsection
(a) during the preceding fiscal year and a description of how
the State used funds received under this subchapter to comply
with subsection (a) during that preceding fiscal year.
``(d) Reporting Requirements.--Each State receiving funds
under this subchapter shall prepare and submit an annual
report to the Secretary, which shall include information
about--
``(1) the amount of funds that are reserved under
subsection (a);
``(2) the activities carried out under this section; and
``(3) the measures that the State will use to evaluate the
State's progress in improving the quality of child care
programs and services in the State.
``(e) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall offer
technical assistance, in accordance with section 658I(a)(3),
which may include technical assistance through the use of
grants or cooperative agreements, to States for the
activities described in subsection (b).
``(f) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as providing the Secretary the authority to
regulate, direct, or dictate State child care quality
activities or progress in implementing those activities.''.
SEC. 7. CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
658G the following:
``SEC. 658H. CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.
``(a) In General.--A State that receives funds to carry out
this subchapter shall have in effect--
``(1) requirements, policies, and procedures to require and
conduct criminal background checks for child care staff
members (including prospective child care staff members) of
child care providers described in subsection (c)(1); and
``(2) licensing, regulation, and registration requirements,
as applicable, that prohibit the employment of child care
staff members as described in subsection (c).
``(b) Requirements.--A criminal background check for a
child care staff member under subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) a search of each State criminal and sex offender
registry or repository in the State where the child care
staff member resides and each State where such staff member
resided during the preceding 10 years;
``(2) a search of State-based child abuse and neglect
registries and databases in the State where the child care
staff member resides and each State where such staff member
resided during the preceding 10 years;
``(3) a search of the National Crime Information Center;
``(4) a Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check
using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System; and
``(5) a search of the National Sex Offender Registry
established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.).
``(c) Prohibitions.--
``(1) Child care staff members.--A child care staff member
shall be ineligible for employment by a child care provider
that is licensed, regulated, or registered by the State or
for which assistance is provided in accordance with this
subchapter, if such individual--
``(A) refuses to consent to the criminal background check
described in subsection (b);
``(B) knowingly makes a materially false statement in
connection with such criminal background check;
``(C) is registered, or is required to be registered, on a
State sex offender registry or repository or the National Sex
Offender Registry established under the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.);
or
``(D) has been convicted of a felony consisting of--
``(i) murder, as described in section 1111 of title 18,
United States Code;
``(ii) child abuse or neglect;
``(iii) a crime against children, including child
pornography;
``(iv) spousal abuse;
``(v) a crime involving rape or sexual assault;
``(vi) kidnaping;
``(vii) arson;
``(viii) physical assault or battery; or
``(ix) subject to subsection (e)(4), a drug-related offense
committed during the preceding 5 years.
``(2) Child care providers.--A child care provider
described in paragraph (1) shall be ineligible for assistance
provided in accordance with this subchapter if the provider
employs a staff member who is ineligible for employment under
paragraph (1).
``(d) Submission of Requests for Background Checks.--
``(1) In general.--A child care provider covered by
subsection (c) shall submit a request, to the appropriate
State agency designated by a State, for a criminal background
check described in subsection (b), for each child care staff
member (including prospective child care staff members) of
the provider.
``(2) Staff members.--Subject to paragraph (4), in the case
of an individual who became a child care staff member before
the date of enactment of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 2014, the provider shall submit such a request--
``(A) prior to the last day described in subsection (i)(1);
and
``(B) not less often than once during each 5-year period
following the first submission date under this paragraph for
that staff member.
``(3) Prospective staff members.--Subject to paragraph (4),
in the case of an individual who is a prospective child care
staff member on or after that date of enactment, the provider
shall submit such a request--
``(A) prior to the date the individual becomes a child care
staff member of the provider; and
``(B) not less often than once during each 5-year period
following the first submission date under this paragraph for
that staff member.
``(4) Background check for another child care provider.--A
child care provider shall not be required to submit a request
under paragraph (2) or (3) for a child care staff member if--
``(A) the staff member received a background check
described in subsection (b)--
``(i) within 5 years before the latest date on which such a
submission may be made; and
``(ii) while employed by or seeking employment by another
child care provider within the State;
``(B) the State provided to the first provider a qualifying
background check result, consistent with this subchapter, for
the staff member; and
``(C) the staff member is employed by a child care provider
within the State, or has been separated from employment from
a child care provider within the State for a period of not
more than 180 consecutive days.
``(e) Background Check Results and Appeals.--
[[Page S1544]]
``(1) Background check results.--The State shall carry out
the request of a child care provider for a criminal
background check as expeditiously as possible, but in not to
exceed 45 days after the date on which such request was
submitted, and shall provide the results of the criminal
background check to such provider and to the current or
prospective staff member.
``(2) Privacy.--
``(A) In general.--The State shall provide the results of
the criminal background check to the provider in a statement
that indicates whether a child care staff member (including a
prospective child care staff member) is eligible or
ineligible for employment described in subsection (c),
without revealing any disqualifying crime or other related
information regarding the individual.
``(B) Ineligible staff member.--If the child care staff
member is ineligible for such employment due to the
background check, the State will, when providing the results
of the background check, include information related to each
disqualifying crime, in a report to the staff member or
prospective staff member.
``(C) Public release of results.--No State shall publicly
release or share the results of individual background checks,
however, such results of background checks may be included in
the development or dissemination of local or statewide data
related to background checks, if such results are not
individually identifiable.
``(3) Appeals.--
``(A) In general.--The State shall provide for a process by
which a child care staff member (including a prospective
child care staff member) may appeal the results of a criminal
background check conducted under this section to challenge
the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in
such member's criminal background report.
``(B) Appeals process.--The State shall ensure that--
``(i) each child care staff member shall be given notice of
the opportunity to appeal;
``(ii) a child care staff member will receive instructions
about how to complete the appeals process if the child care
staff member wishes to challenge the accuracy or completeness
of the information contained in such member's criminal
background report; and
``(iii) the appeals process is completed in a timely manner
for each child care staff member.
``(4) Review.--The State may allow for a review process
through which the State may determine that a child care staff
member (including a prospective child care staff member)
disqualified for a crime specified in subsection
(c)(1)(D)(ix) is eligible for employment described in
subsection (c)(1), notwithstanding subsection (c). The review
process shall be consistent with title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.).
``(5) No private right of action.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to create a private right of action if the
provider is in compliance with State regulations and
requirements.
``(f) Fees for Background Checks.--Fees that a State may
charge for the costs of processing applications and
administering a criminal background check as required by this
section shall not exceed the actual costs to the State for
the processing and administration.
``(g) Construction.--
``(1) Disqualification for other crimes.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to prevent a State from
disqualifying individuals as child care staff members based
on their conviction for crimes not specifically listed in
this section that bear upon the fitness of an individual to
provide care for and have responsibility for the safety and
well-being of children.
``(2) Rights and remedies.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to alter or otherwise affect the rights and
remedies provided for child care staff members residing in a
State that disqualifies individuals as child care staff
members for crimes not specifically provided for under this
section.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `child care provider' means a center-based
child care provider, a family child care provider, or another
provider of child care services for compensation and on a
regular basis that--
``(A) is not an individual who is related to all children
for whom child care services are provided; and
``(B) is licensed, regulated, or registered under State law
or receives assistance provided in accordance with this
subchapter; and
``(2) the term `child care staff member' means an
individual (other than an individual who is related to all
children for whom child care services are provided)--
``(A) who is employed by a child care provider for
compensation;
``(B) whose activities involve the care or supervision of
children for a child care provider or unsupervised access to
children who are cared for or supervised by a child care
provider; or
``(C) who is a family child care provider.
``(i) Effective Date.--
``(1) In general.--A State that receives funds under this
subchapter shall meet the requirements of this section for
the provision of criminal background checks for child care
staff members described in subsection (d)(1) not later than
the last day of the second full fiscal year after the date of
enactment of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 2014.
``(2) Extension.--The Secretary may grant a State an
extension of time, of not more than 1 fiscal year, to meet
the requirements of this section if the State demonstrates a
good faith effort to comply with the requirements of this
section.
``(3) Penalty for noncompliance.--Except as provided in
paragraphs (1) and (2), for any fiscal year that a State
fails to comply substantially with the requirements of this
section, the Secretary shall withhold 5 percent of the funds
that would otherwise be allocated to that State in accordance
with this subchapter for the following fiscal year.''.
SEC. 8. REPORTS AND INFORMATION.
(a) Administration.--Section 658I of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858g) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting a comma after ``publish''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) provide technical assistance to States (which may
include providing assistance on a reimbursable basis),
consistent with (as appropriate) scientifically valid
research, to carry out this subchapter; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) disseminate, for voluntary informational purposes,
information on practices that scientifically valid research
indicates are most successful in improving the quality of
programs that receive assistance under this subchapter.'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Prohibition.--Nothing in this subchapter shall be
construed as providing the Secretary the authority to permit
States to alter the eligibility requirements for eligible
children, including work requirements that apply to the
parents of eligible children.''.
(b) Requests for Relief.--Section 658I of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended by
subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Request for Relief.--
``(1) In general.--The State may submit to the Secretary a
request for relief from any provision of Federal law
(including a regulation, policy, or procedure) affecting the
delivery of child care services with Federal funds, other
than this subchapter, that conflicts with a requirement of
this subchapter.
``(2) Contents.--Such request shall--
``(A) detail the provision of Federal law that conflicts
with that requirement;
``(B) describe how modifying compliance with that provision
of Federal law to meet the requirements of this subchapter
will, by itself, improve delivery of child care services for
children in the State; and
``(C) certify that the health, safety, and well-being of
children served through assistance received under this
subchapter will not be compromised as a result.
``(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the
State submitting the request and the head of each Federal
agency (other than the Secretary) with responsibility for
administering the Federal law detailed in the State's
request. The consulting parties shall jointly identify--
``(A) any provision of Federal law (including a regulation,
policy, or procedure) for which a waiver is necessary to
enable the State to provide services in accordance with the
request; and
``(B) any corresponding waiver.
``(4) Waivers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
and after the joint identification described in paragraph
(3), the head of the Federal agency involved shall have the
authority to waive any statutory provision administered by
that agency, or any regulation, policy, or procedure issued
by that agency, that has been so identified, unless the head
of the Federal agency determines that such a waiver is
inconsistent with the objectives of this subchapter or the
Federal law from which relief is sought.
``(5) Approval.--Within 90 days after the receipt of a
State's request under this subsection, the Secretary shall
inform the State of the Secretary's approval or disapproval
of the request. If the plan is disapproved, the Secretary
shall inform the State, in writing, of the reasons for the
disapproval and give the State the opportunity to amend the
request.
``(6) Duration.--The Secretary may approve a request under
this subsection for a period of not more than 3 years, and
may renew the approval for additional periods of not more
than 3 years.
``(7) Termination.--The Secretary shall terminate approval
of a request for relief authorized under this subsection if
the Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity for a
hearing, that the performance of a State granted relief under
this subsection has been inadequate, or if such relief is no
longer necessary to achieve its original purposes.''.
(c) Reports.--Section 658K(a) of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858i(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) in clause (ix), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (x), by inserting ``and'' at the end; and
(C) by inserting after clause (x), the following:
``(xi) whether the children receiving assistance under this
subchapter are homeless children;''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``1997'' and inserting ``2014''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 658P(5)''
and inserting ``section 658P(6)''.
(d) Report by Secretary.--Section 658L of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858j) is
amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 658L. REPORTS, HOTLINE, AND WEB SITE.'';
(2) by striking ``Not later'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Report by Secretary.--Not later'';
(3) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2016''; and
(4) by striking ``to the Committee'' and all that follows
through ``of the Senate'' and inserting ``to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
of the Senate''; and
[[Page S1545]]
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) National Toll-Free Hotline and Web Site.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall operate a national
toll-free hotline and Web site, to--
``(A) develop and disseminate publicly available child care
consumer education information for parents and help parents
access safe, affordable, and quality child care in their
community; and
``(B) to allow persons to report (anonymously if desired)
suspected child abuse or neglect, or violations of health and
safety requirements, by an eligible child care provider that
receives assistance under this subchapter.
``(2) Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
hotline and Web site meet the following requirements:
``(A) Referral to local child care providers.--The Web site
shall be hosted by `childcare.gov'. The Web site shall enable
a child care consumer to enter a zip code and obtain a
referral to local child care providers described in
subparagraph (B) within a specified search radius.
``(B) Information.--The Web site shall provide to
consumers, directly or through linkages to State databases,
at a minimum--
``(i) a localized list of all State licensed child care
providers;
``(ii) any provider-specific information from a Quality
Rating and Improvement System or information about other
quality indicators, to the extent the information is publicly
available and to the extent practicable;
``(iii) any other provider-specific information about
compliance with licensing, and health and safety,
requirements to the extent the information is publicly
available and to the extent practicable;
``(iv) referrals to local resource and referral
organizations from which consumers can find more information
about child care providers, and a recommendation that
consumers consult with the organizations when selecting a
child care provider; and
``(v) State information about child care subsidy programs
and other financial supports available to families.
``(C) Nationwide capacity.--The Web site and hotline shall
have the capacity to help families in every State and
community in the Nation.
``(D) Information at all hours.--The Web site shall
provide, to parents and families, access to information about
child care 24 hours a day.
``(E) Services in different languages.--The Web site and
hotline shall ensure the widest possible access to services
for families who speak languages other than English.
``(F) High-quality consumer education and referral.--The
Web site and hotline shall ensure that families have access
to child care consumer education and referral services that
are consistent and of high quality.
``(3) Prohibition.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to allow the Secretary to compel States to provide
additional data and information that is currently (as of the
date of enactment of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 2014) not publicly available, or is not required
by this subchapter.''.
SEC. 9. RESERVATION FOR TOLL-FREE HOTLINE AND WEB SITE;
PAYMENTS TO BENEFIT INDIAN CHILDREN.
Section 658O of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858m) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) National toll-free hotline and web site.--The
Secretary shall reserve not less than $1,000,000 of the
amount appropriated under this subchapter for each fiscal
year for the operation of a national toll-free hotline and
Web site, under section 658L(b).''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Licensing and standards.--In lieu of any licensing
and regulatory requirements applicable under State or local
law, the Secretary, in consultation with Indian tribes and
tribal organizations, shall develop minimum child care
standards that shall be applicable to Indian tribes and
tribal organizations receiving assistance under this
subchapter. Such standards shall appropriately reflect Indian
tribe and tribal organization needs and available resources,
and shall include standards requiring a publicly available
application, health and safety standards, and standards
requiring a reservation of funds for activities to improve
the quality of child care provided to Indian children.''.
SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS.
Section 658P of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(3) Child with a disability.--The term `child with a
disability' means--
``(A) a child with a disability, as defined in section 602
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1401);
``(B) a child who is eligible for early intervention
services under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.);
``(C) a child who is less than 13 years of age and who is
eligible for services under section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794); and
``(D) a child with a disability, as defined by the State
involved.
``(4) Eligible child.--The term `eligible child' means an
individual--
``(A) who is less than 13 years of age;
``(B) whose family income does not exceed 85 percent of the
State median income for a family of the same size; and
``(C) who--
``(i) resides with a parent or parents who are working or
attending a job training or educational program; or
``(ii) is receiving, or needs to receive, protective
services and resides with a parent or parents not described
in clause (i).'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (9) as
paragraphs (6) through (10), respectively;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4), the following:
``(5) English learner.--The term `English learner' means an
individual who is limited English proficient, as defined in
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801) or section 637 of the Head Start Act
(42 U.S.C. 9832).'';
(4) in paragraph (6)(A), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``section 658E(c)(2)(E)''
and inserting ``section 658E(c)(2)(F)''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``section 658E(c)(2)(F)''
and inserting ``section 658E(c)(2)(I)'';
(5) in paragraph (9), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by
striking ``designated'' and all that follows and inserting
``designated or established under section 658D(a).'';
(6) in paragraph (10), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by
inserting ``, foster parent,'' after ``guardian'';
(7) by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (14) as
paragraphs (12) through (15), respectively; and
(8) by inserting after paragraph (10), as redesignated by
paragraph (2), the following:
``(11) Scientifically valid research.--The term
`scientifically valid research' includes applied research,
basic research, and field-initiated research, for which the
rationale, design, and interpretation are soundly developed
in accordance with principles of scientific research.''.
SEC. 11. STUDIES ON WAITING LISTS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct studies to determine, for each State, the
number of families that--
(1) are eligible to receive assistance under the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et
seq.);
(2) have applied for the assistance; and
(3) have been placed on a waiting list for the assistance.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall prepare a report
containing the results of each study and shall submit the
report to the appropriate committees of Congress--
(1) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(2) every 2 years thereafter.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``State'' has
the meaning given the term in section 658P of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n).
SEC. 12. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 319C-1(b)(2)(A)(vii) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-3a(b)(2)(A)(vii)) is amended by inserting
``or established'' after ``designated''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 2811
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is now
considering the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I
have a first-degree amendment to the committee-reported substitute
amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 2811.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To include rural and remote areas as underserved areas
identified in the State plan)
On page 88, line 8, insert ``, such as rural and remote
areas'' after ``underserved areas''.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, we are now on the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I know Senator Alexander and I,
and others, are anxious to consider amendments. I encourage people who
have amendments to bring them to the floor so Senator Burr, Senator
Alexander, Senator Mikulski or I could look at them and get things
lined up.
It is my intent--and I hope I can speak for Senator Alexander on this
too--to have an open yet managed process with respect to this bill and
for Senators who have relevant amendments to have the opportunity to
have them offered and to be voted on. I expect we would have a couple
of votes within the next few hours. I don't even know when but sometime
soon. So again, I strongly encourage Senators with amendments to bring
them over and file them so we can get them discussed expeditiously.
This bill was voted unanimously out of the HELP Committee last
September. I hope it will receive strong bipartisan support here on the
Senate floor. I give tremendous credit and thanks to Senators Mikulski
and
[[Page S1546]]
Burr, the sponsors of this legislation, for their leadership in this
process over a couple of years working together, creating a bill which
takes huge steps in improving the lives of children and their families.
At the outset I also thank our ranking member Senator Alexander for
his partnership and for working with us to reauthorize this vital
program. Our offices have worked collaboratively over the last couple
of years to produce a strong bipartisan bill.
I would start first by saying this program has a big impact in my
State of Iowa. Right now Iowa serves about 15,800 children every month
with CCDBG funds: 28 percent infants and toddlers; 26 percent ages 3 to
4; and about half or 46 percent, ages 5 to 13.
