[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 42 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1602-S1610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2014

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1086, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1086) to improve the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin amendment No. 2811, to include rural and remote 
     areas as underserved areas identified in the State plan.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am going to give a recap of where we 
are and then note the absence of a quorum as we sort through our 
amendments.
  This is the second day of the Senate's consideration of S. 1086, the 
child care and development block grant reauthorization on which 1.5 
million American children depend, including 20,000 children from the 
State of Maryland. We have been working on this bill for over 2 years, 
and now it is our second day of moving this legislation.
  We have made an impressive amount of progress. Yesterday the Senate 
agreed to nine amendments--three by rollcall vote and six by voice 
vote. We had a great group of bipartisan amendments. Of the nine 
amendments that were adopted, three were sponsored by Republicans, two 
were sponsored by Democrats, and four amendments were bipartisan. The 
amendments yesterday improved the underlying bill. They streamlined 
Federal early learning programs; made sure tribes get the funding they 
need; required States to develop childcare disaster plans; and ensures 
that CDBG, as it is known, also

[[Page S1603]]

serves an often much-overlooked population--foster care.
  We also had a healthy debate on the floor in which women Senators 
came down to show their support for this bipartisan bill. Today we hope 
to continue our due deliberation of amendments.
  Last night we identified approximately 29 to 30 amendments that 
remain. It is the hope of the chair and ranking member that sometime 
today--around 11:30 a.m., before the lunch--we will move to votes. We 
expect to have voice votes, possibly a rollcall vote, and I will give a 
further progress report. The timeline for all amendments is closed. We 
are now sorting through those amendments to see which we can adopt by 
agreement or adopt by a voice vote so we can move ahead.
  I also say to my colleagues, there are many who have excellent ideas 
about childcare issues, and some are relevant to children but not 
necessarily relevant to this bill. As we wrap up the legislation, we 
hope to focus only on germane amendments to the bill today, and those 
other ideas, as meritorious as they are for consideration, that they 
either be withdrawn or find another vehicle for discussion and 
consideration.
  We thank our colleagues for the quality of the amendments that have 
been brought forth. It shows that the Senate--on both sides of the 
aisle--has been thinking about children and has actually been listening 
to this compelling need around childcare and its availability and 
affordability, its safety and helping children get their education. Not 
all of the amendments--although they are focused on children--are 
relevant to the block grant, which is a voucher program to help low-
income women qualify for childcare.
  I will give further updates as the morning progresses and we sort 
through this. In the meantime, we invite Senators to come to the floor 
and talk about this very important topic facing American families.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by commending my colleagues 
Senator Mikulski, Senator Harkin, Senator Alexander, and Senator Burr 
for their hard work to reauthorize the child care development block 
grant. This is a modest piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  The main point I wish to briefly make this morning is that even if 
this modest piece of legislation passes, it will not begin to address 
the very serious problems we face in childcare in our country and, even 
more importantly, in childhood poverty.
  The United States is the wealthiest Nation in the history of the 
world. Unfortunately, despite our great wealth, we have the most 
unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on 
Earth. We have more people today living in poverty than at any time in 
the history of our country. Most significantly, and related to the 
discussion we are having about childcare today, the United States of 
America has, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major 
country on Earth. In my opinion, we have a moral responsibility to 
address that issue and we should put our energy and our minds to 
focusing on how we eliminate childhood poverty in America.
  I will be offering an amendment today which is a very simple 
amendment. My amendment says the President of the United States should 
submit a plan to Congress which substantially reduces childhood poverty 
over the next 5 years. That is the amendment--that the President of the 
United States submit a plan to Congress which substantially reduces 
childhood poverty over the next 5 years. I hope and expect we would 
have unanimous support for this amendment.
  As the Presiding Officer will recall, not too long ago, during the 
Winter Olympics at Sochi, Americans there were shouting out to our 
great athletes: ``USA, USA! We are No. 1.'' That was something I think 
many of us in America supported. We wanted our athletes in the Winter 
Olympics to be No. 1.
  While we want to be No. 1 in terms of our athletic prowess, while we 
want to be No. 1 in terms of our scientific and intellectual 
accomplishments, while we want to be No. 1 in terms of economic growth 
and prosperity, we surely do not want to be No. 1 in the world in terms 
of childhood poverty. That is where we are today, with almost 22 
percent of our kids living in poverty.
  The reason, quite obviously, we do not want to be No. 1 in terms of 
childhood poverty is not only the moral issue of turning our backs on 
millions and millions of our most vulnerable people--kids who are 6 
months old, kids who are 2 years old, kids who are 8 years old; human 
beings who cannot fend for themselves--it seems to me, as a caring 
people, we have the moral responsibility to make sure all of our 
children receive the basic necessities of life and not live in poverty.
  I think there is a moral obligation to make sure we eliminate 
childhood poverty, but there is also an economic reality as well. I 
will get to that in a minute. But the first point to be made is that 
when we look at childhood poverty in America, which is 21.8 percent, we 
should examine what is going on in other countries.
  Is it possible to go forward and significantly reduce or eliminate 
childhood poverty? The answer is yes. All we have to do is look around 
the world. In Denmark, child poverty is 3.7 percent. In Finland, it is 
3.9 percent; in Norway, it is 5.1 percent; in Iceland, it is 7.1 
percent; in Austria, 8.2 percent; Sweden, 8.2 percent; Germany, 9.1 
percent; in South Korea, 9.4 percent; in the United Kingdom, 9.4 
percent; France, 11 percent; New Zealand, 13 percent; Poland, 13.6 
percent; Canada, 14 percent. But in the United States of America, the 
childhood poverty rate is 21.8 percent.
  As I mentioned a moment ago, this is clearly a moral issue. A 
powerful Nation which, in recent years, has seen huge increases in the 
number of millionaires and billionaires, we should not be a society in 
which almost one out of four of our kids gets their nutrition from food 
stamps. We should not be a society where a significant number of young 
people are dropping out of high school, standing out on street corners 
and destroying their lives.
  This is not just a moral issue; it is an economic issue. My 
colleagues, please tell me what kind of economic future we have when we 
are competing against countries around the world which are doing a 
better job than we are in providing the intellectual and emotional 
support their kids need; that are doing a better job than we are in 
educating their young people. How do we compete against these countries 
in the very competitive international global economy? Do we say to the 
young children who are living in poverty: Sorry. We can't afford to 
provide the preschool education you need; we can't afford to provide 
the childcare your parents need for you, and we are really sorry the 
odds are that many of you may drop out of school and that some of you 
will end up in jail.
  We have more people in jail in the United States of America than in 
any other country on Earth. Clearly, one of the reasons for that has to 
do with the fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in 
the industrialized world. We pay for these things one way or we pay for 
them another way. The way we are paying for it is by spending $50,000 
or $60,000 a year incarcerating huge numbers of people rather than 
making sure our kids get the nourishment--intellectual, emotional, 
nutritional--they need in order to do well in life.
  It is important for us to look at what happens around the world, to 
see what we can learn, and to see what is working well around the 
world. It is important for us to learn and to understand that in 
countries such as Denmark, Finland, and Norway, where childhood poverty 
is very low, childcare is free to all of its workers. Workers in these 
countries get paid maternity leave. That means when a mom has a baby, 
she has the opportunity to stay home with her baby during the most 
important months of a baby's life and not have to worry about going to 
work and making a living, because those societies have said the right 
thing--that they want kids and mothers to bond and fathers to bond 
well, for those kids to do well. In this country, if a person

