Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment just agreed to, the Dodd-Collins amendment, be modified to conform to the Jeffords-Kennedy pending substitute amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield back the time, unless my colleague from Maine wants to speak.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me, again, thank our colleagues who have addressed this important subject. And I thank my colleague from New York for her eloquent statement on the value of expanding the title I program, as my colleague from Maine and I are attempting to do with this amendment. I do believe, if we have additional resources, based on the evidence--and the evidence has been significant--that we will get results. There are those who suggest that because we have spent about $120 billion on title I over 35 years and have not fully closed the achievement gap, that it is not working. But, over the years that has represented less than 3 cents of each dollar spent on education. We are proving today, while the results certainly are not perfect, that title I is essential to improving student achievement. We have listened to those who are working on in the districts, in the schools, who do not have Ds or Rs associated with their names or wear political labels, who tell us it is making a difference. What better evidence could we have than relying on those who every day do the hard work of trying to improve the intellectual and learning capabilities of the 50 million children who go to public schools in America? The amendment we are offering is based on that evidence. It is based on the hard evidence that is provided by teachers and school boards and school principals and parents who have watched title I funds make a difference. We think they can make even more of a difference, particularly, in conjunction with accountability standards. We think that providing the resources to make it possible for these children to reach the goals we all want them to reach is absolutely critical if this Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 is to be worthy of our nation's children. With that, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd- Collins amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DODD. I will yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. The Dodd-Collins.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act. I have been a strong supporter of full funding for IDEA for many years and hope that this amendment finally will realize that goal. This Congress, I joined Senators Harkin and Hagel and many others as an original co-sponsor of S. 466, to fully fund IDEA. Last Congress, Senator Jeffords and I twice offered budget amendments to fully fund IDEA, and I have offered many measures over the years to increase funding for IDEA. The Harkin-Hagel amendment offers Congress the opportunity to fulfill our goal of funding 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities and to strengthen our support for children, parents, and local schools. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, we set a goal of helping States meet their constitutional obligation to provide children with disabilities a free, appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of those costs. We have made great strides toward that goal in the last few years, having doubled Federal funding over the past five years. Nevertheless, we still only provide 15 percent of IDEA costs. In my own state of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs, we are facing a funding shortfall. In our towns, the situation is even more difficult. Too often, our local school districts are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities. The costs being borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education costs. Our schools need our help. Of course, no one in Connecticut, or in any state or community in our country would question the value of ensuring every child the equal access to education that he or she is guaranteed by our Constitution. The only question is how best to do that--and a large part of the answer is in this legislation. This amendment would demonstrate that our commitment to universal access is matched by our commitment to doing everything we can to helping states and schools provide that access. And, this amendment will help not only our children and schools, it will help entire communities, by easing their tax burden. By our failure to meet our goal of fully funding IDEA, we force local taxpayers--homeowners and small businesspeople--to pay the higher taxes that these services require. That's especially a problem in Connecticut, where so much of education is paid for through local property taxes. If we're going to talk about the importance of tax relief for average Americans, there are few more important steps we can take than adopting this amendment. It will go far to alleviate the tax burden that these people and businesses bear today. Last year, the National Governors' Association wrote me that ``Governors believe the single most effective step Congress could take to help address education needs and priorities, in the context of new budget constraints, would be to meet its commitment to fully fund the federal portion of IDEA.'' Over the next ten years, we're looking at a $2.7 trillion non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus. I think that fully funding IDEA is one of the most productive ways that we can use a small part of that surplus. I ask that my colleagues seize this opportunity and support this amendment and choose to help our schools better serve children with disabilities. Because, I am tired of the false dichotomy that many people perceive between parents of children without disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. By fully funding the Federal share of IDEA, and easing the financial burden on states and schools, we can stop talking about ``children with disabilities'' and ``children without disabilities,'' and start talking instead about all children, period.

Mr. DODD. Dodd-Collins.

