[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15791-15792]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to concur, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1086, an act 
     to reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill.
       Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill, 
     with Reid amendment No. 3923 (to the motion to concur in the 
     House amendment), to change the enactment date.
       Reid Amendment No. 3924 (to amendment No. 3923), of a 
     perfecting nature.


                            Motion to Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is considered expired.
  The motion to concur with amendment No. 3923 is withdrawn.

[[Page 15792]]

  The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House 
amendment to S. 1086.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Hampshire 
(Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Hoeven), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Hoeven) would have voted ``aye'' and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) would have voted ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Lee
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Coburn
     Hagan
     Hoeven
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Thune
  The motion was agreed to.


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, while I was unable to vote on the 
motion to concur in the House Amendment to S. 1086, Child Care and 
Development Block Grant Act of 2014, I would have recorded a vote in 
opposition to this bill, just as I did when this bill was originally 
before the Senate in February. I have three reasons to oppose this 
bill.
  First, the Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to 
operate this program. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution lists 
all the powers given to the Federal Government, none of which includes 
funding for and oversight of State and local child care programs.
  Second, this bill will increase the authorized size of the Child Care 
and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, program by over $1 billion without 
eliminating or reducing a lower priority program elsewhere. At a time 
when our national debt is over $17 trillion, Congress continues to 
spend away the future of the next generation. This reauthorization will 
exacerbate this problem, and our children will deal with the harsh 
consequences of our Nation's future fiscal insolvency.
  Third, this CCDBG reauthorization does not address previously 
identified duplication and overlap in existing Federal child care 
programs and tax expenditures. While it does include a provision for 
the Department of Health and Human Services to study the issue, I do 
not believe it goes far enough. The Government Accountability Office 
has already identified 33 programs for which child care is an eligible 
use of funds. For example, States often transfer billions of dollars in 
funding from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 
program to use in their child care programs. Ultimately, this kind of 
overlap and duplication underscores Congress' reckless disregard for 
our future well-being.

                          ____________________