[[Page S1604]]

is low income and working class and they have a baby, they have to get 
to work right away, because if they don't have that income, how do they 
take care of their families? Those countries have done the right thing 
and it is important to learn from them.
  In many countries around the world, workers get allowances from their 
governments to take care of their children. Their workers are 
guaranteed a 4-week paid vacation. Health care is a right and not a 
privilege for their citizens. In France, for example, if both parents 
go back to work after having a child, they are entitled to receive 
strong childcare benefits. In Germany--hard for us to believe--but if 
children get sick, their parents get up to 25 days of paid leave to 
stay home and take care of those children. These are just a few of the 
many benefits people in other countries--our competitors--receive. 
Maybe we can learn something from them.
  Unfortunately, workers in our country--in this great Nation--have 
none of those benefits. Here is what has happened as a result. More 
than one in five children in America lives in households that lack 
consistent access to adequate food because their parents don't make 
enough money. In other words, the number of millionaires and 
billionaires is growing--more and more income in wealth inequality--and 
millions and millions of families today who are raising kids are 
wondering how they are going to have enough food on the table to 
provide basic nutrition to those kids. Should that be happening in the 
United States of America?
  The number of homeless children living in America has gone up by 73 
percent since 2006. In every State in the country, including my State 
of Vermont, there are families living with their kids in cars or in 
emergency shelters. Is that the way we give kids the opportunity they 
need to advance in their lives?
  The psychologists tell us over and over that the most important years 
of a human being's life in terms of intellectual and emotional growth 
are those years between 0 and 4. Yet, in this country today, less than 
half of 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in preschool. Ninety-six 
percent of infants and toddlers living in low-income families don't 
receive the early education they need through the early Head Start 
Program. More than 220,000 American children are currently on waiting 
lists for childcare assistance. And on and on it goes.
  What does this mean in English? This is what it means. It means in 
Vermont, in New Jersey, in Maryland--it means in States all over this 
country--a mom and dad wake up in the morning with a 3-year-old and 
they are worried about the quality and affordability of the childcare 
they can find for that kid. So they go to work and they are saying, 
what is happening? I have to go to work. I can't stay home with my 
child. We need to make money. Yet, I cannot find quality, affordable 
childcare for my child. And in this country that is exactly what we 
should be providing.
  According to a recent study by the Children's Defense Fund, childhood 
poverty costs this Nation at least $500 billion each and every year in 
extra education, health and criminal justice expenses, and in lost 
productivity. In other words, rather than learning what other countries 
are doing--investing in our kids, nurturing our kids, making sure our 
kids get the great education they deserve--we turn our backs on 
millions of kids and then we are shocked--just shocked--that they turn 
to drugs or crime or self-destructive activity, and we spend a fortune 
incarcerating them. Think about all of the intellectual and emotional 
destruction that takes place in this country because we ignore the 
needs of our children.
  We hear our fellow Senators come to the floor and talk about how the 
United States is the greatest country on Earth, and I share that 
sentiment. But I do not believe the greatest country on Earth should 
have, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the 
industrialized world.
  The amendment I have offered is a very simple amendment. I hope it is 
accepted. I hope it will be supported unanimously. I hope it will allow 
us to go forward.

