Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall not object--the Senator from Delaware is correct. These amendments have been cleared on this side. We are pleased to have them accepted.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, and others. This deals with the child care section of the legislation. Let me just very briefly describe the amendment to my colleagues. The reconciliation bill reserves 3 percent of the child care funds to improve the quality and availability of child care. Using current law projections, Mr. President, this proposal would represent a reduction of approximately $400 million over 6 years for the quality and increased availability of child care, and buildings and accommodations for those children who will need it. This amendment increases the funds reserved for quality from 3 percent to 4 percent, reducing the shortfall in funds to about $200 million over 6 years, about half of what the shortfall would be without this amendment. I point out, Mr. President, that the House has adopted a similar provision of 4 percent, so we would be conforming with this legislation to what is already included in the House language. Earlier in the day, Mr. President, I made a case for the importance of health and safety standards for our child care settings, and I pointed out that in recent studies of child care facilities in this country, only 1 in 7 day care centers received a rating of good quality care, with even fewer programs--8 percent--providing good quality care for infants and toddlers. In the same study, 40 percent of rooms serving infants and toddlers provided less than minimum quality care in the country. I do not think I need to make the case here. I think we all agree and understand the implications of the legislation. There is unanimity here on the concept of moving adults from welfare to work. We all understand that many of these adults, of course, have children who are going to require child care of one kind or the other. As I pointed out earlier in the day, of the 13 million people in this entire country who receive AFDC, 8.8 million of the 13 million are under the age of 18; 78 percent of the 8.8 million are under the age of 12; and 46 percent of the 8.8 million are under the age of 6. There are 4.1 million adults who collect AFDC. So as we take the 2 million adults, of the 4 million that this bill requires we put to work over the next 7 years, at least anyway, 78 percent of that 8.8 million, you can argue actually a higher number will require some form of child care setting--a significant amount. We are told the numbers will get larger in the coming years. So we want to put adequate quality child care out there. We have made the case that for automobiles and pets we have standards. If you leave your pet someplace, certain standards have to be met. What we are trying to say here is, when it comes to our Nation's children, minimum standards should be met, and there should be some quality control. We leave it to the States, Mr. President, to decide in specificity what those quality standards ought to be. We do not try to mandate here specific requirements, except in a broader context. So we are not violating the notion that States meet those standards. I point out, by the way, that this is language that we adopted--my colleague from Delaware will recall--going back to 1990, under the Bush administration, when Senator Hatch and I authored the Child Care Block Grant Program that was supported by the Bush administration and adopted here. We included quality and health and safety standards. Earlier today, with the support of Senator Coats, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Snowe, and others, we adopted the health and safety standards in the bill. This amendment offered by Senator Snowe and I would raise from 3 percent to 4 percent an allocation for quality, and I hope that my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment. I think it improves the bill. With that, I would not necessarily ask for a rollcall vote because I understand that it may be acceptable to the majority. If that is the case, I will not ask, obviously, for a rollcall vote.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Coats, Kennedy, Kassebaum, Snowe, Mikulski, Harkin, Kohl, Kerry, Murray, Kerrey, Cohen, Reid, and Leahy. As you can see by this list, Mr. President, this is a bipartisan effort. I have asked for a rollcall vote here because this is an issue that has been adopted in the past and yet mysteriously ends up dropping out of the bill every time we turn around. So I am asking for a rollcall vote, and hopefully an overwhelming vote here, so that when we get to conference on this legislation, it stays in the bill. Despite the fact that we passed this a number of times, every time we get it done, somehow it manages to disappear from the bill again, as it did from the Finance Committee bill. For those reasons, we will ask Members to be recorded on this issue. Mr. President, let me just briefly point out that what we are doing here is restoring to the bill the child care health and safety standards that we adopted now 6 years ago when the senior Senator from Utah and I offered the child care legislation and set up broad guidelines for health and safety standards, leaving to the States the specifics on how they would achieve those particular goals. I am thankful for the efforts of my colleague from Indiana, and Senator Snowe, Senator Kassebaum, and others who worked on this over the years. We have felt that it has been very, very helpful to have these standards in place. If we are going to have, as we must have, child care resources as we move people from welfare to work, these children have to be in a safe place. We have standards by which we maintain our pets and our automobiles. In this case here we are setting basic minimum standards for children. It is something that we ought to all be able to agree on. There was a study done, Mr. President, a few years ago that assessed the health and safety standards at child care settings across the country. The conclusion of that study, Mr. President, was that in only 14 percent of the cases was it where the child care centers provided good quality care. In 85 percent of those settings, almost 86 percent, the study concluded it was not good quality at all. So there is a necessity for requiring that these children be in a healthy and safe setting. We are talking about a setting where you are seeing to it that there are not open electrical outlets, there is electrical safety, water safety, basic requirements so that these children will be adequately protected. Mr. President, as I pointed out earlier today, let us try to keep this debate in perspective. Of the 13 million people on welfare, 8.8 million of those are children. And 78 percent of that 8.8 million are under the age of 12. Almost 50 percent of the 8.8 million children are under the age of 6. So there is going to be a substantial number of children who will need child care as their mothers or fathers who are on welfare go to work. There is money for child care. I would like more, but it certainly is an improvement over what existed in the past. But it is not just a question of having funding for child care. These children must also be in a safe environment. A little later on this evening or tomorrow, or whenever, you are going to have another amendment offered by my colleague from Louisiana dealing with another aspect of children's safety. Let me urge my colleagues here, many of whom support this amendment, to look at the Breaux amendment and look at the other amendments dealing with children. I do not think there is any debate in this Chamber about trying to get adults from welfare to work. But there ought not to be any debate either, in our view, about trying to see to it that innocent children who through no fault of their own have been born into circumstances where they need some help, whether it is in food or health care or child care, are protected. So we urge the adoption of the amendment and also amendments that would provide that safety net for these children. At this point, if I can, Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Maryland, and then I will yield to my colleague from Indiana. At that point we will try to wrap up the debate here, unless others want to be heard, and get to a vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, we will try to get it done quickly. The amendment is not a matter of great controversy. I know a lot of people wanted to say something about the amendment.