Mr. DODD. I am just trying to help out.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Vermont for his amendment. I would add myself as a cosponsor, but I don't want to get into trouble. I will tell him I am for it and cast my vote when the time comes. He has been a wonderful leader on education issues for many years and cares about it very deeply. He comes from a great tradition in his home State of Vermont where Members of this body have dedicated a good part of their careers to improving the quality of education. I commend him not only for the amendment he has just introduced but also for his tireless efforts over the years. amendment no. 365 to amendment no. 358

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk offered by myself and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and Senator Landrieu, among others, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes. Others may arrive shortly. In fact, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my good friend and colleague from New England, Senator Collins of Maine, among others; Senator Landrieu of Louisiana; my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman; and others who have been supporters of seeing to it that we have the goal--that is what this amendment is; there are no mandates in this amendment--of full funding for title I over the next 10 years. I ask unanimous consent that a chart be printed in the Record showing how title I funds are presently allocated and what this amendment would do if it were an appropriation--which it is not--and were to be adopted, in terms of the number of children who would then benefit under this amendment if it were to receive full funding.

Mr. DODD. I note my good friend from Alabama is in the chair. His is always the first State on the list. But just to make the point, presently there would be some 10 million children in the country who would be served by title I out of the 55 million children who go to school. In the case of Alabama, there would be 192,377 children who would be served if we had full funding. That number today is about a third of that number, a third of the 192. If we go down the list--and what I have provided in the first column is what full funding would provide--and look at the number under your State and then calculate what one-third of that number is, you would get a rough idea of what the present number of children is who are being served. Of course, the number itself reflects what full funding would amount to in all 50 States. That is what this chart provides. As we know, our society is based on the promise of equal opportunity, not equal success. None of us bears an obligation to guarantee the success of anyone, but we all share the common goal that everyone ought to have an equal opportunity to succeed. This amendment, offered on behalf of myself and my colleague from Maine, and others, is designed to see to it that, as we ask for in this legislation, as we will over the coming days, there be greater accountability at the local level--in fact, a requirement of additional testing--so that we don't just socially promote students through the educational process; that we have some data about how students are doing--taking their temperature, in effect. Imagine, if you would, taking a temperature every year to see how the patient is doing. We know that just taking the temperature doesn't make a child better. We may get some idea of their health, but we don't really know or are not really providing any medicine that they need in order to improve the quality of their health. What title I does, and what it has done historically, is to provide that needed medicine, which I will demonstrate in these remarks, to the most disadvantaged children in our society. Title I represents about one-third, or a half, almost, of the entire Federal dollar commitment to education in the country. It is what our primary responsibility has been over the last 35 years since we decided to enact the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Just to back up a little bit and put this in perspective, the Federal Government, when it comes to elementary and secondary education--this may come as a shock to some--allocates between one-half and 1 percent of our entire Federal budget to elementary and secondary education. If we add higher education, that number jumps to about 2 percent of the entire Federal budget. If we exclude higher education and just take elementary and secondary, it is between one-half and 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. That is our commitment. If you take the amount of money being spent on elementary and secondary education, for every dollar that is spent, that one-half of 1 percent amounts to somewhere between 4 and 7 cents on the dollar. In other words, for every dollar that is spent to improve or invest in the elementary and secondary education needs of America's children, about 94 or 95 cents comes from our local communities or our States, and about 5 or 6 cents comes from your Federal Government. That is one-half of 1 percent of the Federal budget. So when we start talking about title I, which was designed to go to the neediest districts in both rural and urban areas, we are talking about a sizable percentage of that 4 or 5 cents on the dollar. Yet we have never gotten to the full funding of title I since we initiated it 35 years ago. We are only serving about a third of title I eligible children in the country. So what the Senator from Maine, myself, and others are saying is that sometime over the next 10 years we have laid out a schedule, but obviously the schedule is an authorization subject to whatever changes this body and the other body and the President would like to adopt. Then we could modify this formula. We have laid out a formula for our colleagues