  What the amendment says, again, is very simple. It says the President 
of the United States should submit a plan to the Congress which allows 
us to substantially reduce childhood poverty in the next 5 years. That 
is it.
  With that, I yield the floor and hope very much this amendment is 
adopted. Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. 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. Mr. President, we are in the process of sorting out the 
amendments that are pending, again, to see what we could accept by UC, 
what we could accept by voice vote, and those that might require a 
rollcall vote. The chairman and the ranking member of the committee, 
Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander, are discussing this, and we are 
looking forward to some type of votes on or about 11:30 a.m.
  But I see there are a lot of amendments out here about streamlining 
this and duplicating this and others--very thoughtful--but I wish to 
clarify exactly what is the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
Program. This is a program that meets a particular need to help people 
have access to childcare, and we are strengthening the quality 
requirements. It does not solve all of the childcare problems in the 
United States of America.
  The overall need of childcare for both poor women and middle-class 
women or families is well known. It is one of the agonizing choices 
families need to make.
  The Child Care and Development Block Grant Program--and this is why 
we are looking at a variety of other issues. We have on the books the 
childcare tax credit bill, where many of us hope to expand the 
deduction. Senator Gillibrand has others. But today we are focusing on 
the child care and development block grant. It is the primary Federal 
grant program to provide childcare assistance for working families.
  It was passed originally in 1990, under George Herbert Walker Bush. 
Before 1996, there were four childcare programs for low-income 
families. All of them had different eligibility criteria and work 
requirements--exactly what we have talked about here, the need to 
streamline. Three were targeted to families in or at risk of being in 
the welfare system. One was targeted to low-income families outside of 
welfare.
  But in 1996 under welfare reform, on a bipartisan basis, we created 
one unified program to serve low-income families with one set of 
eligibility criteria and work requirements. It was then streamlined. 
The overarching purpose of the childcare bill in welfare reform was to 
give parents aid, substantial assistance, so they could go from welfare 
to work or get the training to go to work.
  It has been a very successful program--a very successful program. One 
and one-half million children in America benefit from it; 20,000 in 
Maryland alone--a substantial waiting list if we had more vouchers.
  What we are doing in this bill is reauthorizing, following the spirit 
of 1996, streamlining and taking now what we know--new knowledge and 
best practices of how to help children in childcare be able to be safe, 
have a sense of security and stability, and then also enhance their 
ability to learn. We know now--all the research shows--from infancy to 
age 5 is one of the greatest growth spurts for brain development in a 
person's life. Vocabulary development and so many other things occur.
  So what our bill does is help improve that, but we do not so 
overmandate to the States that we do not allow for local flexibility. 
So we are trying to streamline the bill, have a better emphasis on 
quality, without stringent new Federal mandates, and at the same time 
streamline this legislative process by moving through our amendment 
process.
  I now look forward to conferring with my colleague. Members should 
stay tuned. If they would like to speak on this or the matter of 
childcare, we welcome them. We have had an open amendment process. We 
have had an open dialogue. We have had an open floor. I think this has 
been very constructive.

[[Page S1605]]

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BURR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for 
withholding on that quorum call.
  We have made tremendous progress. Our joint staffs worked well into 
the night with Members who have amendments to this bill that they think 
improve the bill. We have worked aggressively to try to work out as 
many of those as we possibly can, and I am here to report to our 
colleagues we have made tremendous progress. We have processed, since 
we started yesterday, a number of amendments and this bill has become 
better. We still have several on both sides that we are still working 
on with our Members to try to accommodate their intent with language 
that is acceptable and continues to improve this bill, and we will do 
that.
  Let me say to our colleagues who still might have amendments, if you 
have them, we need you to come to the floor. We need you to offer those 
amendments. If you have amendments that have yet to be cleared, I would 
urge you to come to the floor and work with Senator Mikulski and myself 
and our staffs to figure out how we can process those in a timely 
fashion.
  It is our intent that in approximately 1 hour, with agreement from 
our leaders, we would move to votes--both recorded and voice votes--on 
all amendments that remain on this bill in the hopes that Members could 
then leave to go to their caucus lunches, and after returning from 
those lunches, hopefully, we would be in a position to have final 
passage on this legislation; again, that is with the chairman's, the 
ranking member's, and the leaders' blessings, but that is certainly the 
intent of Senator Mikulski and myself.
  We can only do that if, in fact, those Members who want to offer 
amendments offer them and those who still have some to be worked out 
come and try to work out those differences.
  I urge my colleagues now, we have over an hour before we intend to 
move to a period where we might process the remainder of the 
amendments. We would like to be in a situation where we can give 
certainty--at least as it relates to the disposition of this bill--to 
our Members that we would finish shortly after the lunch. I encourage 
all of our colleagues, if they have interest in this bill, come to the 
floor. Work with us.
  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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. 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. I want to give an update. We had originally thought we 
would be voting around 11:30. We are going to delay that until on or 
about 12:15--nothing fixed, nothing mandatory. People have said: Well, 
what are you all doing? Look at the Senate floor. Where is the action? 
This is a compelling issue.
  Actually, there is a lot of action going on in the sense that we are 
reviewing over 20 amendments that are still outstanding to see what 
could be accepted by unanimous consent, what could be accepted by a 
voice vote, and what requires a mandatory rollcall vote. So there is a 
lot of discussion going on, and Senators and their staffs are talking.
  It is not to be debated; it is to be discussed right now. I think it 
is so healthy. This is one of the first times in a couple of years 
where we have had an open amendment process. In some ways we are 
getting adjusted to how that actually works. This is terrific. So just 
because you do not see Senators in intense debate, there are intense 
conversations about how we help children, how to not create new 
bureaucracies, how we have the sense that all this is child focused and 
yet not creating lots of new mandates or whatever.
  So this has been really very good. I compliment Senator Harkin, who 
is the chair of the full HELP Committee. It is under his leadership 
that Senator Burr and I held some hearings. His advocacy for children 
is so well known. If we can move this bill today, we will have 
accomplished two major goals. We would have reauthorized the Child Care 
and Development Block Grant Program, made improvements and new reforms, 
and refreshed the program.
  At the same time I think we have improved the process in the Senate 
to show we can govern by moving bills, by offering amendments, by 
discussion and by debate. But we could not have done it had Senator 
Harkin not been willing to establish such a great tone with Senator 
Enzi and Senator Alexander while Senator Burr and I did this.
  This is the way the Senate ought to be. There were differences. But 
differences do not mean that you have to be filled with rancor and 
ranting all the time. At the end of day, when all is said and done, 
people want us to get more done and less said.
  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.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a lot of work has gone into this bill. The 
person who led that whole work for a 2-year period of time was Senator 
Mikulski. I happen to be chair of the committee. But it was Senator 
Mikulski and Senator Burr, working together, who really have brought 
this to fruition. It is a good bill.
  Senator Alexander always says that our committee probably has the 
biggest divergence ideologically of any committee in the Senate. Yet we 
have reported out, I think, 19 bills out of our committee, 10 of which 
have been signed into law during this Congress. We are able to do that 
because people work together. We work things out.
  That is what has happened with this bill. There are a lot of 
crosscurrents on this bill. There are a lot of items that Senator 
Mikulski would like to have had in the bill, that I would have liked to 
have had in the bill, and I am sure I can say the same thing for the 
Republican side.
  But over a 2-year period of time--I know it has been at least that--
Senator Mikulski has worked on this. We made our agreements, and we 
worked it out to the point where the bill passed our committee 
unanimously. We have, as I said, a wide divergence of ideological views 
on our committee. So, here is a bill that passed unanimously. We will 
have an open process here of debate, deliberation, and amending.
  I think at this time we have a pretty defined universe of the 
amendments, unless something else pops up that I did not know about.
  We are working on those. The staffs are working on those now with the 
Senators. With any legislation that comes through, let's face it, as 
Senators we probably would like to change something here or there. I 
understand that. I have been in the Senate a long time, and I know I 
have wanted to add an amendment to something to change it, to do 
something different, maybe, that I cared about.
  But in the interests of the broader perspective of the legislation at 
hand, I didn't offer it. I would wait until some other point in time to 
offer it or perhaps to offer a different pathway. That is what I am 
asking Senators on both sides of the aisle to think about.
  We have a great bill. It is sorely needed. It updates a law that 
hasn't been changed. I know Senator Mikulski has told us many times, 
and it bears repeating. We have not addressed this since 1996, and a 
lot has changed since 1996 in terms of childcare.
  This bill updates, modernizes, and does some things that will move us 
ahead and better this country in terms of the child care and 
development block grant program.
  I know that different people have different ideas, saying: Well, I 
would like to change this or modify that. I get it; I understand that.
  But if there is a problem in terms of bringing an amendment up that 
might jeopardize the bill, I ask Senators to consider whether their 
interests, whatever it might be, and I am not saying it is not 
legitimate, but if it upsets the