Most people think of this simply as a childcare-type bill for infants
and toddlers, but this is not true. This goes to age 13, but over half
goes to those under the age of 5.
The last time this was reauthorized in 1996, 18 years ago, this
program was basically looked at as mainly a work support program,
taking care of kids while parents went to work. It was only
incidentally thought of as something which could have a real impact on
the lives of kids. Well, 18 years later and backed by scientific
research, we know the program can and should be much more. In addition
to providing vital work support for parents, it could be a rich early
learning opportunity for children.
In 2000 the National Research Council published a groundbreaking
report called ``Neurons to Neighborhoods.'' The report's author said:
From the time of conception to the first day of
kindergarten, development proceeds at a pace exceeding that
of any subsequent stage of life. . . . that what happens
during the first months and years of life matters a lot, not
because this period of development provides an indelible
blueprint for adult well-being, but because it sets either a
sturdy or fragile stage for what follows.
What this bill does is set that sturdy stage.
This report that I talk about from the National Research Council
reinforces what we already know--that learning starts at birth and that
preparation for learning begins even before birth. Eighty percent of a
child's brain develops between birth and age 3. Because much of a
child's intellect and skills develop before he or she begins
kindergarten, we need to give all children every opportunity to reach
their full potential at their earliest stages in life. This means
supporting access to high-quality early-learning programs, including
high-quality childcare.
The bill before us represents a strong and positive advance for low-
income families who benefit from the childcare subsidies. The bill
makes many needed improvements that will help establish high
expectations for federally subsidized childcare in this country. The
bill accomplishes a lot of good. I will highlight two or three items
here.
First of all, education and training for childcare workers. Under
this bill the States that apply and get these block grants will need to
develop minimum education and training requirements for childcare
workers that describe what they must know and be able to do to promote
the health and development of the children they serve. Just as we know
that a great teacher is one of the most important factors in a
classroom, we also know that one of the most critical components of
early development in children is whether they have supportive nurturing
interactions with caring adults.
Another important thing we do in the bill is to promote safety and
health standards. This bill ensures that licensed childcare providers
receive a prelicensure inspection and one annual inspection thereafter.
Alarmingly, some States inspect childcare centers only once in 5 years.
Some States don't even do a prelicensure inspection until a provider is
serving more than a dozen children.
The bill also stipulates and focuses on vulnerable populations,
including children with disabilities, infants and toddlers, and
children whose parents work nontraditional hours. I want to highlight
that the sponsors of this bill, Senator Burr and Senator Mikulski, took
great care to ensure that childcare programs supported through this
block grant would be well-suited for children with special needs and
their families. The legislation asks States to consider the unique
needs of children with disabilities when developing training
requirements for childcare workers. A childcare worker may be trained
to take care of nondisabled children. But taking care of a child with a
disability requires a little bit more expertise and a little extra
training, and that is what this bill does provide. It also lets parents
know the types of services available through the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
The bill also provides families with stability and continuity of care
for families. Once they receive care, they are going to get it for at
least 1 year if they are initially deemed eligible. Currently, some
States require parents to reapply for care after only a few months. In
some cases States will kick parents off of care if they receive a small
pay raise that makes them ineligible under the State's eligibility
guidelines. This bill remedies this by ensuring that as long as a
parent is working or is in a training program and whose income does not
exceed 85 percent of the State's median income, they will get care for
at least 1 year without having to work. Again, this helps children
because we know that a lot of times these kinds of disruptions can
really set a child back, and this allows at least for continuity for 1
year.
The bill also supports the development of a Web site. I know Senator
Burr was very interested in that and helped promote and put that in the
bill. The Web site is going to be available for all parents to show
them the range of childcare providers in their area so they can shop
around and see what is out there.
Right now the law says States can set the eligibility requirement as
long as it does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income. If
you look at all of the children ages 0 to age 13--because the bill
covers up to age 13--if you look at preschool age kids 0 to 5, we do a
little bit better. States are serving a little more than a quarter of
the children who would be eligible under the Federal guidelines. I
think this shows the present landscape right now. Out of 100 percent of
the kids that are eligible, we have 73 percent eligible preschool-aged
children not being served. There are about 27 percent of preschool-aged
children being served. So we do have a long way to go. As chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies, our committee has fought for years to
increase funding so we can serve more children. The fiscal year 2014
omnibus included more than a $154 million increase for the childcare
program. I know that sounds like a lot, but all that it did was replace
the $118 million cut that happened because of sequestration. We
replaced the $118 million plus whatever that figures out to--about
another $36 more million. So it helps. The increased funding will help
States improve access to quality and affordable childcare by increasing
the number of kids who can receive it.
But actually we have a long way to go. The last chart shows what is
happening. If you look at the blue line at the bottom, that is the
actual funding in this program. If you go back to 2005 and see what was
in place, we are about $600 million short of where we would be if we
kept up with inflation. You see, this is 2005. Those who have been
around since then, we know what it was like before that. We have lost a
lot of ground. So we need to make that up, and I hope we can do that in
our appropriations bills that are coming up.
This bill changes the landscape and makes it a lot better for
families out there. The bill authorizes the funding, but the
appropriations have to fund it. I hope that we can in fiscal year 2015
continue to be able to keep up the funding increases for the childcare
development block grants.
It is a good bill. I am very proud of this bill, proud of the efforts
that Senator Burr and Senator Mikulski put into it over a long period
of time. So I urge my colleagues to join in the bipartisan spirit of
cooperation that we have witnessed in the health committee over the
last year.
If Senators have amendments that are germane to the bill, I encourage
them to bring them over so we can take a look at them and determine a
fair path forward with respect to those amendments.
Again, I thank Senator Alexander for a great working relationship on
this committee and thank him for
[[Page S1547]]
working so hard to help bring this bill forward to the bill today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I want to say to the Senator from
Iowa how much I appreciate working with him.
We were talking yesterday, and he told me--I think I have these facts
about right--that our committee in this Congress has reported 17 bills
that have passed the Senate and 10 that have become law, which I
suspect exceeds that of any other committee. As our hearing this
morning on the minimum wage showed, it is not because we always agree
with each other all the time. We probably have the most ideologically
split committee in the Congress by party, but we get a lot done. That
is due in great measure to the way the Senator from Iowa leads the
committee, and I appreciate that very much.
I will have more to say about Senator Burr and Senator Mikulski in a
few moments because they have done the yeoman's work on this. They are
the leaders of this effort. They immersed themselves in it for the last
two years. They brought it to a position which convinced everybody on
the committee it was time to move ahead, but that is not where we were
when we started. We had lots of differences of opinions, and we came to
a conclusion that they will be explaining in detail.
So the way we will proceed today is this. After my remarks, Senator
Mikulski and Senator Burr will step up and begin to manage the bill.
Senator Harkin and I will be here. We are continuing right through the
afternoon.
We hope that Senators will bring their amendments to the floor. What
we are hoping to do is to have a debate about the child care and
development block grant. We are hoping to have amendments, and we will
have votes on those amendments. It is not our desire to pick this
Democratic amendment or this Republican amendment. If you have an
amendment on the child care and development block grant that is related
to the bill, please bring it over and talk to Senator Burr, Senator
Mikulski, Senator Harkin, or me, and we will start lining them up.
There will be time for debate. There will be a vote and it will be
considered.
Our hope is to have votes this afternoon, votes tomorrow morning, and
to let Senators know that there won't be votes tonight so they can plan
their schedules. Senator Burr will talk more about that and the time
for attempting to conclude the bill tomorrow. That is our goal. That is
the way the Senate traditionally has worked. It is the way we hope it
works today.
Since Senator Mikulski from Maryland and the Senator from North
Carolina have done the principal amount of work on the bill, I see no
need for me to go through the details of the bill. I think they are
better equipped and prepared to do that. Let me try to put the whole
effort in perspective before I step aside and Senator Mikulski and
Senator Burr step up.
During World War II there were a great many mothers, women, who took
jobs outside the home. That was different. In our agricultural society
families worked together. As the industrial society in America
developed during the 20th century, men largely went away from home to
work and women mostly worked at home.
But in World War II something different happened. Many of the men
were overseas fighting. There was a lot of work to be done at home, and
so women took jobs in the factories that they didn't have before. That
produced a new phenomenon in the American society which was called
worksite daycare. Someone had to take care of the children. In many
cases companies employing large numbers of women during World War II
provided sites at the workplace so that mothers could bring their
children while they worked.
Then after the war was over, things went back to the way they were
before, and most American women worked at home. That began to change
probably in the 1970s. It is probably fair to say that the greatest
social change in our country over the last 40 years has been the
gradual and steady phenomenon of more women in the workplace outside
the home and the adjustments our society has made to that.
I was lucky. I had an early head start in the little town of
Maryville, Tennessee, where I grew up at the edge of the Smoky
Mountains. My mother had one of the town's two preschool education
programs. She had it in a converted garage in her backyard. She had
been trained in Kansas and in a settlement house in Chicago. It is hard
for me today to imagine how she could do this, but she had 25 3-year-
olds and 4-year-olds in the morning and 25 5-year-olds in the
afternoon. That was Mrs. Alexander's preschool, which we called the
institution of lower learning.
She had nowhere else to put me, so I became the first Senator to have
5 years of kindergarten, which I probably needed, but which gave me a
head start. It gave me the understanding of what Senator Harkin said
earlier--that research then, but especially now, shows the brain
develops at least from the moment of conception and that all of the
influences around an infant are important to that person's development
over a long period of time.
Most parents who understand that want to make sure that they are with
a child at a very early age stimulating that child, or if they can't be
with their child for some period of time for some reason, someone else
is looking after their child. Along with the changing role of women in
the workforce came the idea of more childcare.
I remember in 1986 when I was Governor of Tennessee, the head of our
human services division--a woman named Marguerite Sallee, now
Marguerite Kondracke--came to me, and she proposed that I ask the
businesses in Tennessee to create 1,000 worksite daycare places. I was
kind of taken aback by that because I didn't understand the need for
it, and I didn't think the businesses would do it voluntarily.
Well, we did that, and we got twice as many worksite daycare places
as we requested. It was good for businesses to do and there was plenty
of demand for it from the parents who had to take their children to
work. The next year I was out of a job--I was through with my time as
Governor--and so was Marguerite. Along with Captain Kangaroo--Bob
Keeshan--my wife, and Brad Martin, we founded a company called
Corporate Child Care, which provided worksite daycare places. After
about 10 years, it merged with its major competitor Bright Horizons,
and they became what is today the largest provider of worksite daycare
in the world.
Companies have realized the importance of worksite daycare, but not
all mothers and fathers can send their children to Bright Horizons
while they work, and so there came to be a recognition that there
needed to be some response by the Federal Government.
The next year, about 1988, the first Federal childcare programs came
into existence. In 1996, the law we are considering today was basically
a part of the reform of the Welfare Act. It is a remarkable law because
it involves lots of State flexibility. In other words, it acknowledges
that what is good for Maryland may not be good for North Carolina. It
models our higher education system by letting the money follow the
child to the institution that the parent thinks is best for their
child. These are vouchers. It has gradually grown to an area where we
spend $5 billion or $6 billion of taxpayers' money each year to provide
about 1\1/2\ million children with an opportunity for childcare.
I will mention one success story so we have an example of exactly
what we are talking about. I am thinking of a young mother in Memphis,
TN, who was attending LeMoyne-Owen College and earning a business
degree. She had an infant child, and so she put that child in a
childcare center she chose. The voucher, through this program we are
talking about today, provided $500 to $600 a month to help pay for the
bill. Infant childcare is especially expensive. If you think about it,
this is understandable.
The success part of the story is that she earned her degree. She is
now an assistant manager at Walmart in Memphis. She has a second child
who attends the same childcare center now, but she earns enough to pay
the full cost.
This program encourages work, it encourages job training, and for
those Americans who are low income and working or low income and
training or educating themselves for a job, this helps them get that
job. This is an important bill for many families.
[[Page S1548]]
In Tennessee, we have about 20,000 families affected each month and
nearly 40,000 children. It is a big help to them. It makes a difference
in their lives.
I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr for their work on this
legislation. I know of no two Senators in this body who approach issues
in a more serious, effective, and determined way. They also understand
that in a body of 100 Members, where we each have a right to object,
that no bill is going to be exactly what any of us want.
For example, I am leery of the extent of the background checks
required by this bill, which is one of its major accomplishments. As a
former Governor, I am very skeptical of Washington setting rules for
States, but I accept the compromise they have agreed to with the
background checks. We talked that matter through, and I think it is a
sound proposal. I congratulate them for the way they have done this
over the last 2 years and the way we have approached it.
I will conclude with where I started. We are asking Senators to join
us in a debate about the child care and development block grant. We
hope Senators will come to the floor with their ideas on it. We know
there are a number of Senators who have amendments on both sides of the
aisle. What we are saying to those Senators is if you have an amendment
that is related to our bill, you will have a chance to talk about it
and you will have a chance for it to be voted on and perhaps accepted
by the full Senate, and hopefully this bill will go to the House and
become law.
We know that has not been the story as often as it should be in the
Senate, but we would like to see that happen more often. It requires a
little bit of restraint on the part of each of us as Senators. We can't
all exercise all of our rights all the time and get anything done. It
requires some trust and restraint on the part of our leaders, Senator
Reid and Senator McConnell. We appreciate them turning the management
of the bill over to Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr, with Senator
Harkin and me in support of their efforts.
We appreciate the cooperation of the many Senators who have already
come up with excellent amendments and notified us about them. Senator
Burr and Senator Mikulski know about them and will talk about them.
At this stage, I wish to step down and turn this matter over to
Senator Mikulski first, and then Senator Burr. We invite Senators to
come over. We will continue through lunch and discuss, debate, talk,
and begin voting on the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Reauthorization.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am so pleased to bring to the floor
this very important bipartisan legislation, the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I am standing here today to speak
on behalf of families and children across this Nation.
I am excited to bring forward this bill for two reasons; one, the
content it represents--a reauthorization framework for the childcare
and development block grant, one of the most important tools families
have to be able to afford child are so they may go to work. It is a
childcare development bill and it is a work assistance bill.
I am also proud of the process by which we are undertaking this bill,
the process by which we arrived at and brought this bill to the floor
today.
This legislation has not been reauthorized since 1996. Senator
Richard Burr of North Carolina and I serve on the HELP Committee, of
which the Presiding Officer is a member. We once shared the
Subcommittee on Children and Families. Senator Burr and I, who have a
longstanding professional relationship, said: Let's see what we can get
done on that committee. Where can we find common ground? Where can we
find that sensible center? How can we move things forward on a
bipartisan basis where we add value to our country but don't add to our
debt?
We put our heads together, and by looking at the childcare needs in
our country, we began a regular order process. We held three hearings,
lots of meetings with stakeholders, over 50 organizations, as well as
meetings with our staffs and each other, characterized by three
factors: mutual respect, focusing on national needs, and how we could
be smart in terms of our policies yet frugal in terms of the way we
went about the money. We didn't expand the vouchers the way some of us
would like, but we looked at how we could expand value by focusing on
quality. Because of the tone we set with each other, we were able to do
this.
This is how the Senate should operate. We should have mutual respect,
talking with each other and not at each other, listening to the
experts, listening to the grassroots, and paying attention to the
bottom line. We were able to accomplish what we set out to do.
Today, as we come to the floor, this is an open amendment process. We
talk a lot about regular order. There are very few Members of the
Senate--particularly those who have been elected since 2006--who know
what regular order is. A quick thumbnail of it means legislation is
brought to the floor, we offer an open amendment process, debate,
deliberate, and vote. This is how we hope to be able to proceed today.
There will be no strong-arming, no stiff-arming, no heavy hand, just
regular order, regular debate, with every Senator having the
opportunity to have their day and their say. This is how the Senate
should operate.
What also excites me in coming to the floor is not only being the
Senator from Maryland, but also, as the Presiding Officer knows, I am a
professionally trained social worker. I have a master's degree in
social work. I was a foster care worker for Catholic Charities, and I
was a child abuse worker for the Department of Social Services. One of
the reasons I came into politics was to be able to take the value of a
social worker and bring it to the floor of the U.S. Congress to make
sure we looked at families and their needs. This is what I think this
bill does.
We are looking at childcare. Every family in America with children is
concerned about childcare. They wonder if it is available. They wonder
if it is affordable. They worry if it is safe, and they are also
concerned about whether it will help their children to be ready to
learn.
We all say that children are one of our most important resources,
which also means childcare is one of our most important decisions.
Families will scrimp and save to make sure they have adequate
childcare. If you are a single parent and working a double shift, you
wonder if childcare is safe and sound. If you are a student working
toward a degree, you want to make sure that while you are in school,
your children are in a good preschool or daycare program. These worries
weigh heavily on the shoulders of parents everywhere, and our bill
lifts that burden. This bill gives families and children the childcare
they need.
This bill, as I said, is the product of a bipartisan effort.
Childcare is something all families worry about, regardless of income
or ZIP Code. This bill ensures that all children get the care they need
and deserve. What we did was focus on those needs.
Childcare has not been evaluated since 1996. At that time the program
was solely a vision as a workforce aid. What we know today is that this
is also the time of the most rapid period of brain development, and
that is why it is imperative we ensure our young children are in high-
quality childcare programs. We need to make sure that childcare
nurtures their development, prepares their minds, and prepares them for
school.
The current program is out of date. It doesn't go far enough to
promote health and safety and also make sure that the staff is ready to
meet emergency responses and take care of the needs of those children.
When we worked on this legislation, we focused on quality. I will
elaborate on that in more detail.
Way back when this bill was first signed into law, it was under
George Herbert Bush. It was so women could go from welfare to work.
President Clinton came in, and part of the welfare reform was to be
able to do that. Now it is a new day, and we want to make sure that
childcare not only helps the parents but it also focuses on the
children. We want to ensure that when parents leave their children at
daycare, they know their children's providers are trained, that the
environment is safe, and their program will
[[Page S1549]]
help their children prepare for their education.
We know there are differences in North Carolina compared to Maryland.
We know there are differences in Utah compared to Maine. So what we
have provided is the ability to make sure there is incredible State
flexibility. I will go into that in more detail.
I hope my colleagues will join Senator Burr, Senator Alexander,
Senator Harkin, and myself in passing this bill. I look forward to
further debate and discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my good
friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.