that doesn't mandate anything. It just sets out a goal and says that as we are going to test children, as we are going to ask for greater accountability, we also want you to know that we believe as a goal that we ought to fully fund title I to give these children a chance to reach their maximum potential educationally. That is what this amendment is really designed to do. Let me lay it out a little bit. Congress passed the ESEA to help provide disadvantaged children with an education to enable them to take advantage of America's promise of equal opportunity, and the primary mechanism for delivering on that promise has been title I grants for schools. Title I does more than just serve all eligible children. The reason why is simple: According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress funds title I grants to local education agencies at only about one-third of the amount allowed under the formula. Twenty percent of schools with poverty levels between 50 and 75 percent receive no funds at all. Let me repeat that. Twenty percent of all the schools in America with poverty levels between 50 and 75 percent do not receive any title I funds today at all. And 36 percent of schools with poverty rates between 35 and 50 percent do not receive any funds. So it is quite clear that an awful lot of eligible children that are clearly disadvantaged, by any standard, are not getting the kind of help that we originally envisioned with title I. About one-third are, if you take the country as a whole. Some areas get zero. So our goal with this amendment, without mandating anything, is to say that over the next 10 years we would like to get as close to living up to and fulfilling the promise made of serving these children. The bill we are debating will impose, as we know, some significant testing and accountability standards, many of which I think most colleagues support, on States and local schools. I think all of us agree--although the devil is in the details--that we need to know how students are doing in school and that States and schools need to be accountable for educating our children. We need to remember that testing and accountability aren't the same as reform. They measure reform, or they measure how students are doing, but they are not reform in and of themselves. Some of my colleagues have said that we should not provide schools with more resources until we have implemented these reforms. This bill would require schools to set the goal of having all children become proficient in reading and math in 10 years. That is what the bill says. It only makes sense that we in Congress set a goal for ourselves of providing districts with the resources over the 10 years that they and the students and schools will need to meet the goals of proficiency in reading and math. That is reform. Some often talk about the importance of communities, not the Federal Government, in making decisions about education policy. I don't disagree with that at all. Mr. President, this is a very important point I want to make here because I think this gets lost, and sometimes we talk about titles and numbers and programs and you can glaze over the eyes of even the most interested listener when you start talking in acronyms and numbers and so forth. Average people who even care about education can get lost in all of this. But this is a very important point I want to make about title I because I think there are a lot of misimpressions about how title I funds are allocated and what it means if you get title I funds in your town and school. Title I funds are used in a completely flexible fashion--completely flexible--if you are a qualified district and the students are qualified. There has been great flexibility. Schools, for instance, use title I funds to hire new teachers and provide them with professional development. Title I funds are used to provide new technology in schools if the district desires it and thinks that is the best way to improve their education. They use title I funds to implement cutting- edge research based on new academic programs to provide better, more intensive instruction in reading and math to students with the greatest educational need. They use title I funds to support preschool and afterschool activities. They can be used to support any number of other activities to increase student achievement. The only goal required in the title I that we have ever mandated is that they should be designed to reach eligible children and to increase student achievement. That is it. So at the local level, if you are a qualified student or qualified school district and you are designing a program to increase student achievement, then title I funds can be used. That is all we really require. Despite the rumors and the misinformation about title I, this is not some narrowly construed, highly narrow Federal mandate. We really do allow great flexibility. Contrary to what some have also argued, schools have been implementing reforms, and we need to do more to help them. The Department of Education 1999 National Assessment of title I, which was done, I might add, in consultation with an independent review panel, found the following: Since 1992, national reading performance has improved for nine-year- olds in the highest poverty public schools, regaining lost ground in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since 1992, math achievement also has improved among students in the highest poverty public schools. Another study, which I have put up here for the edification of those who might like to see it, found in 1999 that students receiving title I services increased their reading achievement in 21 of 24 urban districts studied, and increased their math achievement in 20 of 24 urban districts studied. Mr. President, it is apparently working. Again, I come back to