[[Page S1606]]

balance we have worked out in this committee with this broad, 
ideological spectrum, I ask them to reconsider whether they would want 
to jeopardize this bill, which we are so close to passing. I think we 
could actually pass this bill this afternoon.
  I ask Senators, if they have those kinds of amendments, to reconsider 
maybe the broader implications of this legislation and whether they 
would want to jeopardize it for their legitimate interests, as I said. 
I don't deny any Senator the right to offer an amendment and to push an 
interest that he or she might have. Some of them I might agree with. 
But if it really jeopardizes the bill, then I would have to say, no, I 
wouldn't support it because of the broader interests of getting the 
bill passed.
  Senator Mikulski and her staff, Senator Alexander, Senator Burr, and 
my staff, we are working together on this. I still hope we can bring 
this bill to fruition sometime early this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I come to the floor today to thank the bipartisan 
leadership that has brought us to the place where we are considering 
reauthorizing this important child care and development block grant 
bill.
  In my home State of Washington there is a young woman named Janelle 
who is a single mom. She lives in southeast Seattle and was looking for 
opportunities to support her family. But before she could go back to 
school or participate in a job-training program so she could advance 
her career, she had to find affordable childcare for two of her 
children.
  Thankfully, with the assistance of this Child Care and Development 
Block Grant Program, she was able to get some subsidies to help cover 
the costs. She now works. She works part-time, and she is attending 
school and becoming a surgical tech.
  This Federal grant program expands opportunities to parents such as 
Janelle and so many families across our country by helping them with 
the cost of childcare. That is why I support this effort to reauthorize 
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program.
  We all know the cost of childcare has soared in recent decades. The 
Census Bureau found that childcare costs have nearly doubled since the 
1980s, and that high cost hits low-income families especially hard. For 
working families who live below the poverty line, the cost of childcare 
can eat up more than 30 percent of their monthly income. For single 
parents, if they only have one income, it is an even bigger burden. 
When low-income parents don't have access to reliable and affordable 
childcare, they can't work. They can't go back to school. They can't 
advance their skills with job training. They are stuck.
  That, as we know, is particularly problematic for women. Women are 
more likely than men to cut back their hours at work or quit their jobs 
all together so they can take care of their children.
  In the long run, that puts women on an uneven playing field with 
their male counterparts, both in terms of earnings and of opportunities 
to advance in the workplace.
  We have to break down those barriers. We need to make sure that 
working doesn't become cost prohibitive for parents, and we have to 
strengthen access for low-income families so they can get affordable, 
quality childcare.
  This bipartisan Child Care and Development Block Grant Act is part of 
the solution. These grants expand opportunities for parents with low 
income. It allows them to work, to go to school or to get job 
training--all with the peace of mind that their kids are taken care of 
in a safe childcare center.
  In 1990 President George H. W. Bush signed this grant program, as we 
know it, into law. Today it helps 1.6 million kids get childcare.
  To participate a parent has to have a job or be enrolled in school or 
in a job training program. That has helped countless parents across our 
country.
  I want to mention a woman who has contacted us. She is a single mom 
whose name is Star. She lives in Skagit County, a rural part of my 
State. She wants to advance her skills to support her family, as so 
many people do today.
  With this assistance she is able to go to a community college 1 hour 
away from home, knowing that her kids are OK in a reliable childcare 
program. There is nothing more important to a parent than the safety 
and well-being of their child. I have said many times: You do a better 
job at work if you know your kids are safe. If you are worried about 
whether your kids are OK, you can't do a good job at work. 
Reauthorizing this program is a critical part of this, and it helps 
parents such as Star feel comfortable when they are away from their 
kids.
  In this reauthorization bill we are looking at ways to improve these 
grants. We know that stability is critically important for a young 
child's development. But before kids could lose their spot in 
childcare, if their parents didn't meet the eligibility requirements, 
even temporarily, that disruption in care is exactly what we need to 
work to avoid.
  I have seen this a lot in my work on behalf of foster kids, military 
students, and homeless children. These are highly mobile populations. 
Now with this legislation and the work that has been done, we have 
ensured that these kids have a mandatory 12 months to access that care 
so they don't have that disruption of stability in their lives. That is 
critically important.
  This bill also reduces barriers for homeless families to access 
childcare and will train more childcare providers in identifying and 
serving homeless kids and families so they can get the support they 
need. I truly appreciate the inclusion of those provisions.
  For many families it can be very difficult, as we know, to find 
quality childcare. This legislation authorizes a toll-free hotline and 
a Web site so parents can get and find good-quality care in their own 
community. Those provisions are why I am such a strong supporter and so 
delighted we are at the point where we are able to pass this critical 
piece of legislation.
  Let me end by saying in Washington State there is a young couple 
named Edward and Constance. They are struggling to make ends meet on a 
very low income. They are working, and they are studying to ensure that 
times won't always be as tough as they are today. Because of childcare 
assistance with this grant money, Edward now works full time. When 
Constance is not working at her part-time job, she is training to 
become a dental assistant. Supporting parents such as this couple, 
giving them these opportunities to make sure their kids are in a safe, 
quality childcare program is what the grants are about in this program.
  I urge our colleagues to support this legislation, and again, I thank 
the Senators who have participated in making this a strong bipartisan 
proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Washington for her comments 
and her leadership in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, as well. She has been a consistent spokesman for children, 
especially for homeless children.
  I want to make an observation about the Child Care and Development 
Block Grant Program that the Presiding Officer from New Jersey will 
especially find of interest because of his work with children and 
schools in New Jersey. We have heard this morning a great deal of 
support for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, which is a 
very remarkable piece of legislation in terms of the way it is 
structured, if we think about it.
  It has been around for about 20 years, but it takes 5 to 6 billion 
Federal dollars each year and gives it to States--a block grant with a 
lot of flexibility. Then the money is distributed as vouchers to 
individual parents--low-income women, mostly--who then choose among 
thousands of certified childcare centers. That, I would argue, while it 
was done 20 years ago, fits the Internet age.
  Newt Gingrich--and I have sometimes accused Newt of being Vesuvian in 
his qualities because he has such a steady flow of new ideas--has done 
some very interesting work recently. He quotes a computer programmer 
named Tim O'Reilly who made a suggestion for how the Internet could 
transform government. Mr. O'Reilly said:

       The best way for government to operate is to figure out 
     what kinds of things are

[[Page S1607]]

     enablers of society and make investments in those things. The 
     same way that Apple figured out, ``If we turn the iPhone into 
     a platform, outside developers will bring hundreds of 
     thousands of applications to the table.''

  In a way, the developers of the Child Care and Development Block 
Grant Program in the early 1990s, under the first President Bush, were 
ahead of their time because, rather than having a big burdensome 
program run from Washington with lots of rules made here, we have a 
piece of legislation that survived for more than two decades and that 
helps 1.5 million children this year.
  It enables people such as the mother in Memphis I talked about on the 
floor yesterday who became eligible for a childcare voucher in 
Tennessee. She was at LeMoyne-Owen College studying for her business 
degree and was able to place her infant in a childcare center of her 
choice. The State gave her $500 to $600 a month for a voucher--infant 
care is more expensive. She earned her degree and is now an assistant 
manager at Walmart. She now has a second child in the same childcare 
center--but she can afford to pay for it herself.
  That is a perfect example of enabling her, using taxpayer money, to 
move up the economic ladder, to reach the American dream and succeed. 
Rather than making her do it or mandating her to do it, we enabled her 
to do it.
  We also do this--and we have done it very successfully since World 
War II--with college grants and loans, which also have virtually 
unanimous support in the Senate on both sides of the aisle.
  Beginning with the GI bill for veterans in 1944, we have given 
vouchers to veterans, and those vouchers follow them to any educational 
institution of their choice. At the beginning, many of them went to 
high schools. Some of them went to colleges overseas.
  That was the beginning of our current system of Federal Government 
support for grants and loans, and now half of our college students have 
a Federal grant or a loan to help pay for college. All of those grants 
and loans follow them to the institution of their choice. That is a lot 
of money. It is over $100 billion in loans--new loans--every year. It 
is $33 billion in Pell grants each year.
  We followed Tim O'Reilly's suggestion there as well. We haven't set 
up a lot of complicated Washington programs and managers. We have 
simply said this. If you are eligible and go to an accredited 
institution--whether it is public, private, for-profit, nonprofit, 
Yeshiva, Notre Dame or Rutgers--the money will follow you to the 
college of your choice. That is what we have done since World War II 
with college students--and since the era of George Walker Bush, with 
children--we have given them tickets to the institutions of their 
choice.
  But what have we done in the middle? We have vouchers for college 
students and vouchers for very young children, but what about students 
who go to elementary school? And what about students who go to high 
school? Especially, what about students who are low-income students who 
are trapped in failing schools? Our childcare vouchers are for low-
income parents, mainly women. Our vouchers for college students are for 
low-income students. We call those Pell grants. But we give our K-12 
money to the schools instead of allowing it to follow students to the 
schools of their choice.