In the Senate, for those of us who have been around for a while, we
understand how it works. I am not sure the media does justice to the
American people in terms of how difficult it is for legislation to
actually pass the Senate. As a matter of fact, the historical threshold
of 67 and then 60 in agreement means that if a Senator is a serious
legislator and their interest is to work on good policy--not perfect; I
think Senator Alexander said we have never seen a perfect bill--then
the first thought that goes through a Senator's mind as they work on a
legislative agenda is, who on the other side of the aisle can I look to
whom this would be appealing to from the standpoint of their interests
and, No. 2, an individual who understands how to get through difficult
times? I am here to say to my colleagues that Barbara Mikulski is a
Senator who fills that category not just as it pertains to this
legislation but as it pertains to so much because of her great depth of
knowledge and, more importantly, her tenacity and her willingness to
tell people no and to pursue what is right. Because at the end of the
day--I think I can speak for both of us--this is not about headlines;
this is about looking at a generation of kids who will be benefited by
reforms to a reauthorization that hasn't happened since 1996.
Historically on this issue, George H.W. Bush started the program, and
it was under the Clinton administration, under welfare reform, that we
formalized these vouchers. The vouchers were really created so families
who struggled to keep a job and were low income but had childcare needs
didn't have to worry about the childcare piece. There was Federal
assistance that was determined on a sliding scale.
By the way, let me say to my colleagues, if a State doesn't provide a
waiver to a family, then they have skin in the game on these vouchers.
So this is not free across the board.
This has benefited now 1.6 million families. In North Carolina, there
are 74,000 vouchers on an annual basis that benefit our children. Those
are family members who are either in education or who work, and they
can commit to those jobs because they know that childcare is available
and the cost is affordable because of this Federal voucher program.
I think Senator Mikulski would agree with me in saying we hope we
never see a program that waits this long to be reauthorized. Every
program here deserves to be reevaluated every 5 years--No. 1, on its
effectiveness, and No. 2, do we still have the problem we had when the
program was started. I daresay in her time here--and she has been here
a lot longer than I have, and I don't say that with regard to her age--
there are programs still on the books that don't have a constituency
anymore. But the hardest thing for Congress to do is to get rid of
something or to consolidate. I think Senator Mikulski and I have always
taken the attitude that if we can make this better and have a positive
effect on the folks it was intended for, then that is our job. That is
our responsibility as Members of the Senate.
So I certainly look forward, after the 2 years we have spent on an
issue--some might listen to the debate today and say: Geez, why didn't
they go to the floor and pass it by unanimous consent?
That is an option. But we also believe we are not perfect, and by
reaching out to Members and colleagues and saying: Come to the floor;
if Senators can make this bill better, then come to the floor and offer
amendments--if a Senator comes to the floor with an amendment and we
think it makes the bill worse, then we are going to vote against it,
but we promise this: We will have a vote. That is an important part of
the Senate, that Members always feel they can put their fingerprints,
they can put their State's interest into every piece of legislation
whether or not they are on that committee or subcommittee. We have now,
with this bill, returned to a process that I think reaches out and
incorporates that.
Let me say to our colleagues, it is our intent when I finish speaking
to start accepting amendments. At some point, with both leaders'
agreement, this afternoon we will target a period when we will vote on
whatever stacked amendments we have been able to process. After that,
we will hopefully go back and consider more amendments. I think it is
our intent to not have votes tonight but to work with the leaders in
order to roll those votes to tomorrow morning.
Let me make this perfectly clear to our colleagues: It is our intent
to finish this bill tomorrow afternoon, period. So the way to effect
positive change in this legislation--to get Senators' input into it and
fingerprints on it--is to not wait until tomorrow afternoon but to come
down this afternoon and debate the amendments, process the amendments,
and let's work as the Senate is designed to work. So I encourage my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do that.
I rise today to speak about S. 1986, the childcare development block
grant reauthorization bill, with my good friend Senator Mikulski. I
must say we wouldn't be here if it weren't for the cooperation of
Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander. Senator Harkin has a long history
of interest and involvement with policies that affect children. He is
passionate about it. Senator Alexander has a similar lifetime
commitment, a Senator who has served as the education governor of
Tennessee, the Secretary of Education of the United States, and the
president of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. So both of them
come with a tremendous amount of expertise and passion for this issue.
This legislation is actually necessary to build on what the Child
Care Development Block Grant Program was established for. As I said
earlier, 1.6 million children nationally are served today--74,000 in
North Carolina--and there tends to be a lot of talk in this body about
strengthening job training, getting people back to work, and
incentivizing self-reliance. I wish to recommend to my colleagues that
is exactly what the Child Care Development Block Grant Program does. It
says to a family: Work and we will help you with childcare. Get
additional education and we will help you with childcare.
But one of the problems since 1996 when this program was created was
the way we looked at one's income was an instantaneous snapshot. So as
a parent, if I was offered a second shift where I could earn a little
more money, I would look at how that might affect my child's childcare
voucher and realize that they will take my voucher away if I take that
second shift or if I work overtime and get time-and-a-half pay.
Well, this is evidence that we have looked at all angles. We have
reached out to the communities that are affected. We have talked to
people who are providers. We have talked to parents. We have looked at
the difficulties they struggle with, because our intent is to make sure
we have a piece of legislation that parents can choose to accept that
shift offer, can accept working overtime and know they are not going to
be adversely affected because now we are looking at the yearlong versus
the individual snapshot.
So through Federal vouchers, parents who demonstrate that they are
working or they are in job-training programs or furthering their
education and who are below 85 percent of the State median income are
eligible to receive the childcare voucher and to use that at a
childcare provider of their choice in their State. This is not one
where we are saying: You have to go here and you have to go there. We
open it for the choice of the parent.
In addition, CDBG requires families, as I said earlier, to have skin
in the game on a sliding scale based upon their income. As a block
grant, States have great flexibility in how they administer these funds
but are generally required to set health, safety, and quality
guidelines to promote parental
[[Page S1550]]
choice, assist parents in becoming independent through work promotion,
and provide good consumer information so parents can make good
decisions about their child's care.
S. 1086, the legislation we have offered, would reauthorize this law
for the first time since 1996. It would do so by making some
commonsense changes that address the realities which I have
highlighted, prioritizing the safety of children who receive care with
Federal dollars.
First, we would require all providers and individuals who have
unsupervised access to children to submit to a criminal background
check. That check would ensure our young children are not left alone
with individuals who have committed felonies such as murder, rape,
child abuse, neglect, robbery, and other serious offenses. This
provision is the result of legislation I introduced over the past
several Congresses called the Child Care Protection Act, which I
believe will do a great deal to improve the safety of our children.
Let me just stop there and say this is incredible because I think
most Americans probably believe these background checks take place
today. And to some degree they are right. States such as North Carolina
have been responsible, and they do carry out some degree of background
checks--although not all States, not all providers. But when this bill
becomes law, it will say to all States and to all providers that
receive Federal vouchers: You must do this. You must assure every
parent that these felons are not part of the workforce that has
unsupervised access to your children.
Second, this bill asks States to monitor through inspections the
quality of childcare settings so that basic health and safety
precautions are taken. Many States currently conduct no checks at all
for certain settings or conduct them years apart, all while providers
receive State and Federal tax dollars. At the very least, parents who
are working several jobs just to make it should know that their child
is in someone's care who has been trained in the basics of CPR, fire
prevention, and other commonsense precautions.
I think one of our colleagues--Senator Landrieu--will come to the
floor sometime this afternoon and offer an amendment that requires
evacuation plans. Well, for a Senator from Louisiana who lived this
firsthand, this is really important. It is a great job of where a
Member's amendment is going to help to perfect our bill. For anybody
who lives in a coastal State such as North Carolina--I am sorry I
didn't think of exactly what she did--but when we look at tornadoes and
when we look at fires, we are all susceptible to the need of a daycare
facility having an evacuation plan so that local officials and, more
importantly, parents and the providers who work there understand what
to do.
Third, it asks States to make transparent all the information as
widely as possible so parents are armed with all the information they
need when they shop for childcare under the Federal childcare vouchers.
Fourth, in keeping with the maximum flexibility afforded to States
under the CDBG, this bill provides States the option of seeking waivers
from any Federal law that funds early learning or childcare that might
have conflicting or onerous results for the delivery of that care and
requires the Secretary of HHS to work with other agencies to provide a
waiver for those requirements so States and childcare providers can
focus on providing quality care and not just complying with
Washington's confusing set of requirements. In other words, the focus
of this is to make sure the childcare quality component is the single
most important feature to providers.
Fifth, it promotes continued employment incentives for parents to
move higher in their careers by providing better guidance to States on
how they determine the eligibility of parents and their children. To
me, it is just common sense that we should not penalize a parent from
taking on an extra shift or working overtime. But at the same time we
require States to make sure that only the most needy parents receive
the childcare vouchers and that they can demonstrate they are following
the law's work rules. Let me say again--because I think this is lost
because we have not talked about this in almost two decades--for many
in the communities we all represent, this is the difference between a
family being able to keep a job or to be 100 percent on assistance.
What we have is a Federal program that is not just beneficial, we have
the data to prove it works, and that matrix continues to be in place.
Finally, it asks States to place a greater emphasis on building
quality care settings by gradually increasing the amount of Federal
dollars that can be set aside from the current law's 4 percent to 10
percent over the several years that must be used to improve quality
programs.
Let me explain. Today, we say you can set aside up to 4 percent for
quality. We want to extend that. We want to create an incubator that is
an investment in what we can do to further enhance the quality of what
these children are exposed to.
I think Senator Harkin, Senator Alexander, and Senator Mikulski have
all pointed out that when we go from infancy to age 13, we have the
majority of the learning period of a child's life. Some of it we pick
up in the education system. But if they go to childcare after that or
they go to childcare before it, we want to make sure the quality of
that, and, more importantly, the innovation of that quality, is such
that all students, all children can advance because of it.
This bipartisan legislation is the result of work in the HELP
Committee. It was influenced and really ramrodded by my good friend
Senator Mikulski. She was tireless at inviting experts. She sought
practitioners in all of our States. It was that, and the leadership of
our chairman and our ranking member, that brings us here today.
I believe this legislation will go a long way toward improving
childcare in our country but also toward promoting self-sufficiency and
independence for working parents. This is not a Federal handout. This
is a partnership between the Federal Government and the opportunity for
parents to have a better life. I think the way we have addressed the
commonsense changes in reauthorization makes it more likely, not less
likely, that more parents will succeed at that.
So I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. But I really do
stress with my colleagues, now is the time to come to the floor. Bring
your amendments to the floor. Let's debate the amendments. Let's vote
on the amendments. Let's prove the Senate can function in a very open
process because in this particular case those vulnerable parents and
those children, who are the next generation, really do matter and what
we do really does affect them.
I thank the Presiding Officer, I thank my colleague from Maryland,
and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I know we will be offering amendments
throughout the afternoon, and we look forward to ample debate and
discussion on them.
I want to reiterate my appreciation to Senator Burr for the way we
have worked together on this bill. He was very generous in his comments
to me and about me, and I appreciate it. But what I so appreciated in
working with him is that his whole focus was: How do we protect these
children? And his work to ensure that the children are safe when they
are at the daycare, regardless of the size of the provider, was
important. So, yes, we have good background checks. At the same time,
we were looking at health and safety standards, making sure the staffs
are at least trained in the elements of first aid, so that if the
children needed help because they swallowed something--until the 911
responders could be there--they would have that training. That is
really important.
Yet we had to look at it in a way in which we did not overregulate.
So we wanted quality standards, but we did not want to have so many
rules, so many regs--exactly what Senator Alexander cautioned us about:
Let's not overregulate so that we then stifle or end up shrinking the
pool. So we, again, worked on what--the phrase ``sensible center''
comes from Colin Powell: that if we work hard and listen to each other,
we can find that sensible center. So it was the balance between Federal
standards but also local flexibility on the best way to achieve those
standards, and also to help States pay
[[Page S1551]]
the bill for the training. One of the aspects of our bill is to set
aside 3 percent of funding to expand access to improve the quality of
care, especially for infants and toddlers--the most vulnerable
populations because they cannot tell you things. They cannot tell you
where they hurt or some of these other things.
In addition, the amounts States set aside for quality improvement
also must be at least 10 percent within 5 years of enactment. And
States must say what they choose to invest in. We hope not only to have
reporting and accountability but to get an idea for best practices that
we can circulate among providers. We think this will be important.
The other area we focused on was in the area Senator Burr talked
about, providing protections for children who receive assistance. That
is exactly what I heard in Maryland. This is all income based; in other
words, your voucher. This is a means-tested program. But if your means
change in the program, you could lose your daycare. So it was an actual
disincentive from improving yourself or maybe taking a seasonal job. So
if you had the opportunity perhaps to work in retail during the holiday
season--exactly for your own family's holiday celebration--you were
going to be tremendously disadvantaged because it would be a boost, it
would look like you were going up, when actually your income might be
the same if you have taken that part-time job.
We want to reward work. We want to reward personal responsibility. So
we were able to provide that flexibility that when parents redetermine
their eligibility, they will give them ample opportunity to do so. So
if your child is in daycare, and you take that part-time job or your
income goes up, you will not lose the daycare you have for that year or
that determination. We thought that was important.
The other was meeting the needs of children with disabilities. This
is a strong passion of Senator Harkin, a well-known advocate for people
with disabilities, and I know he will speak to that. But it will
require States to examine: What are they doing to coordinate with the
IDEA programs, again for preschool-age children with disabilities.
Often a child who faces a disability is at a disadvantage because the
daycare they are in does not promote learning.
I have a constituent in Maryland. She spoke at our press conference
yesterday. Her name is Cathy Rivera. She is the mother of two children,
ages 7 and 2. She is also a resource person working at the CentroNia
family center, which is information services and also focuses on early
childhood education.
Her little girl was born without an ear. That is rough going. So
imagine being an infant, then a toddler, trying to learn a language,
your family is bilingual--that could be a great asset, but when you
cannot really hear, and the doctors are doing the most for you to help
you, you still need to be in an environment that acknowledges that and
is helping with the learning in childcare, at your pace, your way, so
that your language skills are also developing because language and
brain development are tied together. So without the proper environment,
this little girl would have been doubly disadvantaged--one, with the
physical situation from birth, but then the learning situation because
of where she was.
Well, fortunately--with her mother working in the field of daycare,
working at an agency that provides information and resources, with the
help of the childcare subsidy--this little girl could be in the daycare
that she needs, to not only look out to see that her physical needs are
being met but that her learning needs are being met.
Isn't that a great story? But here is a mother who is working, a bit
strapped financially, but with her own sense of motherhood and personal
responsibility, she found what she needed. The childcare subsidy was
able to help her pay for the daycare, and now this little girl has a
chance. It is going to be a challenging future for her, but she is up
for this challenge.
That is what this is. This is not only about numbers and statistics.
So when we talk about improving quality, we have really tried to take
into consideration these needs.
Daycare is expensive. In Maryland, the Maryland Family Network tells
me that they had--with all of the licensed daycares--over 23,000
children who were on the wait list for this program--not for daycare--
that is even larger--but for this program.
So this is why we want to pass this bill and really be able to move
forward on it. But, again, I am going to come back to this bipartisan
effort of focusing on safety, security, and also learning readiness.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I will say more later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity to say to
my colleagues, we are now at a point where we would like to consider
amendments. So if you have improvements to this bill, it is now after
lunch. Before you take a nap, come down to the Senate floor, offer your
amendment. Let's talk about it, and let's process as many as we
possibly can. It is our intent to consider amendments for the majority
of the afternoon, at some point--with the cooperation and agreement of
leaders on both sides--to set a time that we would then vote on the
amendments that have been processed, hopefully continue to take some
amendments early in the evening, but our intent would be not to have
votes tonight so that the schedules are predictable, and to come back
in the morning, with the leaders' agreement, at a specified time to
consider the votes that might be stacked, any additional amendments
that need to be debated and voted on, and it would be Senator
Mikulski's and my intent, and it is our goal--and when she has a goal,
let me say to my colleagues, she will achieve that goal--it is our
intent and our goal to finish this bill tomorrow afternoon.
We want to make sure we have accommodated every Member who has an
amendment, every Member who wants to make an improvement to this bill,
but we ask Members to come to the floor, preferably today, to introduce
that, call it up, debate it, let us schedule in a queue of votes, and
we will feel more confident of exactly the timeline we are on as that
process starts.
I remind my colleagues that the key enhancements in this bill are it
improves quality while simultaneously ensuring that Federal funds
support low-income and at-risk children and facilities; two, it
addresses the nutritional and physical activity needs of children in a
childcare setting; three, it is strengthening coordination and the
alignment to contribute a more comprehensive early childhood education
and care system; four, it meets the needs of children with disabilities
who require childcare; five, it provides protections for children and
families who receive assistance; six, it safeguards the health and the
safety of children.
I cannot think of points that are more important as it relates to
changes to a bill that was created in 1996 and still embraces, I might
say, the context that it was negotiated in, which was welfare reform.
How do we provide the avenue for more individuals to enjoy what great
things this country has to offer for those who are willing to work?
Welfare reform was a pathway, bipartisanly agreed to, to lead people
from unemployment to employment and hopefully to continue to whatever
degree of prosperity they chose to pursue.
We all know that means you have to have a partner and you have to
have flexibility, whether that flexibility is being able to meet the
hours that might put you up for a promotion or to get the skills you
need to consider a different career or the next level. Every parent
should probably look at this as I did with mine; that they are the
single most important part. There are sacrifices every parent makes for
themselves because of what they provide for their children. That is the
right thing to do. But through this partnership, for 1.6 million
children and for 900,000-plus families, we have now provided for over
two decades a Federal program that helps make that decision so it is
not either/or; they can pursue a career, they can pursue advancement,
they can increase their skills, they can increase their education
without sacrificing that Federal subsidy that provides them the ability
to drop their kids off in the morning and those kids are taken care of.
This is a win-win. It is what welfare reform was written to do. I am
proud
[[Page S1552]]
to work with my good friend Senator Mikulski to make sure we get this
across the finish line. Come to the floor. Bring your amendments. Make
this bill better. Let's debate them, let's vote them, but we are going
to finish tomorrow afternoon.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I reiterate Senator Burr's request.
People wanted an open amendment process. We are open. Come on and
amend. We are looking forward to it. While we are waiting for our
Members to come careening to the floor to offer amendments--by the way,
20 have been filed, so here we are.
I wish to comment on something else.
Girl Scouts
You notice I am dressed in green today. I also have on a Girl Scout
pin. Do I not look like a Girl Scout standing here? I feel like a Girl
Scout. I was a Girl Scout. Once a Girl Scout, always a Girl Scout.