the fact that there were a significant number of school districts where students were not receiving any funds. But where they are, it is making a difference. In 2000, the Rand Corporation found that the largest gains in test scores over the last 30 years have been made by African American, Hispanic, and white disadvantaged students when title I funds have been expended. A study published this year concluded that, ``Whenever an inner city or poor rural school is found to be achieving outstanding results with its students by implementing innovative strategies, these innovations are almost invariably funded primarily by title I.'' Mr. President, these title I funds are making a difference. They really make a difference. Our goal is not to mandate these funds, but to say that if over the next 10 years we really want to raise the level of achievement, and if we are going to test people over the next 10 years to reach full proficiency in math and reading, our goal is to fully fund this program that is making a difference today. Some of my colleagues say that although we have spent about $120 billion on title I since 1965--which is true. Over the last 35 years, we have spent about $120 billion in this program--there is still a huge achievement gap. There is; they are right. Even the numbers showing improvement don't really deserve to be heralded too much because where they started from was so low that while it is improvement, it is not a level that any one of us would accept as satisfactory, but clearly there has been. Therefore, they say, because we spent this amount of money and still have an achievement gap, we should not spend any more money until we get the reforms. Let's keep in mind that title I spending represents only about 3 percent of all spending on elementary and secondary education nationally. Let's not blame all the problems on title I. It is such a tiny percentage. Again, you start talking about a dollar being spent, and I mentioned that about 5 or 6 cents is the Federal commitment, and of the 5 or 6 cents, about 3 cents is title I. So when people say your title I money is a waste of money because the 3 cents isn't working, remember, there is about 95 cents that we ought to look at in terms of where that is going. So title I funds are important. Many experts argue that to the extent there is still an achievement gap, as I said, title I has kept it from growing even greater. I think that is probably a more accurate statement. The new Secretary of Education, Secretary Paige, the former superintendent of schools in Houston, TX, has often spoken about the need to shine a spotlight on those schools so that parents and the public will bring pressure to bear where schools aren't doing their job. I could not agree more. The parents and public have a right to know how the schools are doing and a responsibility to get involved. But if we do not provide schools with the resources they need to implement reforms, then all of the testing and accountability in the world is not going to make any difference. As my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, has often said--and I think it is a good statement--resources without reforms may be a waste of money, but reforms without resources are a waste of time. And I agree with that statement. Testing and accountability without more resources are an unfunded mandate, however well-intentioned. No one questions the need for reform and no one should question the need for more resources for the full funding of title I. Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 36 years ago because of the achievement gap, and we need to provide schools with the resources to close it. This again does not mandate dollars. It sets the goal over 10 years. Many agree if we do not have an adequate allocation of resources that we may be creating an unfunded mandate, where we are going to shut down schools, close the doors, without providing the financial backing that is needed. As I said, only 2 cents of every dollar go to education, and less than that, in fact, if you are talking about elementary and secondary education. Eighty percent of American citizens approve more than doubling the Federal investment in education in the next 5 years. We are talking about a 10-year commitment. I know all of us are interested in closing the education gap for disadvantaged students. This amendment, while an authorization, is an important step in that direction. We will have further debates on the appropriations bill down the road. There will have to be an agreement struck between the White House and Congress, but many of us, Democrats and Republicans, would like to go on record that over the next 10 years we ought to try to get it. There may be other reasons that get in the way, but sending a message to America that we care about this; that as an authorizing bill these goals are commendable and deserving of bipartisan support in this body. I yield the floor to my colleague from Maine who I know wants to be heard. There are several other Members who want to be heard on title I. I have already taken more time than I should have. I apologize to my colleagues. I thank my colleague from Maine. I mentioned earlier my colleague from Vermont who has done so much on education issues, but Senator Collins from Maine, from the day she arrived, has been committed to these issues. There are many reasons why I enjoy my service on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--I think that is the right name. We sometimes change the names of the committees, the education committee--but no more significant reason than serving with the Senator from Maine whom I have joined on numerous occasions on a variety of efforts where we find common ground. We have on this amendment, Mr. President, and I am delighted to join her in this effort.