  I have always wondered, if we have had such success with the GI bill 
and the Pell grant and the student loan and the childcare voucher, why 
don't we try it with kindergarten through the 12th grade? Many 
enterprising mayors and Governors have tried that, usually facing a lot 
of resistance from people who see something un-American about vouchers. 
It is not very un-American if it is the GI bill, not very un-American 
if it is a Pell grant, not very un-American if it is a childcare 
voucher, but something somehow is wrong with it if you are in third 
grade or the seventh grade or the ninth grade.
  So I have introduced something called Scholarships for Kids, which is 
almost like the child care development block grant for students who are 
in elementary and secondary schools. It would take 80 Federal education 
programs that spend about $24 billion a year and say to New Jersey or 
Tennessee or Iowa: You can take all that money, whatever your share of 
that is, and create a $2,100 scholarship for every single child in your 
State below the Federal poverty level, and it can follow that child to 
whatever school in your State the child attends.
  If you live in a city or a State where you want the child to be able 
to go to any accredited institution, public or private, the way we do 
with Pell grants, you may do that. If you believe that Federal dollars 
for elementary and secondary schools should only go to public schools, 
you may do that. You may design the program however you want to do it 
in your State. But the idea would be that we would enable low-income 
children, the ones who are below the Federal poverty level--and there 
are 11 million of those in our country--we would allow you to pin 
$2,100 to their shirt to follow that child to school. I think we know 
what would happen if we were to do that. Those children may need to be 
in school longer each day. They may need a meal. They may need to be 
there during vacation time. They may need to be there in the summer. 
And if the teacher has the extra money and the freedom to use it, that 
gives that school more autonomy and that helps that child succeed.
  Does every school succeed at the same rate? No. Not every college 
succeeds at the same rate. Not every childcare center succeeds at the 
same rate. But if we have 70 years of experience with colleges of 
creating autonomy and choice and letting the money follow the students 
to the school--and people all around the world tell us we have the best 
system of colleges in the world--why don't we try it with our schools?
  I see the Senator from Oklahoma, and I will wind down so he can wind 
up. I thank him for his contribution to the debate.
  While we are in the middle of so much testimony about what a great 
thing the child care development block grant is--vouchers to little 
children who are poor--and while we all believe Pell grants are a great 
idea--vouchers to college students who are low income--should we not 
think about doing exactly the same thing with elementary and secondary 
school students as a way to help them succeed? And not as a Federal 
mandate but simply giving Governors and State legislators and educators 
the opportunity to say: Give us that share of our $24 billion. Give 
every one of our children who is below the Federal poverty level $2,100 
each and let us decide how it follows them to the school they attend.
  So I wanted to make that observation. And I am delighted to know the 
Senator from New Jersey is presiding today because of the work he has 
done in his State in that area.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma wish to speak?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Oh, I am sorry, I thought the Senator from Oklahoma was 
involved in a conversation with the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. COBURN. I was, but I would like to speak, if I might.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No way we want to inhibit the Senator's ability to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I was going to call up amendment No. 2829, 
but I have chosen not to do that because of the plan of the manager of 
the bill to table it. So I will talk about what it is and make a few 
observations.
  Four years ago we got the GAO to start a process on duplication, to 
look at what we are doing in a multitude of areas across the whole 
Federal Government. That will be finished, and for the first time it 
will have taken a complete look. We will see it at the end of this 
month, the first part of the fourth report.
  One of their findings was, according to early learning and childcare 
programs, within 8 different departments there are 45 separate 
programs--8 different departments within the administration, 45 
separate programs, spending $16 billion a year. So the amendment I was 
going to offer would have forced us to do the metrics to look at what 
our outcomes are. It would have forced us to consolidate programs, 
other than major programs such as this one we are debating today, which 
has been markedly improved and enhanced.

[[Page S1608]]

  Now, I don't want to put the Senate through a timely vote when I know 
what the outcome is going to be, so I won't call up that amendment. But 
I would remind my colleagues that the only way we are really ever going 
to get control of our budget is to do the hard work of eliminating 
duplication, so that when we have a program, such as the one the 
manager of the bill has on the floor today, it is really directed, it 
is focused, it has metrics, and we know what we are getting for what we 
are spending.
  Most people don't realize we have 45 of these programs in 8 different 
departments spending $16 billion a year.
  So I hope we will consider that this is a great movement on this one 
particular bill, and I congratulate the people who worked on it--
Senator Harkin and his staff, Senators Burr and Alexander and their 
staff--because I think they have done a good job. But it is not enough 
because we are still going to have 44 other programs and we are still 
going to have programs that don't have a metric on them. We are 
spending money on them, and we don't know if they are accomplishing 
what we want them to accomplish.
  The whole purpose of the amendment was to force us to do that. I 
understand that is not going to move, and I am fine with that. I will 
work in every other way behind the scenes to try to accomplish the same 
purpose.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. HARKIN. First of all, I just want to say--and I mentioned it on 
the floor the other day--that I spent this weekend in Iowa at two early 
learning centers, and what became clear to me was the number of 
different conduits of funding and the different programs, 
qualifications, requirements, and paperwork.
  I said at the time: I am confused.
  The man at the center said: If you think you are confused, how do you 
think we feel about it?
  That is why I was very supportive of the amendment offered by Senator 
Enzi. The Enzi amendment was a mandate on HHS, I believe, to take a 
look at all of these things and have a report back within a certain 
amount of time--I think it was 1 year--on how we can better coordinate 
these.
  I agree with the Senator. There are way too many conduits into 
childcare, and it is horribly confusing, and there are all these 
different requirements that overlap, and this just causes confusion.
  I wanted to ask the Senator if he had looked at the Enzi amendment, 
which gives us some time, and I can assure the Senator that our 
committee--and I am sure I can speak for Senator Burr on this on the 
Republican side--will be riding herd on this because I think we all 
agree with the Senator from Oklahoma that it has to be fixed.
  Mr. COBURN. To answer the Senator's question, I supported the Enzi 
amendment. I don't think it went far enough because you are not going 
to look at some of the programs that are outside the purview of the 
Senator's committee. We have eight different Federal departments 
running these programs. They come from eight different sets of 
authorizations.
  So the point is that I am going to work behind the scenes with 
Senator Burr and with Senator Harkin to try to accomplish this.