Today we are celebrating the 102nd anniversary of Girl Scouts in
America. What started out as a group of 18 girls in Georgia, organized
by Juliette Low, has grown into an organization of 3.2 million girls
and women.
As a Girl Scout, I knew firsthand about what it was like learning,
about leadership and service. I loved working on my badges. I liked the
camaraderie of working with other girls on the various challenges we
had. I was a child during World War II. The Girl Scout program run out
of our parish was very important. It provided important activities for
girls after school. There were comparable Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts,
just like we had the Daisies and the Girl Scouts.
These were important activities because in my community women were
working as ``Rosie the riveter.'' So these afterschool programs were
critical so we could be in a safe environment. We learned wonderful
skills. We learned about our responsibilities.
I cannot think enough about Ms. Helen Nimick, who was my Girl Scout
leader. I wanted to grow up and be like Ms. Nimick, who seemed to know
how to do 43 things with oatmeal boxes. I do not know if they did it in
the days of the Presiding Officer; there is a little bit of an age
difference between us.
But you know what I loved the most were our pledges. I will just say
today, first of all, you know the Girl Scout promise: ``To serve God
and my country, to help people at all times, and live by the Girl Scout
law.'' Pretty good. But here is the Girl Scout law. I actually carried
this in my wallet. I will tell you why. Because if you follow the Girl
Scout law, you are in pretty good shape. By the way, I think over 90
percent of the women in the Senate were either a Daisy or a Girl Scout,
but the Girl Scout law says this: ``I will do my best to be honest and
fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and
strong, and responsible for what I say and what I do, and to respect
myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the
world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout, and a sister
to every Boy Scout.''
I think this is great. To Girl Scouts everywhere, whether they are
Daisies or senior leadership, we say congratulations on the 102d
anniversary. But I want to do a particular shout out to the leaders,
people who give of their own time and their own dime to help young
women learn about their country, the world they live in, working
collegially and in comradeship, camaraderie with others.
I believe the values I learned as a Girl Scout, though I smile about
it today, were the lessons of a lifetime. Quite frankly, if I can live
up to the Girl Scout law, I think I will be a pretty good Senator. So
hats off to Girl Scouts everywhere, a big thanks to the leaders who do
it, and let's eat those cookies, even if you are on a different kind of
program than they are often called for.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, let me admit I was not a Girl Scout. I
guess I should have assumed Barbara Mikulski was a Girl Scout because
scouting has made a significant difference in the lives of so many, not
just in America but globally.
It is many of the qualities that come from that experience that lead
to some of our most important national leaders, both in the past and in
the future. So I join her in recognizing this significant milestone for
the Girl Scouts. I know it must be challenging in today's nutritional
environment to actually fund everything off of cookies. But as we have
seen the drastic change in the way they are marketed, I will assure you
we are raising a generation of Girl Scouts who are the most creative in
how they market and sell their products to fund their programs of any
generation I have seen today.
I think when kids are challenged at that age to be their own
entrepreneurs, it is good for this country. We should be proud as
parents and we should continue to support programs such as Scouting.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to the Girl
Scouts as the organization celebrates Girl Scout Day. One hundred and
two years ago, on March 12, 1912, Juliette ``Daisy'' Gordon Low founded
the first chapter of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America in
Savannah, GA. Today, the Girl Scouts count over 2 million girls as
members, including nearly 100,000 in my home State of New Jersey.
We all know and enjoy their incredibly successful--and delicious--
Girl Scout Cookie program, but beyond the cookies, this program is the
largest and most successful business run by girls in the world, earning
nearly $800 million a year. By participating in this program, girls are
taught five essential entrepreneurial skills, including goal-setting,
decision-making, money management, people skills, and business ethics.
This has helped the Girl Scouts teach their members financial literacy
and business skills, and has inspired generations of women business
owners and executives.
The mission of the Girl Scouts has been and continues to be building
girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a
better place. In that respect, I commend the Girl Scouts for launching
a program in 2012 known as Be a Friend First, or BFF, to tackle
bullying among middle school girls. A recent study found that girls
developed key relationship and leadership skills from this program, and
that Hispanic girls experienced a particular benefit from the Girl
Scouts' gender-specific program.
I would also like to applaud the Girl Scouts for their continuing
efforts to encourage careers in the Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Math, STEM, fields. Only 1 year after they were founded, in 1913,
the Girl Scouts began awarding their first merit badges in STEM fields,
the electrician badge and the flyer badge. Today, the Girl Scouts
continue to encourage girls to consider pursuing careers in STEM
fields. For the United States to be able to continue to remain the
world's leading innovator, the participation of women in STEM fields is
critical. Therefore I commend them for their efforts towards increasing
the participation of women in STEM careers and education.
On this Girl Scout Day, for these reasons and for many others, I
applaud the Girl Scouts for the outstanding work that they do in our
communities and for girls across America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Heller are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to discuss my disappointment
in
[[Page S1553]]
the recent turn of events involving the sustainable growth rate
formula, or what we call the SGR or the doc fix. Enacted in 1997, the
SGR was conceived as a means of trying to balance the budget by
restraining health care costs in Medicare, but it was deeply flawed
from the start. Its reimbursement cuts to physicians would cripple
seniors' ability to get the quality health care they deserve from their
doctors.
Consequently, since 2002, when the SGR came into effect, Congress has
patched it on a regular basis, and there has been bipartisan support
for doing so. These ``patches'' have frequently been cobbled together
at the midnight hour between leadership of both parties and included in
larger legislation, without the input of the Members or even going
through the regular legislative process. Now, this perverse annual
dark-of-night ritual has to stop. Seniors and physicians understand
that. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate understand
that.
For the better part of a year, Congress--to the surprise of many--
worked to fully repeal the SGR and replace it with more reasonable
reforms that moved Medicare's physician fee-for-service reimbursement
system toward a system that rewards doctors for providing quality care
based on outcomes, and we have made tremendous progress. Senator Baucus
and I worked for months on a bill that sailed through the Finance
Committee on a bipartisan basis. The two relevant House committees
passed bipartisan legislation repealing the SGR as well.
Then, in a turn of events that is all too rare these days, the
chairman and ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee, the House
Ways and Means Committee, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee
worked tirelessly to come up with one unified policy that House and
Senate Democrats and Republicans could all support. Believe it or not,
we succeeded. We succeeded by involving all stakeholders, including the
influential American Medical Association, in a fair and equitable
manner that resulted in near-unanimous support across the health care
community. For the first time since its enactment in 1997, the House
and Senate united behind a policy that gets rid of this flawed Medicare
reimbursement system.
So, Madam President, if we have moved this far, what is the problem?
Why am I disappointed? Well, I am going to tell you.
Last night I was informed that the majority leader is bringing
straight to the floor of this body the very policy we successfully
negotiated--tacking on what are known as the health care extenders
which the Finance Committee passed but which were not included in what
the House and Senate agreed upon with the SGR. But--and here is the
problem--the Democrats have no plans whatsoever to pay for it. So
Senate Democrats want to pass a bill that has a roughly $177 billion
price tag without even trying to offset any of the cost. Sadly, these
same Democrats don't seem to care that they have quickly turned what
was a true bipartisan accomplishment into another partisan political
ploy. This is deeply disappointing.
I am very sympathetic to those who say that since Congress has never
let the SGR go into effect, we should not have to pay for it. But let's
be honest--there is no way that right now a bill that would add close
to $200 billion to the deficit is ever going to pass the House. And I
don't blame the House. This is reality.
Democrats in the Senate have blasted the House SGR repeal bill that
is paid for by repealing ObamaCare's individual mandate. The Senate
majority leader has said that what the House is doing has ``no
credibility'' and that House Republicans ``gotta find something else''
to pay for it. But can't the very same thing be said of what the Senate
Democrats are doing--that their plan has ``no credibility'' and that
they have to find a way of paying for this if they are going to do it?
I think we all know the answer to that.
I just don't understand how we have gotten here. I don't understand
why there are these unfortunate attempts to poison a bipartisan product
with needless partisanship. We all want to repeal the SGR, so let's
dispense with the games and get back to work figuring out a real path
forward and one that involves an offset.
What is even more astonishing is that Senate Democrats are proceeding
in this manner on the very week some of my colleagues are trying to
make the Senate work. Senators Burr and Mikulski have put forward a
bill that the Senate is set to consider to reform the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Program. That is an important bill--certainly
to me because I was one of the few who rammed that through way back
when and took a lot of flak in the process. But it has worked amazingly
well.
Now Senators Burr and Mikulski have put forward this bill, after a
lot of work by Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer to get the Senate
working again, to allow amendments and debate, and I have to say I
commend them, and I think Senators Burr and Mikulski deserve great
applause and commendation, as do Senators Alexander and Schumer. That
is what I don't understand.
Everybody here knows I have a record of working across the aisle,
sometimes to the chagrin of Members of my own party and certainly
sometimes to the irritation of some of our very far-right people in
Utah. Why turn this bipartisan proposal into a partisan exercise when
so many Senators want to work together to fix the problems the American
people face each and every day?
Let me be clear. I support what House Republicans have proposed. It
is a reasonable approach to paying for a full repeal of the doc fix.
Almost every week, the White House delays or repeals another part of
ObamaCare, so it is time for the American people to get a reprieve as
well. It is the right thing to do. But I am interested in a result.
I want to fix the SGR system once and for all, and I hope that after
this pointless exercise designed for political cover we can come
together to do what is right. Let's go back to our winning formula and
get our bipartisan, bicameral negotiations underway to find a
responsible path forward.
Look, I like both of our leaders. They are strong people. They have
differing philosophies. There is much to commend both of them and I
suppose some would say much to criticize in each case. But there is no
reason for this type of ramming something through that has no chance of
passing the House. Frankly, it doesn't have much chance of having any
Republican support at this point because we believe this kind of a
program has to be offset to literally be valid and to be viable. I
think everybody here knows that, and so we have to find an offset to do
it. If we can't find an offset, we have to keep the SGR alive until we
do. But to make it into a partisan game at this point, after all the
bipartisan work that has been done, is really a tragedy.
We were on the verge of getting this solved. I hope that doesn't
happen this time because a lot of us have worked our guts out to get
this to this point, on both sides of the aisle. It would be an absolute
tragedy if we can't get the cooperation to get this through.
The Democrats, if they do not like the offset the House has come up
with, although it seems to make sense to me, they control this body,
can come up with an offset both sides can agree to. But we have to have
an offset and we have to do this the right way or we will be right back
at base one after all the work that has been put into it in a
bipartisan way to get this done.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2812
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment No.
2812.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment
numbered 2812.
Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
[[Page S1554]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Education, to conduct a review of
Federal early learning and care programs and make recommendations for
streamlining the various programs)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. REVIEW OF FEDERAL EARLY LEARNING AND CARE PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in conjunction with the Secretary of Education,
shall conduct an interdepartmental review of all early
learning and care programs in order to--
(1) develop a plan for the elimination of duplicative and
overlapping programs, as identified by the Government
Accountability Office's 2012 annual report (GAO-12-342SP);
and
(2) make recommendations to Congress for streamlining all
such programs.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and
the heads of all Federal agencies that administer Federal
early learning and care programs, shall submit to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of
the House of Representatives, a detailed report that outlines
the efficiencies that can be achieved by, as well as specific
recommendations for, eliminating duplication, overlap, and
fragmentation among all Federal early learning and care
programs.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, when the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Program was first created in the 1990s, it was seen primarily as
a way to help parents enter the workforce or get job training.
The program, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, gets about $5.2 billion a year in Federal funding
plus State matching funds, although the fiscal year 2014 appropriation
is approximately $2.4 billion.
The last reauthorization of this program took place nearly 20 years
ago. This bipartisan CCDBG reauthorization, the Mikulski-Burr-Harkin-
Alexander bill, puts a greater emphasis on the quality of the childcare
programs children are entering. The bipartisan bill would refocus the
program on quality, not just access.
The legislation emphasizes the protection of vulnerable populations,
incentivizing self-sufficiency and individual responsibility. The bill
also improves coordination among Federal early childhood education
programs.
As a block grant, States have a great deal of flexibility in how they
administer child care and development block grant funds but are
generally required to set health, safety, and quality guidelines,
promote parental choice, assist parents in becoming independent through
work promotion, and provide consumer information so parents can make
decisions about their child's care. The money helps States provide
grants to low-income parents to cover the cost of childcare and
afterschool care, typically through a voucher which parents can use at
the home-based program or childcare center of their choice.
My amendment requires the Secretaries of Health and Human Services
and Education to carry out an interdepartmental review of all early
learning and childcare programs administered by the Federal
Government--and we have lots of them.
We all agree the funding invested in early education programs saves
taxpayers money down the road. So for a long time the Federal
Government has been doing a lot to increase access to these important
programs. Federal support for early learning and childcare developed
over time to meet emerging needs, but at this point multiple Federal
agencies administer this important investment through numerous
programs.
What my amendment does is ask Health and Human Services and the
Department of Education to report back to Congress with a plan for
eliminating duplication and overlap, as well as a plan with ways we can
streamline these programs.
Every year the Government Accountability Office, GAO, submits a
report to Congress with recommendations for ways to reduce duplication,
overlap, and fragmentation in Federal Governmental programs. In its
2012 annual report to Congress, GAO recommended the Department of
Education and Health and Human Services should extend their
coordination efforts to other Federal agencies with early learning and
childcare programs to combat program fragmentation, simplify children's
access to these services, collect the data necessary to coordinate
operation of these programs, and identify and minimize overlap and
duplication.
GAO identified 45 early learning and childcare programs funded by the
Federal Government. Twelve of these programs explicitly provide only
early learning or childcare services. These 45 programs are
administered by multiple agencies, including the Department of
Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of
Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice,
Department of Labor, Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
General Services Administration, and the Appalachian Regional
Commission. When I was chairman of the HELP Committee, the late Senator
Ted Kennedy and I worked to eliminate duplication and overlap in
programs under our jurisdiction--we got it down from about 119 to 69--
but could not look at any of the programs administered by other
agencies. We knew there was room for streamlining programs at other
agencies, but we couldn't work on it, which was frustrating and shows
how far-flung some of these programs are. Let me report again: the 45
programs administered by multiple agencies, including not only
Education but Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior,
Justice, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, General Services
Administration, and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
We have to believe we ought to be able to do some consolidation there
and save some money and improve the quality of programs while we are at
it.
In a recent GAO report issued on February 5, 2014, GAO noted that as
of December 2013, Education and Health and Human Services has taken
initial steps toward greater coordination but had not yet included all
Federal agencies which administer these early learning and childcare
programs in their established interdepartmental workgroup.
This amendment takes a further step in identifying fragmentation,
overlap, duplication, and inefficiencies in the Federal Government's
delivery of numerous learning and care programs beyond the Government
Administration Organization's report. Streamlining programs to
eliminate duplication is essential for program integrity and good
governance but also for eliminating service gaps for eligible children.
We are doing a lot. We can do better with less through coordination
and getting it down to where there are less sources and less places
where there has to be permission, regulation, and oversight. We can do
better for the kids, and all we are asking for with this is to come up
with a plan. It doesn't force anything, but hopefully it is a plan we
will pay attention to and not just put it on the shelf.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I first thank Senator Enzi again for
working with us for a long time on the committee to put this bill
together, and I thank him for this amendment.
Basically, GAO's 2012 annual report noted the Department of Education
and Health and Human Services should be increasing their coordination
efforts in dealing with childcare and early learning programs. This
amendment would require them to collaborate and conduct a comprehensive
review of the 45 programs which currently support early learning and
childcare across the country. This would ensure better coordination,
reduction in duplication, and effective programming for children.
I say to my friend from Wyoming, on Monday I was in my home State of
Iowa, in Des Moines, visiting an early learning center. On Saturday, I
was in Ames visiting an early learning center in preparation for this
bill to be on the floor. Monday, I was meeting with everyone there.
With all of the different funding streams which come through and all of
the different cross-purposes, I finally said: Stop a minute. I am
confused.
They said: If you are confused, so are we.
Even the people running the programs--everything has some different
[[Page S1555]]
thing they have to fill out paperwork for to qualify.
So I am particularly sensitive to the Senator's amendment, having
just tried to wade through all of that just a couple days ago in Iowa.
I thank my friend from Wyoming. It is a good amendment and should be
adopted. We certainly support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also applaud my colleague Senator Enzi.
This is a needed amendment. It makes the bill better.
I will note for my colleagues, most recently the 2014 Omnibus
appropriations legislation created two new programs, including the
Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships Program funded at $500 million
and the Race to the Top pre-K program funded at $250 million.
I point these out because both of these further underline the
interactions which might exist with the current programs. I would think
any attempt of this would be an administrative responsibility to find
ways to consolidate, but clearly this is a case where more is not
better.
This requires the Secretary to look at all these programs and find
ways to consolidate in a way which provides a better outcome for those
who are the beneficiaries. So I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I also say to my colleagues, through their staffs, it is probably the
intent of the Senate to have some votes about 2:30. I think there are
notifications going out on both sides, but I just want Members to be
aware. We are trying to accommodate the afternoon schedules of both
sides of the aisle on commitments they have, one at the White House and
a Member's meeting on Ukraine this afternoon. So it is our intent right
now to have up to two votes by 2:30 this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Iowa and
the Senator from North Carolina, is it not also likely, given the good
progress we are making, we may be able to have another vote or two
between 5 and 5:30 this afternoon so as not to interfere with meetings
or the briefing many Senators are attending at 5:30?
Mr. BURR. I would say, it is our intent probably right before the
Ukraine briefing to hopefully be in a position to dispose of about two
additional amendments.
Mr. ALEXANDER. So that would be two votes at 2:30 and perhaps two
more at probably about 5:15.
Mr. HARKIN. I concur.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Iowa and
North Carolina.
I also thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership. For a
number of years he was the ranking member of the Health, Education,
Labor & Pensions Committee, and while he was there he focused on trying
to help us spend our money more efficiently--which all of us want to
do.
Sometimes we forget that Head Start is not the only early learning
program we have in the country. It is the most famous. It is best
known. It is very popular with most people. It is about $8.6 billion,
but the bill we are debating today, the child care and development
block grant, is another $5.3 billion. It is two-thirds the size of Head
Start and affects 1.5 million children. And then there is another of $5
billion or so of Federal funding for early learning and early
childhood. Without getting into a debate about whether we should have
new programs, I think there is a consensus among most of us that we
should at least start by taking the money we are spending for early
childhood and spend it wisely.