Mr. DODD. I yield time to my colleague from Maine.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, in introducing legislation to make the child tax credit refundable. Throughout America, families with children struggle with the extra cost associated with raising children today. Early in the President's campaign, he proposed to increase the current child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. While a reduction in tax rates is helpful to families, an increase in the per child tax credit is especially helpful because it recognizes that there are costs associated with raising a family. During the President's inaugural remarks, he said, ``America at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American consciences, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise.'' With much applause, the President continued, ``And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault.'' ``Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities. While I very much support the President's proposal to increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, it makes sense to me that all families, not just families with tax liability, should receive such assistance. Because the President's tax credit is not refundable, over 16 million children are left behind. They live in families with no federal tax liability and therefore will receive no benefit from an increase in the child tax credit because it's not refundable--it's not available to families without federal tax liability. An additional 7 million children live in families who will not benefit from an increase in the child tax credit unless it's refundable because their current credit would not increase due to limited tax liability. Yet, these families pay taxes. They pay federal and state taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, phone taxes, and other taxes. Overwhelmingly, they represent working families. Yet, at $12,000 or $20,000, they have no federal tax liability and therefore unless the child tax credit is made refundable, they will receive no benefit from an increased child tax credit. The legislation we are introducing today will increase the current child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 as the President proposed, but would also provide a refundable credit of $500 per child for those families without federal income tax liability. This reform will lift one million families out of poverty. Often, people talk of the complexity of the tax code. The beauty of making the child tax credit refundable is its simplicity. All families, regardless of income, would receive the credit--no marriage penalty, no cliff, no complicated phase-outs. Back in 1991, the Bipartisan National Children's Commission, chaired by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, recommended enacting a refundable child tax credit. After a decade, the time is right. We have the resources. And, I hope and believe, we have the will. Making the child tax credit refundable is simply one of the most effective antipoverty strategies in years. I urge my colleagues to join with us today in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, in introducing legislation to make the child tax credit refundable. Throughout America, families with children struggle with the extra cost associated with raising children today. Early in the President's campaign, he proposed to increase the current child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. While a reduction in tax rates is helpful to families, an increase in the per child tax credit is especially helpful because it recognizes that there are costs associated with raising a family. During the President's inaugural remarks, he said, ``America at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American consciences, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise.'' With much applause, the President continued, ``And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault.'' ``Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities. While I very much support the President's proposal to increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, it makes sense to me that all families, not just families with tax liability, should receive such assistance. Because the President's tax credit is not refundable, over 16 million children are left behind. They live in families with no federal tax liability and therefore will receive no benefit from an increase in the child tax credit because it's not refundable--it's not available to families without federal tax liability. An additional 7 million children live in families who will not benefit from an increase in the child tax credit unless it's refundable because their current credit would not increase due to limited tax liability. Yet, these families pay taxes. They pay federal and state taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, phone taxes, and other taxes. Overwhelmingly, they represent working families. Yet, at $12,000 or $20,000, they have no federal tax liability and therefore unless the child tax credit is made refundable, they will receive no benefit from an increased child tax credit. The legislation we are introducing today will increase the current child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 as the President proposed, but would also provide a refundable credit of $500 per child for those families without federal income tax liability. This reform will lift one million families out of poverty. Often, people talk of the complexity of the tax code. The beauty of making the child tax credit refundable is its simplicity. All families, regardless of income, would receive the credit--no marriage penalty, no cliff, no complicated phase-outs. Back in 1991, the Bipartisan National Children's Commission, chaired by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, recommended enacting a refundable child tax credit. After a decade, the time is right. We have the resources. And, I hope and believe, we have the will. Making the child tax credit refundable is simply one of the most effective antipoverty strategies in years. I urge my colleagues to join with us today in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Focus on Committed and Underpaid Staff for Children's Sake Act. I am pleased that Senator Corzine is joining me as a original cosponsor and that companion legislation is being introduced in the House today by Representatives Miller and Gilman. The need for child care has become a daily fact of life for millions of parents nationwide. 