                           Amendment No. 2830

  Now I would like to call up amendment No. 2830 and ask unanimous 
consent to set aside the pending amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield to me before he offers his 
amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, actually, I want to comment on how I want to work 
together with the Senator. Go ahead and offer the amendment, and then I 
would like to comment and not engage in klutzy conversation by asking 
questions. I think we are on the same broadband.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Hearing no objection, the clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposed an 
     amendment numbered 2830.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. The desk has a modification of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Hearing no objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2830), as modified, is as follows:

  (Purpose: To establish a $1,000,000 asset limit for eligibility for 
                         child care assistance)

       On page 138, line 8, insert ``, and whose family assets do 
     not exceed $1,000,000 (as certified by a member of such 
     family)'' after ``size''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what we are trying to accomplish with this 
amendment--and I have cleared it on our side, and I think it is being 
cleared on the other side as well--is to make sure the significant 
amount of money we spend in this area goes to people who really need 
it. So all this amendment does is require a self-certification when an 
individual acquires one of these grants that they don't have real 
assets greater than $1 million. If they do, maybe they should be 
spending their money rather than taxpayers' money on their kids' 
childcare.
  That is all this amendment does. All we have done is to put in there, 
in the application process, a box they have to check that says: I don't 
have real assets in excess of $1 million. This will ensure that we know 
that at least the vast majority--and by the way, 16 percent of this 
money has gone to people who are very wealthy, in terms of these 
vouchers. I have that data. I don't have it with me. Actually, I may 
have it with me, and I will pull it up and speak about that in a 
minute.
  But the fact is we want this money to help the people who need help, 
not to help people who don't need the help. So that is the purpose of 
this amendment. I have agreed, if it becomes acceptable, to have a 
voice vote.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves the floor and 
we proceed to a voice vote, et cetera, I wish to thank him for his 
steadfast advocacy in getting more value out of the taxpayers' dollar 
for the taxpayers' contribution to the Federal Treasury. He has been a 
well-known advocate for the consolidation and streamlining of existing 
programs, and I salute him for that.
  Going back to 1996, we actually started this with streamlining 
childcare bills. In 1996, because I was here during the welfare reform 
debate and passage, we had four different childcare bills, with four 
different eligibility requirements, with four different levels of 
bureaucracy. So the money was going into the bureaucracy's determining 
eligibility rather than into childcare. In the 1996 welfare reform 
bill, we consolidated so that we have the child care and development 
block grant. That is how we got to where we are.
  The Senator from Oklahoma talks about how he has data that cuts 
across eight different Federal agencies. I pledge to him, as the chair 
of the Appropriations Committee, to actually sit down and look at this 
data, to put our heads together. And really, with money as tight as it 
is, the stringent budgets we are under, particularly when it comes to 
funding the kinds of compelling human needs that are in health and 
human services and education, we want to get more value for the dollar. 
We don't want to get more bureaucracy for the dollar.
  So I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that we appreciate his 
withdrawing his amendment. We know the Senator from Wyoming Mr. Enzi 
has offered an amendment to get a report as well. But as we look at our 
appropriations for this year, I invite my colleague, with the greatest 
sincerity--and I pledge to him my word as a Senator--to sit down and 
review these documents and see how we can put this suggestion he has 
into action. I look forward to it, and, quite frankly, I am eager to 
see what we can get done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to join in. One, as the Senator 
from Maryland said, I recognize he has been out front in trying to get 
value for the taxpayers' dollar; and, second, he is working in a 
cooperative way to help us get a result. Those are two

[[Page S1609]]

great characteristics in a body of 100 people which operates by 
unanimous consent. So I am grateful for that.
  On the first point, I completely agree with him on the early 
childhood money. We have about $18 billion from various streams of 
Federal dollars aimed at children below 5 or 6; then we have State 
dollars; then we have local dollars; then we have private dollars. We 
have grappled with ways to try to make sure we spend that money more 
effectively. One way is to emphasize centers of excellence, like 
Oklahoma City, Nashville, or Jersey City, where they try to put all 
that money together.
  But I am committed to work with Senator Harkin and Senator Mikulski 
to take the research which Senator Coburn has done and see if we can 
consolidate, streamline, and get more value for early childhood.
  Second, he has called attention to a problem which I would appreciate 
his help in solving with his ``Millionaires' Amendment,'' which I think 
we will be voting on in a little while. Let me give an example, if I 
may.
  The application form students fill out for Federal grants and loans 
to attend college is ridiculous. If I had it in my hand and held it up 
here, it would go from up here all the way to the floor. It is 100 
questions. We had testimony in our committee that if we just answered 
two questions, in 95 percent of the cases it would be accurate. One: 
What was your family income 2 years ago? And, two: How many people are 
in your family? But the other 5 percent is the problem, because there 
could be abuse of the kind the Senator is talking about here.
  What I would like to do--and I think others here would like to do--is 
to simplify the application form for Federal grants and loans, but do 
it in such a way we make sure the money goes where it is supposed to 
go. When there are 100 complicated questions to fill out, it 
discourages a lot of low-income people from going to college who we 
hope would, and it wastes time and money of administrators and 
families. Many of these families are not families with college degrees 
and accountants to help them fill out these long forms.
  So we need the Senator from Oklahoma's help when we get to that 
discussion, sometime, of: How do we simplify the form of application 
for Federal grants and loans? And, with the 5 percent which remains, 
how do we narrow that down to 4, 3, 2, 1, to make sure almost all the 
money we are appropriating goes where it is supposed to go?
  I salute him for both amendments. I look forward to supporting his 
amendment on the child care block grants, and hope it is a first step 
for dealing with the misapplication of Federal dollars aimed to help 
people move up the economic ladder.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, if I could have the attention of Senator 
Alexander and Senator Burr. I am about to propose a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 
p.m. today, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following 
amendments in the order listed: Coburn No. 2830, as modified; Portman 
No. 2827; Tester No. 2834; Thune No. 2838; Warren No. 2842; Bennet No. 
2839, as modified; 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 we will need one roll call vote in this sequence and the 
remaining amendments can be disposed of by voice vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendments be set aside and the following amendments be made pending: 
Portman No. 2827; Tester No. 2834; Thune No. 2838; Warren No. 2842; and 
Bennet No. 2839, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I realize the Senator is trying to move through this 
very important bill on the floor, which I fully support and thank him 
for the amendment.
  Does the Senator know what the action of the Senate will be once this 
bill is completed? And is the intention to do final passage of this 
bill today?
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend I am hopeful we will have final 
passage today. We are working through it. We are down to just a couple 
of amendments. I haven't seen any others pop up right now. So I am 
hopeful we will have this series of votes, people will go to lunch, we 
will come back, and hopefully we will dispose of maybe a couple more 
amendments and then we will have final passage.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. So final passage could potentially be--is it the 
Senator's understanding through the Chair--about 3 or so?
  Mr. HARKIN. If we don't have any kind of extended debate on the 
floor, I would say probably at least by 3, I would hope we would be 
finished. If we work out agreement on a couple amendments, we might be 
done before that.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, the clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2827, 2834, 2838, 2842, and 2839, as modified.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2827