One step we took a few years ago was to create centers of excellence
for Head Start. This was, I believe, in 2007. The idea there was that
the Governor of each State would be permitted to pick at least two
communities or cities where they were doing the best job of spending
money in a coordinated way for early learning and childhood
development. Not only are these 18 billion Federal dollars being spent,
but many States have additional funding for early childhood, most
States have kindergarten programs, and many States have programs for 3-
year-olds and 4-year-olds. The idea was to see if we could encourage
Nashville or Denver or Des Moines to take a look at all the children
between 0 and 6 and all the dollars being spent--public, private,
Federal, State and local--and see who is doing the best job of putting
that all together. It is always a problem with a big, complex country
such as this when you have a decentralized government and there are
several layers. There are lots of silos, and children don't live in
silos. They are by themselves needing help and we need to find a way of
getting the money to them. So the centers of excellence was a modest
beginning to try to encourage better spending of what is up to $18
billion of money already being spent.
I think Senator Enzi's amendment, which I strongly support, would
give us more information about how to better spend the Federal dollars
we already spend for early childhood. I simply wanted to call the
attention of the Senate and others who may be paying attention to that
centers of excellence program. In the committee chaired by the Senator
from Iowa, we had excellent testimony from the representative from
Denver who had one of the first centers of excellence. She talked about
the progress they have made in taking all the available money and using
it in the most effective way to help children.
I hope as we move along through the process of dealing with the
debate about how do we do a better job of early childhood education
that we consider centers of excellence, and I hope Senator Enzi's
amendment is adopted today because it will help us. It will make us a
better steward of taxpayer dollars, and that means doing a better job
of helping children.
Thank you, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 2818
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I ask
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up her
amendment No. 2818.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Ms. Landrieu, for
herself and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered
2818.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a statewide child care disaster plan)
On page 98, strike line 15 and insert the following:
view.
``(U) Disaster preparedness.--
``(i) In general.--The plan shall demonstrate the manner in
which the State will address the needs of children in child
care services provided through programs authorized under this
subchapter, including the need for safe child care, during
the period before, during, and after a state of emergency
declared by the Governor or a major disaster or emergency (as
such terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122)).
``(ii) Statewide child care disaster plan.--Such plan shall
include a statewide child care disaster plan for coordination
of activities and collaboration, in the event of an emergency
or disaster described in clause (i), among the State agency
with jurisdiction over human services, the agency with
jurisdiction over State emergency planning, the State lead
agency, the State agency with jurisdiction over licensing of
child care providers, the local resource and referral
organizations, the State resource and referral system, and
the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and
Care as provided for under section 642B(b) of the Head Start
Act (42 U.S.C. 9837b(b)).
``(iii) Disaster plan components.--The components of the
disaster plan, for such an emergency or disaster, shall
include--
``(I) guidelines for the continuation of child care
services in the period following the emergency or disaster,
including the provision of emergency and temporary child care
services, and temporary operating standards for child care
providers during that period;
``(II) evacuation, relocation, shelter-in-place, and lock-
down procedures, and procedures for communication and
reunification with families, continuity of operations, and
accommodation of infants and toddlers, children with
disabilities, and children with chronic medical conditions;
and
``(III) procedures for staff and volunteer training and
practice drills.''.
[[Page S1556]]
Amendment No. 2822
Mr. HARKIN. On behalf of Senator Franken, I call up his amendment No.
2822.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Franken, for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Murray,
and Mr. Thune, proposes an amendment numbered 2822.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To reserve not less than 2 percent of the amount appropriated
under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 in each
fiscal year for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations)
On page 136, strike lines 8 and 9 and insert the following:
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--The Secretary'';
(ii) by striking ``1 percent, and not more than 2
percent,'' and inserting ``2 percent''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Limitations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall only reserve an amount that is greater than 2
percent of the amount appropriated under section 658B, for
payments described in subparagraph (A), for a fiscal year
(referred to in this subparagraph as the `reservation year')
if--
``(i) the amount appropriated under section 658B for the
reservation year is greater than the amount appropriated
under section 658B for fiscal year 2014; and
``(ii) the Secretary ensures that the amount allotted to
States under subsection (b) for the reservation year is not
less than the amount allotted to States under subsection (b)
for fiscal year 2014.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m.
today the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following pending
amendments, in the order listed: Enzi amendment No. 2812 and Franken
amendment No. 2822; further, that no second-degree amendments be in
order to either amendment prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to modify my request for
unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you.
Amendment No. 2822
I rise in strong support of the child care development and block
grant, or CCDBG, and to urge my colleagues to support the amendment
Senator Murkowski and I put forward.
Our amendment would help strengthen CCDBG by making sure we are
addressing some of our Nation's communities that will benefit most from
it, the people who are members of tribes or tribal organizations all
over this Nation. American Indians experience exceptionally high
unemployment levels compared with the rest of the Nation. Furthermore,
American Indian children and youth experience some of the poorest
educational outcomes in America. These are exactly the sort of
challenges CCDBG is designed to address. Our amendment would lift the
current ceiling on tribal childcare funding so CCDBG can go to where
the funds are needed most. This would enable more funds to flow to
tribes and tribal organizations but without reducing the amount that
goes to States. The amendment specifies that the amount of CCDBG funds
reserved for tribes only rises if the overall funding level for CCDBG
goes above its current levels.
I thank our cosponsors, Senators Murray, Thune, Hirono, Baldwin, and
Heitkamp, for their support of this amendment. I thank Senators Harkin
and Alexander and Senators Mikulski and Burr for working together to
bring this bill to the floor.
Thank you very much.
I would yield for my colleague from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment,
and I urge my colleagues--this is a reasonable improvement to the bill,
and I think Senator Franken stated it very well.
This amendment increases the amount of CCDBG funding set aside for
tribes from not more than 2 percent to not less than 2 percent. It
sounds like not much of a difference, but this has a tremendous impact
on the predictability to tribes of the dollars that are going to be
available to them.
So I would urge my colleagues to support the Franken-Murkowski
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I wish to join with Senator Burr in supporting the
amendment.
Amendment No. 2812
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 2812.
Mr. BURR. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Rockefeller
Rubio
The amendment (No. 2812) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, for the benefit of Senators, I wish
to ask something about the schedule. I would like to ask the Senator
from Iowa, the Senator from North Carolina, and Senator Mikulski about
the schedule of this bill. We are off to a fast start. We have the
Franken amendment to be voted on now. This is my understanding of the
schedule, and I want to see if I have it about right and then ask the
chairman and the floor managers if it is right.
We expect there to be a colloquy from 3 o'clock until about 4 o'clock
involving several Senators on the child care and development block
grant. Then at 5:15 we expect to have a vote--at least one vote--and
may accept others by voice and maybe have some nominations. Senators
who have other amendments are free to come and
[[Page S1557]]
speak between 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock. We would expect to have other
votes tomorrow before lunch and finish the bill, it is my
understanding, if we don't run into a snag, right after lunch tomorrow,
about 2:00 or 2:15. That is the course we hope to be on.
I thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr for
getting us off to a fast start. We have had about 20 amendments from
both sides brought forward. We have been able to deal with them all.
Is that about right in terms of the schedule?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, that sounds exactly how we are proceeding.
I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all the good work and the
cooperation we have had on both sides. I think we are on a good path.
I reiterate and reemphasize that if anyone has amendments they want
to offer and speak about, I would say between 4 and 5 is a good time to
do it today. Then we will have two votes probably around 5:15. We are
hoping maybe one can be voice voted at that time.
Amendment No. 2822
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 2822.
Mr. BURR. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--6
Cornyn
Lee
Paul
Sessions
Shelby
Toomey
NOT VOTING--1
Rubio
The amendment (No. 2822) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, now, for the next hour, you are going to
see the women of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, speaking up on the
issue of childcare. We have worked long and hard together.
I am going to withhold my time and turn to the Senator from Nebraska.
What you need to realize is we are not a caucus. We disagree on many
things, but on childcare we are united that this bill is a good bill.
It could be improved through the amendment process. We recognize that.
So here we are, as a force trying to change the tone, trying to
change the tide, and really help America's children.
I yield to Senator Fischer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program.
I thank the Senator from Maryland for her courtesy. In addition, I
would like to address an amendment I have proposed to the underlying
bill.
Promoting policies that enable job creation is a basic duty of the
people's government. This bill we have on the floor before us now
provides low-income, hard-working mothers and fathers with the
opportunity to have quality childcare while they earn a steady paycheck
or as they go back to school.
Americans work hard. They work hard to provide for their families and
to make a better life for their children. As a mother and a grandmother
I understand that knowing your children are safe and secure is
essential to maintaining a steady job. We need to encourage responsible
adults to enter and to maintain their presence in our workforce. That
is why I appreciate my colleagues' work and their compromise on this
bipartisan legislation. I also appreciate how this effort has helped to
bring some regular order back to the processes of the Senate. I
especially want to recognize Senators Barbara Mikulski, Lamar
Alexander, and Richard Burr, who I know worked very hard in a
collaborative and bipartisan fashion in order to get this bill to the
floor.
As part of that process, I filed a proposed amendment that I have
with Senator King and Senator Rubio to the child care and development
block grant reauthorization. Our bipartisan amendment is a commonsense
solution to the FDA's overregulation of low-risk health information
technology. That includes mobile wellness apps, scheduling software,
and electronic health records. Under current law, which was established
in 1976, the FDA can apply its definition of a ``medical device'' to
assert broad regulatory authority over a wide array of health IT,
including applications that do not pose any threat to human safety.
Our amendment allows the FDA to keep its focus on regulating medical
devices, while creating a modernized oversight framework for low-risk
categories of health IT. Since proposing this amendment, I have had the
opportunity to speak with Senator Alexander, the ranking member of the
Senate HELP Committee. I am happy to say he has expressed an interest
in that amendment. That is identical to the language introduced as a
stand-alone bill called the PROTECT Act.
I look forward to having the opportunity to work with him and
committee members to advance the core ideas included in the PROTECT
Act, because I believe with the guidance of the committee, and with the
guidance of other Senators, we will be able to achieve another
bipartisan success in this Chamber.
At Senator Alexander's request, and in response to his kind offers to
work collaboratively on the PROTECT Act, I have agreed not to formally
offer this amendment to the bill on the floor, but I do look forward to
working with the Senator from Tennessee and others to improve upon
that.
Again, I thank the leadership of Senator Mikulski, Senator Alexander,
and Senator Burr on the important legislation before us today. I thank
them for their work. I thank them for their courtesies in allowing me
to rise and speak on this very important amendment. I also thank them
and look forward to working with them on the PROTECT Act in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York,
another cosponsor of the bill, Senator Gillibrand.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I wish to start by thanking Senator
Mikulski for championing the reauthorization of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Program, which is a bipartisan bill that
reflects the values of this country. It serves more than 1.5 million
children nationwide every month, including over 120,000 children in New
York State alone. I also thank Chairman Harkin for his leadership in
bringing this important legislation through the committee and to the
floor.
Everywhere I go in my State of New York I listen to families. I hear
the exact same sense of struggle from every single one of them, that
they are doing everything they can do to get by,
[[Page S1558]]
to provide for their kids and give them the best possible chance to
succeed. But no matter how hard they work, making ends meet is
difficult. Their day-to-day expenses keep going, while their paychecks
either stay the same, or, sadly, are diminished.
As a result, too many families feel they cannot get ahead. So for our
economy to get going again, it has to face the reality that the face of
the American workforce has changed. We still have workplace policies
that reflect the realities of decades ago, in the 1950s and 1960s. But
in fact, today, 48 percent of the workforce in my State are women.
In order for us to unleash the full potential of our economy, we have
to recognize that women are the new more often breadwinners of too many
families. They are the primary income earners for a growing share
across America. For that reason, we have to focus on an immovable
reality for working mothers. That is childcare.
Today, more women are going back to work sooner after having a child,
creating a greater demand for affordable childcare that allows them to
stay in their jobs. In 2012 New York ranked the second least affordable
State in the Nation for full-time daycare for an infant, according to a
report by Child Care Aware.
A two-parent family in New York spends an average of 16.5 percent of
their annual income to care for an infant. For a single mom in New
York, the cost was greater than 57 percent of her income. If you cannot
afford childcare, as many middle-class families cannot, and you do not
have a family option, the choice you are left with is to leave your job
and stay home to care for your child. That means less income for
working families, more women leaving the workforce and a weaker middle
class. It does not have to be this way. We can keep more working
mothers in their jobs and more children in quality daycare when we make
it affordable.
Our policies must reflect today's reality that women have to work for
a living. It is not a lifestyle choice for most working mothers, it is
a fact of survival. That is why I support Senator Mikulski's
outstanding bill, because it will make daycare more affordable for
millions of children every single year. It is also why I am a cosponsor
of Senator Boxer's amendment that will double the childcare tax credit
families can take to cover the cost of childcare and make it
refundable.
Making the tax credit refundable would help those who are working and
struggling the most but do not earn enough to use the tax credit. It
means more savings going right back into the pockets of working
families.
I also have an amendment that will make middle-class tax cuts better
for childcare expenses. It will let them deduct the cost of childcare
as a business expense.
This proposal, called childcare deduction, will allow you to deduct
up to $14,000 for two kids or more. That makes perfect sense, because
in New York, the average daycare for a toddler is $12,000; for an
infant it is almost $15,000. This will go a long way to making sure our
hard-working middle-class families have the funds they need to provide
for their kids.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Michigan, also a sister social worker and a real advocate for good
nutrition for children.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, as everyone else, I congratulate
our leader on this issue and on so many issues, including having the
right kind of appropriations process to invest the dollars that
Americans work hard to earn, to make sure they are invested in ways
that help families, children, and to help the middle class to be able
to succeed in this country.
I thank Senator Mikulski, the senior Senator from Maryland. Her work
on this issue, the child care and development block grant, has been
extraordinary and bipartisan, as is all of her work. She is laser
focused on creating opportunities for children and families to succeed.
I think all of, certainly, the women who are speaking today and
hopefully all of our colleagues understand that quality, affordable
childcare is not a frill. I realize the Presiding Officer has wonderful
children as well and understands this is a necessity.
We care for our children. We want to make sure we are able to work,
put a roof over their heads, food on the table, to be able to buy their
school clothes and get them what they need, to be able to pay for
college, and to be able to do all the things we want to do for
ourselves, our children, and our families. The costs of childcare are
part of that equation, being able to do those things for our families
that we need to do.
The average cost of childcare for 2 children is $14,872 a year. I
have heard from my friend and colleague from New York that it was
higher in New York. I am sure it is higher in many places. But, on
average, across the country, families are having to come up with almost
$15,000 a year which equals, if they are working minimum wage, a 40-
hour workweek, working full time for a year. Think about that. If
someone is in a minimum-wage job--and hopefully we are going to change
that by raising the minimum wage--trying to make it and they work for 1
year, that is the average childcare cost for two children. That is why
this investment in children and families is so important. This is the
highest household expense for many families.
In most States 1 year of daycare is more expensive than 1 year of
tuition at a public university. We are all talking to parents. They are
all worried about saving for college. With three small grandchildren, I
think how can I help be part of that process of saving for college. Yet
1 year of daycare is more expensive than 1 year of tuition at a public
university. This is too much for many of our families to afford. Very
difficult choices are being made, choices that families are agonizing
over.
This is especially unaffordable for so many hard-working families who
are trying to climb the ladder of opportunity, trying to get into the
middle class or maybe holding on by their fingertips and trying to stay
in the middle class. That is why we have child care and development
block grants to be able to help families afford a necessity and
something that is critical for our society, which is having safe,
affordable, quality childcare for our children.
This is a critically important program signed into law by President
George H. W. Bush that 1.6 million children every month rely on; 1.6
million children in our country and their parents rely on this every
month.
States use this funding to help low-income families gain access to
quality, affordable childcare and afterschool programs. These families
are trying to make ends meet and make sure their children have the
opportunities they need to be successful. I want to stress that this
funding goes to parents who are working--are working--are training for
work or are enrolled in school.
I believe the reason we have strong bipartisan support is people
understand how critical it is to hard-working families. This is an
investment in our families. It is an investment in America's moms and
dads. Sixty-five percent of moms work outside the home. In fact, if
they go back to work, they are earning, in Michigan, only 74 cents on
every dollar. They don't get a discount on their childcare, just
because women are only getting three-quarters of a salary. Somehow,
they are still paying the full price, but this is particularly critical
for women across America.
This program helps millions of families, as I indicated, especially
moms--especially moms getting back to work without having to worry
about whether their children are going to be safe. Talk about peace of
mind, this is peace-of-mind legislation for moms and dads to make sure
their children will have a quality place, affordable place, and a safe
place to be while they are working to earn a living for their families.
It has now been 24 years since this law was signed by President Bush,
18 years since it was last reauthorized. It is time to update it to
reflect the changing conditions and challenges for our families.
This bipartisan reauthorization addresses issues facing families who
need childcare. It improves program quality, making sure funds go to
families in need; ensures children and childcare get the things they
need to succeed: good nutrition, which is so critical for
[[Page S1559]]
their growth, physical activity, well-being by developing guidelines
and incorporating health and wellness training for professional
development; making sure children's needs are addressed when children
have disabilities. It is very important for them and their families,
making sure all childcare providers are properly trained to care for
children and have been screened. That means first aid, CPR, how to
prevent sudden infant death syndrome, child abuse, and undergoing a
background check.
The bottom line is this is a bill that we need to pass. I am grateful
and appreciative of the bipartisan support that has gotten us to this
point, and the 45 national organizations that support it, including the
Afterschool Alliance, the American Professional Society on the Abuse of
Children, the National Association for Family Child Care, Teach for
America, United Way Worldwide, and so many others.
I am pleased to join with all of my colleagues and urge them that we
pass this bill as quickly as possible.
Again, congratulations to our leader, the senior Senator from
Maryland, who has gotten us to this point. I know we will get it all
the way through the process.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor to Senator Baldwin of Wisconsin, one
of our newest Members but not new to this issue. Her record in the
House on advocacy for children is well-known and respected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. In America, we know that quality education and a fair
shot at work is the path to the middle class, economic security, and
getting ahead. Today we have an opportunity to make an important
bipartisan action to help strengthen that path to the middle class.
For many families in this country, quality, affordable childcare is a
challenge they struggle with every morning. This is why President
George H. W. Bush signed the child care and development block grant law
in 1990, to ensure that working families have access to quality,
affordable childcare.
Today I join a bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues in calling
for reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
because of the support it provides working families across this country
and across the State of Wisconsin, my home State.
I thank HELP Committee Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander,
and Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr for their working across party
lines to move this important legislation forward.