65 percent of mothers with children under age six and 78 percent of mothers with children ages 6 to 13 are in the labor force. Each day, 13 million preschool children, including 6 million infants and toddlers, spend some part of their day in child care. The quality of that care has a tremendous impact on the critical early years of children's development. And, the most powerful determinant of the quality of child care is the training, education, and pay of those who spend 8-10 hours a day caring for our children. Yet, what we know about the child care field is alarming. Despite the fact that continuity of care is critical for the emotional development of children, staff turnover at child care centers averages 30 percent per year--four times greater than the turnover rate for elementary school teachers. Despite the fact that we as a society say there is no more important task than helping to raise a child, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we pay the average child care worker about $15,400 a year, barely above the poverty level for a family of three. Few child care providers have basic benefits like health coverage or paid leave. Only a small fraction of child care workers have graduated from college. We pay people millions of dollars a year to throw baseballs, to shoot basketballs, and to swing golf clubs. What does that say about our priorities when at the same time we pay those who care for our most precious resource, our children, poverty-level wages? A report released yesterday by the University of California, Berkeley and the Center for Child Care Workforce on child care providers' pay, training and education highlights the current crisis in the child care field. In a survey of child care centers in three California communities, the study found that three-quarters of all child care staff employed in 1996 were no longer on the job in 2000. Some centers reported 100 percent turnover. Additionally, nearly half of the child care providers who had left had a bachelor's degree, compared to only one-third of the new teachers. Some 49 percent, nearly half, of those who had left their job, left the child care field entirely. It's clear that if we want to attract quality teachers to the child care field, the pay has to better reflect the value we place on their work. We can't attract them and we can't keep them if we don't pay them a living wage. The legislation I am introducing today will provide states with funds to increase child care worker pay based on the level of education, the greater the level of education, the greater the increase in pay. In addition, the legislation will provide scholarships of up to $1,500 for child care workers who want to further their early childhood education training by getting a college degree, an Associate's degree, or a child development associate credential. We will never make significant strides in improving the quality of child care in this nation if we fail to address one of the leading problems, attracting and retaining a quality child care workforce. It is time to invest in our children by investing in those who dedicate their lives to caring for our children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Focus on Committed and Underpaid Staff for Children's Sake Act. I am pleased that Senator Corzine is joining me as a original cosponsor and that companion legislation is being introduced in the House today by Representatives Miller and Gilman. The need for child care has become a daily fact of life for millions of parents nationwide. 65 percent of mothers with children under age six and 78 percent of mothers with children ages 6 to 13 are in the labor force. Each day, 13 million preschool children, including 6 million infants and toddlers, spend some part of their day in child care. The quality of that care has a tremendous impact on the critical early years of children's development. And, the most powerful determinant of the quality of child care is the training, education, and pay of those who spend 8-10 hours a day caring for our children. Yet, what we know about the child care field is alarming. Despite the fact that continuity of care is critical for the emotional development of children, staff turnover at child care centers averages 30 percent per year--four times greater than the turnover rate for elementary school teachers. Despite the fact that we as a society say there is no more important task than helping to raise a child, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we pay the average child care worker about $15,400 a year, barely above the poverty level for a family of three. Few child care providers have basic benefits like health coverage or paid leave. Only a small fraction of child care workers have graduated from college. We pay people millions of dollars a year to throw baseballs, to shoot basketballs, and to swing golf clubs. What does that say about our priorities when at the same time we pay those who care for our most precious resource, our children, poverty-level wages? A report released yesterday by the University of California, Berkeley and the Center for Child Care Workforce on child care providers' pay, training and education highlights the current crisis in the child care field. In a survey of child care centers in three California communities, the study found that three-quarters of all child care staff employed in 1996 were no longer on the job in 2000. Some centers reported 100 percent turnover. Additionally, nearly half of the child care providers who had left had a bachelor's degree, compared to only one-third of the new teachers. Some 49 percent, nearly half, of those who had left their job, left the child care field entirely. It's clear that if we want to attract quality teachers to the child care field, the pay has to better reflect the value we place on their work. We can't attract them and we can't keep them if we don't pay them a living wage. The legislation I am introducing today will provide states with funds to increase child care worker pay based on the level of education, the greater the level of education, the greater the increase in pay. In addition, the legislation will provide scholarships of up to $1,500 for child care workers who want to further their early childhood education training by getting a college degree, an Associate's degree, or a child development associate credential. We will never make significant strides in improving the quality of child care in this nation if we fail to address one of the leading problems, attracting and retaining a quality child care workforce. It is time to invest in our children by investing in those who dedicate their lives to caring for our children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.