 (Purpose: To provide for evidence-based training that promotes early 
                   language and literacy development)

       On page 78, line 9, insert ``and early language and 
     literacy development'' after ``readiness''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2834

(Purpose: To permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive 
   the prohibition on the use of amounts by Indian tribes and tribal 
 organizations for construction or renovation of facilities for child 
  care programs if the use will result in an increase of the level of 
                          child care services)

       On page 136, strike line 16 and all that follows through 
     page 137, line 7, and insert the following:
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (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.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) Limitation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     Secretary may not permit an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization to use amounts provided under this subsection 
     for construction or renovation if the use will result in a 
     decrease in the level of child care services provided by the 
     Indian tribe or tribal organization as compared to the level 
     of child care services provided by the Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization in the fiscal year preceding the year for which 
     the determination under subparagraph (B) is being made.
       ``(ii) Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive the limitation 
     described in clause (i) if--

       ``(I) the Secretary determines that the decrease in the 
     level of child care services provided by the Indian tribe or 
     tribal organization is temporary; and
       ``(II) the Indian tribe or tribal organization submits to 
     the Secretary a plan that demonstrates that after the date on 
     which the construction or renovation is completed--

       ``(aa) the level of child care services will increase; or
       ``(bb) the quality of child care services will improve.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2838

 (Purpose: To specify that child care certificates may be included in 
         State strategies to increase the supply of child care)

       On page 88, line 5, insert ``offering child care 
     certificates to parents,'' after ``tions,''.

                           AMENDMENT NO. 2842

 (Purpose: To allow funds reserved under section 658G(a) of the Child 
  Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to be used to connect 
child care staff members with Federal and State financial aid, or other 
 resources, in order to assist the staff members in pursuing relevant 
                               training)

       On page 111, strike line 17 and insert the following:


[[Page S1610]]


     early neurological development of children; and
       ``(L) connecting child care staff members of child care 
     providers with available Federal and State financial aid, or 
     other resources, that would assist child care staff members 
     in pursuing relevant postsecondary training.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 2839, as modified

 (Purpose: To expand the requirement that space allotted to child care 
   providers in Federal buildings will be used to provide child care 
   services to children of whom at least 50 percent have 1 parent or 
              guardian employed by the Federal Government)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. ALLOTMENT OF SPACE IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS FOR CHILD 
                   CARE.

       Section 590 of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (g) as 
     subsections (b) through (h), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(a) Definition of Federal Employee.--In this section, the 
     term `Federal employee' does not include a person that--
       ``(1) is not employed by the Federal Government; and
       ``(2) meets the requirements described in subsection 
     (c)(2)(C)(i)(II).'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)(C) of subsection (c) (as so 
     redesignated), by striking clause (i) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) the space will be used to provide child care services 
     to children of whom at least 50 percent have 1 parent or 
     guardian who--

       ``(I) is employed by the Federal Government; or
       ``(II)(aa) has met the requirements for a master's degree 
     or a doctorate degree from an institution of higher education 
     (as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)); and
       ``(bb) is conducting research in the Federal building under 
     an arrangement between the parent or guardian and a Federal 
     agency.''; and

       (4) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (b)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``subsection (c)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


              Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Session

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
disposition of the Bennet amendment, the Senate proceed to executive 
session to consider the following nominations, en bloc: Calendar Nos. 
634, 625, and 550; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening 
action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; 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; further, that there be 2 minutes for debate, 
equally divided in the usual form prior to each vote, and that the 
votes be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am told we expect the amendments we are bringing up to 
be voice-voted this afternoon.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2830

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2830, as modified, offered by the Senator 
from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     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
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 2830), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, 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. 2827

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Portman amendment No. 2827.
  The amendment (No. 2827) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2834

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Tester amendment No. 2834.
  The amendment (No. 2834) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2838

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Thune amendment No. 2838.
  The amendment (No. 2838) was agreed to.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 2842

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Warren amendment No. 2842.
  The amendment (No. 2842) was agreed to.


                  Vote on Amendment 2839, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2839, as modified, offered by the Senator 
from Colorado Mr. Bennet.
  The amendment (No. 2839), as modified, was agreed to.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider and then move to 
lay those motions on the table, for all the voice votes we just 
considered.
  The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.

                          ____________________