This bipartisan work is an endorsement of our shared responsibility
to build a shared path to the middle class that begins by investing in
affordable childcare and high-quality early learning programs.
I am proud to say that Wisconsin has long been a leader in investing
in our children early. Education for 4-year-olds was part of
Wisconsin's Constitution in 1845, and the first kindergarten in the
United States was founded in Watertown, WI, in 1856. Wisconsin is
nearing universal 4K, with over 90 percent of school districts offering
kindergarten for 4-year-olds.
My State has also recognized the importance of effective
collaborations to support early childhood care and education. Wisconsin
Early Childhood Collaborating Partners is a statewide partnership
representing over 50 public and private agencies, led by Wisconsin's
Department of Public Instruction, with the goal of providing every
child access to a comprehensive delivery system for high-quality
education and care.
I am proud that my State has undertaken a community approach to
implementing high-quality childcare and early education. More work
remains to be done, however, both in Wisconsin and nationwide to ensure
high-quality childcare and education is accessible to every family.
Our Nation continues to recover from the most severe economic
downturn since the Great Depression. As our country continues this
recovery, families have had to get by with less. Americans are in need
of affordable childcare now more than ever. My home State of Wisconsin
is no exception to this trend. Today, many parents are in the
workforce, including over 70 percent of mothers in Wisconsin. For many
hardworking middle-class families, childcare is necessary but also
expensive. For millions of families in the United States, childcare is
their single largest household expense at nearly $15,000 per year.
In Wisconsin, the cost of childcare for an infant is approximately 40
percent of a single mother's median income. Two-parent families can
expect to spend more than 10 percent of their income on childcare.
Further, in Wisconsin, nearly one-third of children receiving the
child care and development block grant funding are under the age of 3,
making this a truly sound investment in those crucial years of early
life.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act is a bipartisan effort
to reauthorize, reform, and revitalize the block grant program by
strengthening Federal safety standards and placing a greater focus on
the quality of childcare programs.
This investment in affordable quality childcare will help more than
1.5 million children, including over 30,000 children in Wisconsin.
I once again thank my colleagues for working in a bipartisan manner
to guide us in reauthorizing this vital legislation. High-quality
childcare and education is essential to the future success of our
children and our overall success as a nation.
I am proud to support this legislation as it focuses on improving the
quality and safety of childcare programs, focuses on supporting infants
and toddlers with high-quality care, and reflects the realities of
working families in this difficult economic environment. But, as
importantly, I am proud to join a bipartisan effort in Washington that
is squarely focused on both parties working together to build a
stronger future for our middle class.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Amendments Nos. 2813 and 2814 en bloc
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent to make pending Landrieu
amendments No. 2813 and No. 2814.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Ms. Landrieu,
for herself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an
amendment numbered 2813.
The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Ms. Landrieu,
for herself, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment
numbered 2814.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2813
(Purpose: To allow children in foster care to receive services under
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 while their
families (including foster families) are taking necessary action to
comply with immunization and other health and safety requirements)
On page 82, lines 9 and 10, strike ``to receive services
under this subchapter while their families'' and insert ``and
children in foster care to receive services under this
subchapter while their families (including foster
families)''.
amendment no. 2814
(Purpose: To require the State plan to describe how the State will
coordinate the services supported to carry out the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 with State agencies and programs
serving children in foster care and the foster families of such
children)
On page 93, strike lines 3 and 4 and insert the following:
11432(g)(1)(J)(ii));
``(VII) State agencies and programs serving children in
foster care and the foster families of such children; and
``(VIII) other Federal programs
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note that on the floor are three
outstanding Senators who wish to speak on this bill: Senator Cantwell,
Senator Murkowski, and Senator Collins. They come as the deans of the
Republican women. I ask unanimous consent that they each be allowed to
speak for 5 minutes in the order in which I stated: Senator Cantwell,
Senator Murkowski, and then Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Harkin and certainly
[[Page S1560]]
Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr for their leadership on this
bipartisan issue but especially Senator Mikulski for her constant
leadership in making sure families in America are cared for.
This is important bipartisan legislation, and the reauthorization of
this legislation--the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
2014--will help ensure that families have access to quality, affordable
childcare.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant Program serves more than
1.6 million children per month nationwide. In my State it serves more
than 39,000 children per month. With the support of these grants,
parents can work, look for work, and participate in job-training
programs while their children receive affordable childcare at quality
centers or in the child's home.
The child care and development block grants are a primary source of
Federal support for childcare assistance, and they play a key role in
promoting healthy development of children, especially at young ages.
Research on the effects of early childhood development has continually
shown that the foundation provided by early learning and childcare
networks can prevent the achievement gaps at a young age. This bill
enables States to invest in the programs that have proven to work for
children and families.
In Washington more than half of the children served by the child care
and development block grants are younger than 4 years old, so in my
State these grants are vital for preparing our youngest children with
the support and skills they need to stay ahead once they enter into
kindergarten.
Professor Cathryn Booth-LaForce, at the University of Washington,
said:
Child care affects so many children that for society at
large, even small effects are important.
This bill would provide an additional 22,000 children across our
Nation with childcare. That is a major effect. Expanding access to
quality care can help thousands more children across the Nation get a
running start on school. By preventing achievement gaps for our
youngest children, we are creating successful students and building a
skilled workforce for the future.
This bill allows Washington to make the important investments in our
youngest learners and in our future economy. So I am so proud to be
here in support of this bipartisan effort, and again I thank Senator
Mikulski, Senator Burr, and others for working together at a time when
people didn't think this level of compromise would result in such an
important piece of legislation moving forward.
Once again I particularly wish to thank the dean of the women
Senators, Senator Mikulski, for this effort and encourage my colleagues
to support this bill, S. 1086, and make sure we get it passed before
the end of this week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased to rise today to
join my fellow women Senators on the floor this afternoon to speak in
support of the bipartisan Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
2014. I also commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr on their
leadership in developing a truly bipartisan bill as we are moving
forward. They have worked diligently and they have worked in a positive
and constructive manner that does credit to the Senate operations. I
also would like to recognize and commend Senator Harkin and Senator
Alexander, as they have brought this bill through the committee and
onto the floor.
I believe this legislation walks that line between asking the States,
our tribes, and providers to plan ways to improve childcare quality
without actually dictating the who and how and the what of every aspect
of childcare. What the bill really does is it strengthens the ways in
which providers can combine CCDBG, Head Start, title I, and IDEA funds
to serve more kids, and if we can serve more kids, that is all good. It
asks them to take an updated look at how they serve children with
disabilities and how they will address nutrition and fitness and health
and safety issues, but it will continue to let them figure out the best
ways to achieve the goals, and that really does make sense.
In addition, as a result of the bipartisan nature of how this bill
has come together, Alaskan voices were heard on this, and Alaskan
concerns about several provisions in the original draft of the bill
were addressed. For example, States that will be required to perform
health, safety, and fire inspections may delegate to qualified agencies
those inspections that require specialized expertise. That helps us in
Alaska.
The committee report clarified that States' disaster preparedness
standards include specific mention of children with disabilities and
family reunification.
I was pleased to work with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Hirono,
to make sure the bill managers included the technical amendments she
had requested, which ensured that Native Hawaiian children were not
inadvertently left out.
I again thank Senators Mikulski, Burr, Alexander, and Harkin for
accepting those amendments that have made this bill that much better.
Mr. President, ensuring that families and children are well served by
the childcare they pay for, in part with CCDBG assistance, is an
important task before the Congress because this is not just about
daycare or early learning, as important as those topics are. The fact
is that access to high-quality, safe, and affordable childcare is
really the key component when we are talking about those things that
build strong economies and strong American communities.
This assistance allows parents to get the education or the training
they need to qualify for a good job. It allows them to accept and keep
a good job that will help pay those bills. It helps employers hire
qualified employees who are then able to work. It helps the children
get the foundation they need both academically and socially to be
prepared to succeed in school and life.
Getting CCDBG-funded childcare up to speed with the 21st century is a
key element in addressing income inequality and the deep recession that
is still present for so many low-income American families. This is
especially true for American Indian and Alaska Native families.
American Indians and Alaska Natives experience exceptionally high
unemployment levels compared to the rest of the Nation. I think the
Presiding Officer knows this from his State, but in many regions of
Alaska unemployment among our Native people is more than double our
statewide rate. In the lower 48, unemployment on our Indian
reservations was at approximately 50 percent in 2012.
We also know that high-quality early education can have an important
and positive effect on the often very difficult academic and social
outcomes we can see with our American Indians and our Alaska Native
children if they do not have some of these foundational opportunities
before them. So increasing these families' access to quality early
education can have an important, positive effect on these children by
improving their academic outcomes and their economic opportunities and
really bringing hope to the community.
I thank the Senators on the floor for supporting the amendment we
just had in front of us. Senator Franken and I had offered the tribal
set-aside. This change, which moves the set-aside from a ceiling to a
floor, will provide tribes with an opportunity to work with HHS to
receive additional support for the childcare opportunities that are so
needed in Indian Country.
I am proud of the work we are doing in the Senate this week. We could
have hotlined this bill and passed it by unanimous consent, but I think
the path we have taken is the right one in bringing the bill to the
floor and giving each Member the opportunity to be heard on ways to
improve the bill. Holding votes on amendments in the regular order is
the right thing to do. I applaud the chairwoman and those who have
worked so hard, and I look forward to supporting this bill as we see
its conclusion.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues this
afternoon in expressing support for the
[[Page S1561]]
reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program,
and I too commend Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr, Senator Harkin, and
Senator Alexander for crafting this bipartisan bill and bringing it to
the Senate floor for debate and amendment.
Childcare for working parents is essential to families throughout the
Nation, and Maine is no exception. For years the CCDBG Program has
assisted low-income parents in affording childcare. The support
provided by this important program enables parents to obtain needed
care for their children so they may work or improve their own skills
and education.
Mr. President, 2,600 children from 1,800 Maine families receive
Federal childcare subsidies through this program. Particularly during
these difficult economic times, this program goes a long way in helping
families in Maine and across the country.
I have seen firsthand the impact of high-quality early learning on a
child's ability to succeed and grow. Educare Central Maine, located in
Waterville, which I visited a few years ago, is a state-of-the-art
early learning center that serves more than 200 mostly low-income
children from birth to age 5. Almost half of these children come from
families that are eligible for assistance, and many rely on the CCDBG
voucher to help cover the cost of their attending Educare. Educare is a
great example of quality childcare in my State and of the real impact
of this program's funding at work in our communities.
As I saw at Educare in Waterville, the vouchers provided under this
program allow parents to choose the best childcare setting for their
children. That is a critical aspect of this program. Vouchers give
parents the flexibility they want and need to make the best choice for
their children about the kind of care that best serves their needs,
whether it is at a childcare center, at a family care home, or with a
relative or friend. The voucher program helps to keep the decisions in
the hands of parents.
I am also pleased this reauthorization requires coordination among
the early learning advisory councils and Head Start and the IDEA
programs that serve children with special needs. Aligning these
programs will help to improve the quality of all services offered for
infants, toddlers, and preschool-aged children.
High-quality early learning experiences help ensure that children are
well prepared for school. This bill improves the current program by
making sure those providers receiving funding are qualified, receive
training, and are regularly inspected and monitored.
I also express my gratitude to the members of the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee for including in this legislation
provisions from the Child Care Infant Mortality Prevention Act. That is
a bill I introduced with the Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as
the American Academy of Pediatrics, half of the approximately 4,500
sudden infant death syndrome cases in the United States are entirely
preventable with effective training and implementation of correct sleep
practices. I am very pleased this reauthorization includes sudden
infant death syndrome prevention and safe sleeping practices among the
new health and safety training topics for providers.
Childcare is not only important to the developmental health of our
children but also to the well-being of their parents. When parents know
their children have a place to go where they will be safe and where
they will learn, then parents have the peace of mind to earn a living
to support their families.
Balancing the need to work with the need for childcare can be very
difficult. At times, a parent's salary would be almost completely
offset by the cost of childcare in a low-income family. This bill will
help more parents get the support they need while reinforcing the
requirement for high-quality care in healthy, stimulating, and safe
environments.
Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
reauthorization bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Maine and
Alaska for their comments, as well as the Senator from Washington
State. Wasn't it impressive that for the last hour, from both sides of
the aisle, the women of the Senate have spoken out. Yet this bill is
not a woman's bill. This is a family bill, where the men and women of
the Senate came together on a bipartisan basis and have developed a
framework for a sensible, affordable reauthorization of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act.
I am so pleased to be a part of this with Senator Harkin, chairman of
the health and education committee, Senator Lamar Alexander, and
Senator Richard Burr, my counterpart on the subcommittee, where we
worked so hard to do this.
We the women of the Senate often joke, but it is no laughing matter
when we say we work on the macro issues of our economy and of our
national security. But we also work on the macaroni and cheese issues
affecting America's families, and there is no bigger macaroni and
cheese issue than general education, and of course early childhood
education, which occurs both in the home--remember, the first teachers
are always the family--and then childcare. With now more than 40
percent of American women in the workforce, childcare is indeed a
compelling issue.
Childcare is one of the most important decisions a parent can make in
raising their child. Yet when one asks who is worried about childcare
or when there is a single mom working double shifts because she might
make the minimum wage and she is trying to hold body and soul together
or a married couple where the wife is working in the marketplace as a
lab technician and the father has a job which might have him commuting
more than 2 hours a day one way, they need to be able to have
affordable childhood care. What about the police officer who works the
night shift? When we say ``police officer,'' it could be female or
male.
Our bill helps lift the burden, giving families and children the
childcare they need. This is why I am so proud the Senate women have
joined me to support this bill. Many families want childcare which is
reliable, undeniable, safe, affordable, and accessible. This bill does
just that.
So how does it work? The Federal Government provides States and
Indian tribes with funding. This funding is used to help lower-income
families afford childcare while their parents work or train for work.
Families are given vouchers based on their income level to help cover
the cost of care. These vouchers can be used by parents for care in a
childcare home, care in a relative's home or in a child care center.
Every month the CCDBG Program helps more than 1.5 million American
children. In my own home State of Maryland, 20,000 children are served
monthly; 20,000 families benefit from this.
So why is the program important? Childcare is expensive. Even when
parents are contributing to childcare, it is often one of their highest
expenditures. On average, Maryland families spend 20 percent of their
family income on child care. Maryland has 54,000 working moms with
infants under the age of 1 year. The childcare for this is $13,000 a
year. We have 148,000 single moms with children under the age of 18. We
have 200,000 working moms with children under the age of 6. Childcare
for them for a 4-year-old is about $9,000 a year. This is more than
what it costs to go to a community college. This is what it costs to go
to more than some of the campuses at the University of Maryland.
Childcare is expensive. Taking care of children who are preschool is
expensive because in order to do the right thing they have to have
trained staff who not only provide a safe environment for the children,
but the kind of environment which nurtures their development, develops
their mind, and prepares them for school. This is why we focused on
high-quality childcare.
Safeguarding their health and safety, ensuring children have a
continuity of care, making sure their nutritional concerns are also
addressed. We have done this, again, on a bipartisan basis to make sure
when we provide childcare, and we also provide local flexibility.
[[Page S1562]]
The needs in a rural State like Utah or Montana are different than
Maryland or New York. Look at the lead sponsors of this bill:
Tennessee, North Carolina, Iowa, Maryland. So we provide the local
flexibility which is so important.
This bill will make sure we have strong background checks to make
sure the children are safe. We are going to make sure they meet certain
basic health requirements where the staff knows basic first aid. We are
also going to make sure there is money for training and curriculum
development so each child benefits in a safe learning environment.
There is much more I could say about this bill, but the most
important is this. Let's get our amendments done and let's move it. I
am proud of what we have done, and I really think that if we work
together, we can offer our amendments and be done by sometime tomorrow.
So I again reach out to all of my colleagues. We have a good bill. It
is a bill which helps families and, at the same time, it does not
really increase bureaucracy.
I yield the floor and look forward to a continuing debate on the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Amendment No. 2824 and Amendment No. 2809
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside, and call up the following amendments: Bennet-
Isakson No. 2824; and, Boxer-Burr No. 2809.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Bennet and Mr.
Isakson, proposes an amendment numbered 2824;
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mrs. Boxer and Mr.
Burr, proposes amendment numbered 2809.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2824
(Purpose: To require States that elect to combine funding for early
childhood education and care to describe the manner in which they use
the combined funding)
On page 91, line 17, insert ``efficiently'' before
``coordinate''.
On page 93, strike line 9 and insert the following:
``(ii) Optional use of combined funds.--If the State elects
to combine funding for the services supported to carry out
this subchapter with funding for any program described in
subclauses (I) through (VII) of clause (i), the plan shall
describe how the State will combine the multiple sets of
funding and use the combined funding.
``(iii) Rule of construction.--Noth-
On page 128, line 16, strike ``chapter; and'' and insert
``chapter;''.
On page 128, strike line 22 and insert the following:
ance with this subchapter.
``(5) after consultation with the Secretary of Education
and the heads of any other Federal agencies involved, issue
guidance, and disseminate information on best practices,
regarding use of funding combined by States as described in
section 658E(c)(2)(O)(ii), consistent with law other than
this subchapter.''; and
AMENDMENT NO. 2809
(Purpose: To amend the Crime Control Act of 1990 to improve the quality
of background checks for Federal agencies hiring, or contracting to
hire, individuals to provide child care services)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SAFE CHILD CARE ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Safe
Child Care Act of 2014''.
(b) Background Checks.--Section 231 of the Crime Control
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13041) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection (b)(3)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (3)''; and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
(2) by moving paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b) to
subsection (a), and inserting them after paragraph (1) of
that subsection;
(3) in subsection (a)(3), as redesignated by paragraph (2)
of this subsection, by striking ``subsection (a)(1)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (1)'';
(4) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) A background check required by subsection (a) shall
be initiated through the personnel programs of the applicable
Federal agencies.
``(2) A background check for a child care staff member
under subsection (a) shall include--
``(A) a search, including a fingerprint check, of the State
criminal registry or repository in--
``(i) the State where the child care staff member resides;
and
``(ii) each State where the child care staff member
previously resided during the longer of--
``(I) the 10-year period ending on the date on which the
background check is initiated; or
``(II) the period beginning on the date on which the child
care staff member attained 18 years of age and ending on the
date on which the background check is initiated;
``(B) a search of State-based child abuse and neglect
registries and databases in--
``(i) the State where the child care staff member resides;
and
``(ii) each State where the child care staff member
previously resided during the longer of--
``(I) the 10-year period ending on the date on which the
background check is initiated; or
``(II) the period beginning on the date on which the child
care staff member attained 18 years of age and ending on the
date on which the background check is initiated;
``(C) a search of the National Crime Information Center
database;
``(D) a Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check
using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System;
``(E) a search of the National Sex Offender Registry
established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.); and
``(F) a search of the State sex offender registry
established under that Act in--
``(i) the State where the child care staff member resides;
and
``(ii) each State where the child care staff member
previously resided during the longer of--
``(I) the 10-year period ending on the date on which the
background check is initiated; or
``(II) the period beginning on the date on which the child
care staff member attained 18 years of age and ending on the
date on which the background check is initiated.
``(3) A child care staff member shall be ineligible for
employment by a child care provider if such individual--
``(A) refuses to consent to the background check described
in subsection (a);
``(B) makes a false statement in connection with such
background check;
``(C) is registered, or is required to be registered, on a
State sex offender registry or the National Sex Offender
Registry established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection
and Safety Act of 2006; or
``(D) has been convicted of a felony consisting of--
``(i) murder, as described in section 1111 of title 18,
United States Code;
``(ii) child abuse or neglect;
``(iii) a crime against children, including child
pornography;
``(iv) spousal abuse;
``(v) a crime involving rape or sexual assault;
``(vi) kidnapping;
``(vii) arson;
``(viii) physical assault or battery; or
``(ix) subject to paragraph (5)(D), a drug-related offense
committed during the preceding 5 years.
``(4)(A) A child care provider covered by paragraph (3)
shall submit a request, to the appropriate State agency
designated by a State, for a background check described in
subsection (a), for each child care staff member (including
prospective child care staff members) of the provider.
``(B) In the case of an individual who is hired as a child
care staff member before the date of enactment of the Safe
Child Care Act of 2014, the provider shall submit such a
request--
``(i) prior to the last day of the second full fiscal year
after that date of enactment; and
``(ii) not less often than once during each 5-year period
following the first submission date under this subparagraph
for that staff member.
``(C) In the case of an individual who is a prospective
child care staff member on or after that date of enactment,
the provider shall submit such a request--
``(i) prior to the date the individual becomes a child care
staff member of the provider; and
``(ii) not less often than once during each 5-year period
following the first submission date under this subparagraph
for that staff member.
``(5)(A) The State shall--
``(i) carry out the request of a child care provider for a
background check described in subsection (a) as expeditiously
as possible; and
``(ii) in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph, provide the results of the background check to--
``(I) the child care provider; and
``(II) the current or prospective child care staff member
for whom the background check is conducted.
``(B)(i) The State shall provide the results of a
background check to a child care provider as required under
subparagraph (A)(ii)(I) in a statement that--
``(I) indicates whether the current or prospective child
care staff member for whom
[[Page S1563]]
the background check is conducted is eligible or ineligible
for employment by a child care provider; and
``(II) does not reveal any disqualifying crime or other
related information regarding the current or prospective
child care staff member.
``(ii) If a current or prospective child care staff member
is ineligible for employment by a child care provider due to
a background check described in subsection (a), the State
shall provide the results of the background check to the
current or prospective child care staff member as required
under subparagraph (A)(ii)(II) in a criminal background
report that includes information relating to each
disqualifying crime.
``(iii) A State--
``(I) may not publicly release or share the results of an
individual background check described in subsection (a); and
``(II) may include the results of background checks
described in subsection (a) in the development or
dissemination of local or statewide data relating to
background checks if the results are not individually
identifiable.
``(C)(i) The State shall provide for a process by which a
child care staff member (including a prospective child care
staff member) may appeal the results of a background check
required under subsection (a) to challenge the accuracy or
completeness of the information contained in the criminal
background report of the staff member.
``(ii) The State shall ensure that--
``(I) the appeals process is completed in a timely manner
for each child care staff member;
``(II) each child care staff member is given notice of the
opportunity to appeal; and
``(III) each child care staff member who wishes to
challenge the accuracy or completeness of the information in
the criminal background report of the child care staff member
is given instructions about how to complete the appeals
process.
``(D)(i) The State may allow for a review process through
which the State may determine that a child care staff member
(including a prospective child care staff member)
disqualified for a crime specified in paragraph (3)(D)(ix) is
eligible for employment by a child care provider,
notwithstanding paragraph (3).
``(ii) The review process under this subparagraph shall be
consistent with title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000e et seq.).
``(E) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create
a private right of action against a child care provider if
the child care provider is in compliance with this section.
``(F) This section shall apply to each State that receives
funding under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.).
``(6) Fees that the State may charge for the costs of
conducting a background check as required by subsection (a)
shall not exceed the actual costs to the State for the
administration of such background checks.
``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
prevent a Federal agency from disqualifying an individual as
a child care staff member based on a conviction of the
individual for a crime not specifically listed in this
subsection that bears upon the fitness of an individual to
provide care for and have responsibility for the safety and
well-being of children.
``(8) In this subsection--
``(A) the term `child care provider' means an agency of the
Federal Government, or a unit of or contractor with the
Federal Government that is operating a facility, described in
subsection (a); and
``(B) the term `child care staff member' means an
individual who is hired, or seeks to be hired, by a child
care provider to be involved with the provision of child care
services, as described in subsection (a).''; and
(5) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Suspension Pending Disposition of Criminal Case.--In
the case of an incident in which an individual has been
charged with an offense described in subsection (b)(3)(D) and
the charge has not yet been disposed of, an employer may
suspend an employee from having any contact with children
while on the job until the case is resolved.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1 of the second full fiscal year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 p.m.,
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in
the order listed: Landrieu No. 2818; Landrieu-Grassley No. 2813;
Landrieu-Blunt No. 2814; and Bennett-Isakson No. 2824; further, that no
second-degree amendments be in order to any of these amendments prior
to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. For the information of all Senators, it is our
understanding that only one of these four amendments will be subject to
a rollcall vote, Landrieu No. 2818, and the others will hopefully be
done by voice votes at 5:15.
Unanimous Consent--Executive Calendar
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon
disposition of the Bennet-Isakson amendment, the Senate proceed to
executive session for consideration of the following nominations en
bloc: Calendar Nos. 682, 617, 614, 545; that the Senate proceed to vote
in the order listed without intervening action or debate on the
nominations; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further
motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the
Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, would the Senator yield 2 minutes?
I thank the Senator from Iowa for his generosity spirit, and I rise
in strong support of the bill.
Since 1990 this important block grant has helped States provide
vouchers to our low-income families to help them afford quality
childcare programs. We all know how important that is.
With over 70 percent of moms in today's workforce, it certainly is a
critical issue for our children and their families and for our economy.
I have been involved in this issue both when I was a young mom and
now as an older grandmother. Childcare can be very expensive. The
average low-income family spends over 32 percent of their income on
childcare every month and about the same for their rent. They don't
have much left over. It is very difficult. In California we have almost
6 million children whose parents are working, and in our State we were
able to help over 100,000 children through this very important program.
I commend the sponsors of this bill, the HELP Committee, for the
great work they have done. I have a couple of amendments, and I will
finish in just a moment.
Senator Burr and I have proposed amendment No. 2809, which simply
ensures that all childcare programs on Federal facilities, such as
military bases, conduct the same comprehensive background checks the
bill already requires of childcare providers on State land. So it is
like a little bit of an oversight that was left out.
So we make sure if there is a childcare center on Federal lands--and,
by the way, there are many--it is taken care of. Unfortunately, we have
had experiences of all kinds of assaults on Federal lands, and I don't
need to go into that.
Amendment No. 2810 would help more parents afford quality childcare
by increasing the child and dependent care tax credit from $3,000 to
$6,000 per child, and making it refundable.
I do hope we all support the underlying bill, and I thank the Senator
from Iowa for his generosity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in the last few weeks I have come to the
floor many times to speak about how the Senate has deteriorated from
being the deliberative body it is supposed to be. Considering the
comity on the floor on this bill under the direction of Senator Harkin,
my colleague from Iowa, and other people, this is probably not the most
appropriate time to give a speech like this. But we still have problems
in the Senate and I wish to address them.
We need to restore the Senate as a deliberative body. I am very
concerned the Senate is no longer living up to its reputation as the
``World's Greatest Deliberative Body.''
I have outlined how the Senate ought to function by quoting at length
the writings of the primary architect of the U.S. Constitution James
Madison. When trying to understand what the authors of the Constitution
intended the role of the Senate to be, we can't do any better than
James Madison, the father of the Constitution.
The writings of Madison, along with Hamilton and Jay, in the
Federalist Papers comprise the most comprehensive and detailed
explanation of what the framers of the Constitution intended. This
provides an important and
[[Page S1564]]
very nonpartisan frame of reference about the role the Senate is
supposed to play in our system of government. By going back to our
founding document and first principles, we can rise above petty
partisan squabbling and start working on how to restore the Senate as
the deliberative body it is supposed to be.
I will start by recapping some of the lessons from the Federalist
Papers where the Senate has gone off course. Then I will talk about
solutions to restore the Senate. I am introducing this solution today
with cosponsorship of other Senators, which I will get to in a minute.
In Federalist No. 62, this new creation of a Senate is being
explained to the people of New York to convince them to ratify the
Constitution. It tells of the lessons Americans learned in the first
years of independence under the Articles of Confederation, which had a
unicameral legislature, as did most of the States at that time. Based
on lessons learned from practical experience then of these State
legislatures, James Madison lists four problems that a republic such as
ours could face if it doesn't have a properly functioning Senate.
The first problem Madison recounts is a tendency for a group to form
in a legislative body that pushes its own agenda as opposed to what the
people elected them to do. Madison explains that having a second
Chamber like a Senate makes such ``schemes of usurpation or perfidy''
less likely because they would have to capture both Chambers at the
same time. The Senate, with longer staggered terms as the Constitution
spells out, makes that even less likely.
The second lesson is that a single-chamber legislature with lots of
Members tends to ``yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions
and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious
resolutions.''
If that sounds like the House of Representatives today, that is
because it is supposed to work that way. The House is supposed to
reflect the immediate passions of the day, even if those passions take
on a partisan pen. However, when laws are made only by factious
leaders, you end up with what Madison calls, ``intemperate and
pernicious resolutions.''
So that is where he says the function of the Senate as a deliberative
body comes into play.
Madison's third lesson has to do with a need for a body with longer
terms that is serious about doing the hard work of legislating, instead
of pushing short-term agendas, such as might be the case in a House of
Representatives.
To quote Madison:
What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending
laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so
many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments
exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session;
so many admonitions to people, of the value of those aids
which may be expected from a well constituted senate?
In other words, what Madison was saying: It is better to take the
time to get it right the first time than to have to constantly go back
and fix ill-conceived laws. That is what the Senate is composed to do
under our Constitution, to make sure we do not get sudden changes or
bad legislation out of the other body.
In the fourth and final point, Madison explains that if a legislature
is constantly churning out new laws, even if they are good ideas, it
causes chaos because no one knows what the law says from day to day. It
changes constantly, in other words.
To this point Madison says: ``A continual change even of good
measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect
of success.''
Madison also points out a problem caused by overactive legislating
that we tend to think is unique in modern times; that is, special
interest groups that are hired as lobbyists and lawyers. To quote
Madison: ``Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable
advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed
few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people.''
That is a criticism we still hear today.
Just to recap, the Senate was specifically written into our
Constitution to solve certain problems; namely, but repetitively, to
prevent an agenda that does not reflect that of the American people, to
prevent legislation based upon short-term partisan passions, and to
pass fewer but better thought-out laws. Of course, starting in 2007, we
had a House and a Senate controlled by the same political party and
intent on enacting the President's agenda, top of which was his health
care law. The deliberative process was cut short and the legislation
was rammed through the Senate over the objections of Senators
representing 40 percent of the States. The President's health care law
is practically the poster child for what Madison called ``intemperate
and pernicious resolutions,'' reflecting a partisan agenda that did not
enjoy broad support among the American people when it was passed. You
know what. It enjoys less support today.
The fact that Congress didn't take the time to think through every
aspect of that important health care legislation and work out a
consensus that could attract broad support of the Senate has resulted
in the need of a series of, as Madison said, ``repealing, explaining
and amending laws.''
Of course, the President claimed for himself the authority to
unilaterally suspend or amend parts of the law that aren't working
rather than come back to Congress that under the Constitution is
supposed to be the legislative body. Of course, what the President is
doing now is not what the authors of the Constitution intended either.
We wouldn't be in this predicament, with a deeply flawed health care
law, if the Senate had been allowed to function as it was intended.
Now with neither party today having 60 votes needed to steamroll
Members of the minority party, the Senate should go back to functioning
as it was intended. Yet that hasn't happened. Instead we have seen an
unprecedented abuse of Senate rules to block Senators from
participating in the deliberative process. These abuses of Senate rules
threaten to fundamentally transform the Senate from the greatest
deliberative body in the world into a purely partisan rubberstamp for
the agenda of the majority and its leadership. If we allow that to
happen, we will see even more of the problems Madison warned about.
The Senate was intended to be a deliberative body and only functions
properly when deliberation is allowed. That means we must have debate
and amendments.
I hear frequent complaints from Iowans about Congress passing huge
bills without Members of Congress having the opportunity to understand
all the provisions, much less the people they are supposed to represent
having a chance to understand the bills and to weigh in on them. It is
now routine for cloture to be filed immediately upon bringing up a
matter for consideration. That is not the deliberative process or how
the Senate is supposed to operate.
Cloture was invented to allow the Senate to end consideration of a
matter after the preponderance of Senators had concluded it had
received sufficient consideration. Even that part was a compromise.
Before cloture was invented, there was no way to end debate as long as
at least one Senator thought a matter needed further consideration.
Cloture was introduced to balance the desire to get things done with
the principle that each Senator, as a representative of his or her
State, has a right to participate fully in that legislative process.
The threshold was later adjusted down from two-thirds of Senators
voting to three-fifths of all Senators. That is the famous 60 votes we
have to have if we want to end debate. Each time this matter has been
revisited, the balance has tilted more in favor of speeding up the
process at the expense of allowing Senators to fully represent the
people of their States.
At the beginning of the current Congress, the Senate passed changes
to the Senate rules to shorten the amount of debate time after cloture
is invoked for certain nominees and to expedite consideration of
legislation in some situations. These changes were agreed to in
exchange for a promise--a real promise--that the so-called nuclear
option would not be used.
Notwithstanding that commitment, just a short 10 months later, the
nuclear option was used, setting a new precedent that debate on
nominations can be cut off by a simple majority of Senators, ignoring
the plain text of the cloture rule that is still on the books.
At the end of the day, Members of this body agreed to extinguish
certain rights in exchange for the promise not
[[Page S1565]]
to use the nuclear option only to have additional rights stripped away
10 months later by a simple majority vote. Taken together, those two
episodes represent a dramatic shift toward domination of the Senate by
one faction, contrary to Madison's stated intent.
I say all that by way of background, but that is history and the
other side will have to learn to live with the ramifications of changes
to the nomination process that they forced upon this body.
I would like to turn the focus now to the legislative process and
what can be done to restore the Senate to the role envisioned by the
authors of the Constitution before it is too late and the idea that I
have and some of my colleagues have joined me in a rule change along
this line.
When it comes to legislating, we have gotten off track from how the
Senate was designed, but we have an opportunity to restore the Senate
as a deliberative body. That was an understanding at the beginning of
this Congress, that there would be some return to regular order. In
exchange for rule changes that expedite the legislative process, the
majority leadership would turn to the longstanding tradition of an open
amendment process.
In other words, there was an understanding that the Senate would take
its time to consider legislation and Senators from both sides would be
free to propose amendments and have them voted on. That understanding
lasted until Republicans submitted amendments that some on the other
side were nervous to have to take a position on. It is no secret the
majority leader has gone out of his way to keep Members of his caucus
from having to take votes that may hurt them with the people back home.
The Senate rules provide that any Senator may offer an amendment to a
bill being considered. Therefore, in order to shield Members from
having to take tough votes, the majority leader now routinely moves to
shut down all consideration of a bill before amendments are considered.
As I said at the beginning, maybe today isn't the time to give this
speech because we have great comity on the bills before the Senate, but
we still have a major problem.
Cloture is supposed to be used after the Senate has considered a
measure for a period of time and a preponderance of the Senate think it
has deliberated enough. Cloture should not be used to prevent any
meaningful deliberation from taking place. The average number of
cloture motions filed under each session of the Congress under this
majority leadership is more than double what it was in prior sessions
of Congress under majority leaders of both parties going back to 1987.
This alone is an indication that cloture is being overused, even
abused, by the majority.
The majority leader will tell you he is forced to file cloture
because of Republican filibusters. He might have a point if--and that
is a big if--if it was true that after extensive debate and plenty of
opportunity to consider amendments Republicans were dragging out debate
purely for the sake of delay. However, we can hardly claim that the
Senate's deliberation has dragged on too long when it hasn't even begun
consideration of the matter in the first place.
We are now at the point where the overwhelming number of motions to
cut off debate are made before debate has even started, much less than
in response to a filibuster because, obviously, we have to have debate
before we have a filibuster.
Let's look at a chart I have that was put together by the
Congressional Research Service on cloture motions in relationship to
legislative business filed the same day a matter is brought before the
Senate--in other words, before debate starts--because we have to have
debate before we have a filibuster.
I have color-coded each Congress based on which party controlled the
Senate. You will notice that use of same-day cloture averages out to 29
times per Congress up until the 110th Congress when this majority
leadership takes over. Then there is a huge jump to 98 same-day cloture
motions. That is more than three times the previous average. You will
notice a trend toward slightly more use of same-day clotures in the
years leading up to 2007 and, of course, that makes both parties
guilty.
You can see an unprecedented use of same-day clotures starting when
this majority leadership took over. The trend has continued at more
than double the previous average in each Congress since this majority
leadership took over.
There were 65 same-day cloture motions in the 111th Congress and 67
in the 112th Congress compared to 29 the last time Republicans
controlled the Senate, which coincidentally is also the previous
average I have talked about.
The last line on the chart shows the total as of January, when we
were only halfway through the current Congress. At that time we were
already up to 30 same-day cloture motions. That is more than we saw for
the entire Congress the last time Republicans were in the majority. We
are back to an unprecedented use of cloture to end deliberations before
deliberations have even begun, and that is clearly abusive and cannot
be justified.
Some people might argue that same-day cloture motions on the motion
to proceed should not be counted because the motion to proceed can't be
amended. That is debatable, but I will point out that the last column
shows same-day cloture filings excluding the motion to proceed, and the
trend is exactly the same.
What do we do about this abuse of cloture to end consideration of a
bill before it has been considered? Today I am introducing the Stop
Cloture Abuse Resolution. That appropriately spells out the acronym
SCAR because cloture abuse threatens to scar the body of the Senate.
The Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution will amend Senate rules to prohibit
the filing of cloture until at least 24 hours after the Senate has
proceeded to the matter. That means you will have debate before you
file cloture. Debate could be a filibuster, but you have to have debate
to have a filibuster. This reform will end, once and for all, the
practice of attempting to shut down debate and amendments before the
debate has started.
It is important to keep in mind that when Senators are blocked from
participating in the legislative process, the people they represent are
disenfranchised. By that I don't mean the citizens of the 45 States who
elected Republicans. The citizens of States who elected Democratic
Senators also expect their Senators to offer amendments and engage with
their colleagues and different parties. Forcing a cloture vote before
any deliberation prevents even Members of the majority party from
offering amendments that may be important to the people they represent.
Voters have a right to expect the people they elect to actually do the
hard work of legislating, not just be a rubberstamp for the
leadership's agenda.
Senators who go along with the tactics that disenfranchise their own
constituents should have to explain to those who voted them into office
why they are not willing to be full-fledged Senators. The Senate is the
world's most deliberative body, and constituents rightfully expect
their Senators to be able to vote. They should explain why their
loyalty is to party leadership and not to the people of their State.
A Senator's job includes offering amendments. Being a Senator also
means sometimes you have to take tough votes on other Senators'
amendments that reveal to your constituents where you stand on various
issues. It is the job of Senators, quite plainly, to deliberate and to
legislate.
The Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution will make it clear that
deliberation is the rule, not disenfranchisement. It would establish
that a deliberative process is expected, and at least some deliberation
must occur before any attempt to silence the voices of Senators and by
extension the voices of the people of their respective States.
This is just one reform idea I am proposing for the Senate to
consider as we work to restore the Senate as a deliberative body, and
that will be introduced today. It would only address, I have to admit,
part of the problem. The Senate will also have to address the abuse of
filling the tree to block amendments.
The ability to block Senators from offering amendments is actually
not found in the Senate rules. Filling the tree is an abuse of Senate
precedents. In some ways that makes it the easier problem to address;
whereas, a cloture
[[Page S1566]]
abuse is an abuse of the Senate cloture rule. The practice of filling
the tree to block amendments can be eliminated simply by establishing a
new precedent.
As everyone remembers from the nuclear option, establishing a new
precedent is a simple process that only requires a majority vote.
However, like the nuclear option which established a precedent that the
Senate would ignore, the plain text of a rule is still on the books.
Ending the ability of a majority leader to block amendments would
simply involve replacing the old precedent with a new precedent.
For now, the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution--going by the acronym
SCAR--would be a good start. It would eliminate the scar on the Senate.
Adopting the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution would send a strong message
that the Senate will once again deliberate over issues rather than
ramming through all of them without careful consideration.
This reform will reduce the urge to force legislation through the
Senate based on a short-term partisan agenda and result in fewer but
better laws just as James Madison and the other Framers of the
Constitution intended. Amending the Senate rules should not be a last
resort, and this move should not be necessary.
We have been told the bipartisan child care and development block
grant bill will be considered--and is being considered--under an open
amendment process. If that happens, and if that marks the beginning of
a return to regular order where all Senators are allowed to represent
their States to the best of their ability once again, then perhaps this
move will not be necessary.
Given the record of the past three Congresses, I don't think anybody
should hold their breath on that happening.
It is a good day in the U.S. Senate that this legislation is being
considered under the process the Senate was set up to perform--to
deliberate, offer amendments, and debate.
If a fully open amendment process is not permitted after all, and if
this rare instance of bipartisanship proves to be an exception to the
rule, it will prove that the Senate is fundamentally broken and only
significant reforms, such as the Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution, can
restore the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2837
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment so I may call up my amendment numbered 2837, which is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Scott], for himself
and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 2837.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify parental rights to use child care certificates)
On page 140, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 10A. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
Section 658Q of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858o) is amended--
(1) by inserting before ``Nothing'' the following:
``(a) In General.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Parental Rights to Use Child Care Certificates.--
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed in a manner--
``(1) to favor or promote the use of grants and contracts
for the receipt of child care services under this subchapter
over the use of child care certificates; or
``(2) to disfavor or discourage the use of such
certificates for the purchase of child care services,
including those services provided by private or nonprofit
entities, such as faith-based providers.''.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I offer amendment No. 2837 to S. 2086, the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. My amendment seeks
to clarify that the statute does not favor or promote the use of grants
or contracts over the use of childcare certificates, nor does it
adversely impact the use of certificates in faith-based or other
settings.
What we are talking about today boils down to parental choice and
State flexibility--two issues the Federal Government should be thinking
a lot harder about on a constant basis.
I ask my colleagues to support my bipartisan amendment to ensure low-
income working parents have a choice and that States have the
flexibility they need to find the childcare that best suits their
child.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the
Medicare Program, which of course, is a lifeline--a guarantee for 50
million older Americans. In particular what the Senate wants to do is
make sure that those older people have access to primary care doctors,
nurse practitioners, specialists, and other providers in their local
communities because they provide critically needed care to our seniors
day in and day out.
Many of those seniors have no idea that by March 31--just a few weeks
from now--Congress has to act on their behalf to preserve access to the
care that seniors depend on. Suffice it to say those providers would
much rather be delivering the care than waiting for this Congress to
act.
Now, fortunately, there is a roadmap for getting this done--getting
good care to seniors not just for a short period of time but, I say to
my colleagues, once and for all. And I wish to this afternoon urge my
colleagues to seize this opportunity.
Beginning my remarks, I declare I can take little credit for the
opportunity before us. The path that got us here, that got us started
in the effort to make the needed reforms to protect our seniors, is a
direct result of the leadership of my friend and colleague Senator
Orrin Hatch. Just as Senator Hatch has done so many times over the
course of an illustrious career, he was key to forging a bipartisan
solution to a challenging, longstanding problem.
So what I would like to do in the beginning is to recognize that
effort by Senator Hatch; my predecessor as chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Baucus; House Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp;
House Ways and Means Ranking Member Sander Levin; House Energy and
Commerce chairman Fred Upton; and House Energy and Commerce Ranking
Member Henry Waxman. The work they have been doing over the last few
months is exceptional. In effect, they have given us the opportunity to
take this flawed system of setting a kind of Medicare budget known as
SGR--sustainable growth rate--they have given us the opportunity to
repeal and replace this flawed system with one that I think is going to
make a huge difference in the days ahead by pushing up the goal of
good-quality affordable care and doing it in a bipartisan way. I hope
these colleagues will take it as a compliment that the SGR bill now
before the Senate incorporates all of that good bipartisan work they
have been doing, along with the work that was done on the Senate
Finance Committee.
I see our colleague from North Carolina, who has contributed mightily
to that effort, as well as, of course, the Presiding Officer of the
Senate Senator Brown, who has been such an eloquent spokesperson,
particularly for those without political power and political clout. I
thank both of them for their efforts.
To be specific, the legislation I introduced last night incorporates
what those six Members agreed to--the six
[[Page S1567]]
Members I just named, the three Democrats and the three Republicans--in
S. 2000. In effect, that legislation, along with the health extenders
passed by the Senate Finance Committee in S. 1871, is essentially what
we have the opportunity to move in the days ahead. Every single item in
this bill has strong bipartisan support, and I hope we can all come
together and with resounding bipartisan support get this bill passed
before March 31.
There are a variety of reasons why Democrats and Republicans, in my
view, can band together and repeal and replace what I have
characterized as a flawed, really dysfunctional system we have today
known as the SGR, but before I go through the list of reasons, I wish
to make clear to my colleagues--colleagues who know me--that I am
interested in sound, sensible policy and that we move in a bipartisan
way--not politics, not message, but sound policy.
That is why I am here on the floor today. I have always tried to make
it possible for both sides to secure their principles--principles that
are important to them--and still allow us to go forward in a bipartisan
and innovative fashion to get things done.
I will say to my colleagues, it is not possible any longer to just
put one patch or another up and say we are going to fix the Medicare
challenge. It is not going to work.
For the last 10 years Congress has always blocked these cuts. So I
say it is time to stop pretending these upcoming cuts--fittingly
scheduled for April Fools' Day--are any more real than the 16 times the
Congress has intervened. What we ought to do, I say to my colleagues,
is stop playing Medicare make believe. It is time to set aside a flawed
formula that prevents the Congress from really moving ahead
constructively on Medicare and to start with a clean slate.
I thought the Wall Street Journal editors really summed it up very
well on February 19. In talking about the bipartisan bill I laud
tonight, the editors of the Wall Street Journal said: ``Simply pass the
bill as is and forgo the pretense of fake-paying for it.'' We need to
think about those words. The editors of the Wall Street Journal
basically said this is all a bunch of fakery because the cuts aren't
going to be made, the savings aren't going to be realized, because we
have tried that route. So the Wall Street Journal said pass this good
bipartisan bill.
If the Congress fails to fully repeal the flawed Medicare payment
formula now, I believe there will be cuts to other providers--
hospitals, home health care providers, drug companies, skilled nursing
facilities. Make no mistake about it. Those providers are going to be
the ones who pay for yet another patch. So a lot of this budget fakery
isn't real, but the people who are going to pay for the patch are going
to face very real cuts.
In total, the 16 bandaid patches have already cost $150 billion. That
is the same cost as fully repealing and replacing the flawed SGR plus
taking care of the health extenders. Those cuts, as I have indicated,
have largely been paid for in the past by cuts to other providers. In
the last 2 years alone, the hospitals have been forced to produce
nearly $30 billion to pay for the temporary patches.
Under the status quo, the SGR will always call for cuts that are too
steep for providers to bear and Congress will step in with yet another
patch paid for by still more cuts to other providers. How can we make a
case for more of the same, especially when we have an opportunity to
not only repeal the flawed formula but also to enact reforms that
finally move Medicare away from the flawed fee-for-service approach
that rewards quantity instead of quality and value?
Second, I offered the Medicare SGR Repeal and Beneficiary Access
Improvement Act of 2014 in order to eliminate the ongoing threat to our
seniors and the providers who serve them. Under this legislation, which
reflects the bipartisan, bicameral legislation Senator Hatch and
Senator Baucus offered last month, physicians would receive annual
payment increases of .5 percent for 5 years. The following 5 years
physicians would not receive automatic increases but, rather, would be
eligible for payment increases based on performance. Medicare would
transition to a new focus--on greater equality, value, and
accountability.
This legislation would strengthen Medicare physician payments in a
number of ways. It would reward the quality of care. It would improve
payment accuracy. It would expand the coordination of care for patients
with chronic care needs. It would encourage participation in
alternative models of payment.
The bill addresses other critical Medicare and Medicaid issues. They
are known as health care extenders. With these extenders, it would be
possible for the Congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that low-
income seniors can have affordable Medicare premiums and guarantees
that beneficiaries will have access to the therapies they need.
Under the bill, rural beneficiaries will have the security of knowing
the hospitals and physicians will be there when they need them. I know
rural health care, for my friend from North Carolina, my friend from
Iowa, and the Senator from Ohio, is a priority. If we pass this bill,
which was put together by the bipartisan group in the House and Senate,
we give a big boost for rural health care and the services seniors
depend on under Medicare.
Finally, something I am especially proud of because Senator Grassley
was good enough to work with me for a number of years on it is this
would significantly expand Medicare transparency. This legislation
would open Medicare's treasure trove of payment data and patients would
have the information they need to make informed choices about their
care. Researchers and professionals will have the data needed to
develop evidence-based methods. So this afternoon, in addition to
thanking the colleagues I have already mentioned, I thank Senator
Grassley for all of those years working with me. Senator Harkin knows
Senator Grassley has been a strong advocate for transparency in health
care and other vital services, and we see his good work in this bill.
This bill is bipartisan. It doesn't cut providers or increase cost-
sharing for seniors. I defer to my colleagues to decide if it is better
to offset the costs of SGR repeal by reducing future war spending or
unpaid for, but the bottom line is the same: We ought to act now. We
should act now and put this flawed formula known as the SGR, which has
produced Medicare migraines for frustrated providers and seniors alike,
behind us.
Every single thing in the bill I offer today has strong bipartisan
support, and it represents a compromise.
I know this isn't an easy vote for colleagues on either side of the
aisle, but I submit that it sure means we will be able to accomplish
what we were sent here to do--to find a way to do what is best for
seniors and the doctors who care for them. With that clean slate--and I
have enjoyed talking to the Presiding Officer about this because I
think what this bill is all about is doing what is right for seniors,
doing what is right for the doctors, setting in place a plan for the
future that ensures seniors are going to get better care that in many
instances will cost less. That is what I hope Senators will take home
after we break tomorrow for the work period.
This is a chance to do what is best for seniors, what is best for
doctors, and what is going to pay off for taxpayers in the long run.
Nobody wins with Medicare make believe. After these 16 patches, when
we have the Wall Street Journal editors joining with seniors and
providers and we have a bill that has strong bipartisan support, I
think this is the kind of measure Senators ought to flock to.
I will close by saying we all know the public is frustrated with a
fair amount of what happens in the Congress, and there is a fair level
of disappointment. The Senator from North Carolina and I were talking
about a variety of issues on this point this morning. But I look around
this Chamber and I see Senators who have spent a significant amount of
time in public life, and a number of colleagues who are on the floor, I
am old enough to remember joining them in the other body before we came
to the Senate, and we are here for a purpose. We are here to get things
done. On this Medicare issue, which suffice it to say has been one of
the most polarizing in the American public debate--in fact, I would
venture to say that on the domestic side of the budget, there are few
issues that have been
[[Page S1568]]
as divisive and polarizing as Medicare--this is an opportunity,
colleagues, to check the partisanship at the door, come together, and
set in place a new system of paying providers under Medicare that is
going to produce better quality at lower costs. We ought to support it
in a bipartisan manner.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from North
Carolina.
Amendment No. 2821
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Lee
amendment No. 2821.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] for Mr. Lee,
proposes an amendment numbered 2821.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit States from providing the Secretary with reports
containing personally identifiable information)
On page 136, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(e) Protection of Information.--Section 658K(a)(1) of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858i(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Prohibition.--Reports submitted to the Secretary
under subparagraph (C) shall not contain individually
identifiable information.''.
Amendment No. 2821, as Modified
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be modified with the technical correction which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 136, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(e) Protection of Information.--Section 658K(a)(1) of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858i(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Prohibition.--Reports submitted to the Secretary
under subparagraph (C) shall not contain individually
identifiable information.''.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I believe this amendment is agreeable on
both sides, and I know of no further debate on the amendment. I would
ask for the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2821), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. BURR. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most
concerning issues our country faces today, an issue that Chairman
Harkin particularly has been outspoken on, and that is the growing
retirement crisis.
A couple weeks ago I chaired in the Finance Committee the first
congressional hearing on the MyRA retirement plan for low- and middle-
income workers that President Obama proposed in his 2014 State of the
Union Address. We will explore some of the issues, especially the
Harkin legislation, later. But I want to talk for a moment about that
hearing.
We know for many Americans, the traditional three-legged retirement
system--Social Security, defined pension benefit, and personal
retirement savings--that three-legged stool is simply no longer
working. For many, two of those legs are gone, and the third leg--the
Social Security monthly payment for low-income workers--is, frankly,
way too short.
We know that Social Security remains the safeguard of retirement
security for working-class families. But, as I said, it was never meant
to be the only method of saving for retirement.
As we emerge from the greatest recession since the Great Depression,
the private retirement system is not working.
Over the last 30 years, the defined pension benefit has, for far too
many people, disappeared. The new system of tax incentives for 401(k)s
and IRAs only works if you are middle income, typically, or wealthier.
The top fifth--the top quintile, if you will--of households hold three-
quarters of all 401(k) and IRA assets. The average worker nearing
retirement--believe this--has $12,000 in savings.
So the question our subcommittee asked was: What do we do?
One point of bipartisan agreement is that Social Security works.
Witnesses from Vanguard to senior advocates agree on that point. We
heard testimony from the left and from the right, from the private
sector and from the Treasury Department. Everyone agreed that for low-
income workers, Social Security is the most important and the most
reliable way to guarantee a secure retirement. But it is not enough.
An upper income worker, once receiving Social Security, may get as
much as $2,000 or more a month in Social Security earned benefits,
while a low-income worker, who is used to receiving $9 or $10 or $11 an
hour or less--even though working as many as 25 or 30 years--may get
less than $1,000 a month in Social Security. That is the only wealth,
that is the only income, so often, those in the bottom half have.
The only question, obviously, is whether the benefit is adequate. Too
often it is not.
Two-thirds of low-income families are at risk of not having enough
income to maintain anything close to their standard of living in
retirement. Expanding Social Security could be the difference between a
modest retirement--an earned modest retirement--and living in poverty.
The hearing discussed the administration's new MyRA accounts.
``MyRA'' stands for ``my retirement account''--a play, obviously, on
the words of the IRA, the individual retirement account. It represents
a small but important first step. Access to tax preferenced retirement
accounts must not be something workers receive when they cross the
threshold into the middle class but a tool that helps them start their
journey into the middle class.
There is no easy fix to retirement savings. But in a system where we
primarily administer our programs to encourage private retirement
accounts through the Tax Code, we need to make sure the incentives are
going to the people who need them.
So what we are doing through the Tax Code, as Senator Cardin from
Maryland, who has been a long-time advocate of stronger, better
retirement security for seniors--and he attended our subcommittee
hearing; he is a member of the Finance Committee--are the issues we
need to work on.
When President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, he said:
``This law represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being
built, but is by no means complete.''
The same could be said, maybe even more so, for our retirement system
today. That structure is still being built. It is up to this body to
ensure that it is built, that it does not collapse in the meantime, and
that we can bring more retirement security to far more Americans who
have worked their entire work lives.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 2818
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Landrieu amendment No. 2818.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn).
[[Page S1569]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Coburn
Rubio
The amendment (No. 2818) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Vote on Amendment No. 2813
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have no objections to this amendment.
We agree to it and urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Landrieu-
Grassley amendment No. 2813.
The amendment (No. 2813) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 2814
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Landrieu-Blunt amendment No. 2814.
The amendment (No. 2814) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 2824
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Bennet-Isakson amendment No. 2824.
The amendment (No. 2824) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________