Mr. DODD. I will try to do it in 20 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I want a vote, I say, with all due respect, to the Chairman, on an issue that has gone back and forth.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield, my colleague from New Mexico raised a good point. As I understand it, the underlying bill that came out of committee bans this. The substitute that is being offered by the Democratic leader bans this. Our colleague from New Mexico has raised a good point here. As I understand it, both bills plug up this loophole that the chairman of the Budget Committee has so accurately and properly pointed out. Am I wrong on that?

Mr. DODD. I am here to say it is in the bill. We ban it. I presume it is banned in the underlying bill, as well.

Mr. DODD. I just wanted to be clear on that.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. So, Mr. President, the health and safety standards, the quality of our child care settings, again, this ought not be a question of partisan disagreement here. As I said, if we are going to have quality controls on automobiles and pets, then we ought to do it for child care settings. If you try to place your pet in some place over the weekend when you go on your vacation, there are standards for where your pet is kept. And yet this bill says that the standards where you place your child 8 hours a day as you go to work are not required. I do not know why this ought to be the subject of partisan disagreement, and yet it is. And so when you talk about welfare reform, it is critically important that health and safety standards and quality be included. We will offer alternatives in that regard. I also want to emphasize the point that the Senator from Louisiana just made to our colleague from Pennsylvania about a voucher system at the end of 5 years or 2 years. In my view, you can put any level you want on it. My concern is, what happens to the kids at that point? What happens to those children at the end of 2 years? For some of the adults, let us assume they will be going off to work. But let us assume for a second they cannot. What happens to those kids? You cut off the parents. OK, I do not like that, and I think you have a problem with that. But for the life of me, why would you say to the child, you lose. The voucher system here provides the safety net. And, of course, under the bill offered by the majority, in fact, it is mandatory-- mandatory--there be no voucher system. It specifically prohibits it. It does not even give the State the option. It mandates that no voucher exist at all. I do not understand that. I do not understand that at all. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Nebraska. Let me begin by thanking the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, along with our colleague, Senator Breaux, of Louisiana, and Senator Mikulski, of Maryland, who are the principal authors of this alternative. I commend them for it. I draw my colleagues' attention to the exchange between our colleagues from Pennsylvania and Louisiana that comes to one of the critical elements as far as I am concerned. It is the critical distinction between what is being offered by the majority and what we are offering in the alternative. That is, Mr. President, the children. I do not think there is any debate among us here about trying to get the adults from welfare to work. There are 2 million people out of roughly 275 million that we are going to put to work. Let me begin by framing this in mathematical terms so people can get a conception in their minds of what we are talking about. We are a nation of some 270 million people, thereabouts. What we are talking about is Federal welfare, aid to families with dependent children. There are 13 million people in the United States on AFDC, aid to families with dependent children, out of a nation of 270 million. Of that 13 million, Mr. President, 4.1 million are adults and 8.8 million of that 13 million are children under the age of 18. And 78 percent, almost 80 percent of that 8.8 million are under the age of 12; roughly 50 percent of that 8.8 million are under the age of 6. I do not think the debate here is about whether or not we can take 2 million of the 4 million adults out of a nation of 270 million and put them to work. That we all agree on. What this side of the aisle has so much trouble with and why there is such a fundamental disagreement here relates to the 8.8 million children--80 percent of whom are under the age of 12. People who are 16 or 17, I presume they are almost adults; they can work. But I do not know of anyone, Mr. President, regardless of ideology or political persuasion, who is going to look into the eyes of a child and say, ``I am sorry. Because your parent did not get a job, because the recession happened, because there were not enough jobs, you are out of it. We cannot help you any longer.'' I do not understand that sort of approach. It would break a tradition in this country, regardless of party and political persuasion, that has existed for more than a half a century. We have said, when it comes to America's kids, the circumstance they are born into is none of their doing. It is none of their doing. And yet if a 6-year-old child is starving, is hungry, we ought to find subsistence help. That is what my colleague from Louisiana was just talking about, some form of subsistence assistance for them. Mr. President, I am going to focus these brief remarks on the children. I do not make any argument about whether we want to make it 2 years or 5 years to get people off of welfare to work. I'm talking about roughly 2 million or 4 million of 270 million. I figure we ought to be able to figure out how to do that. I am really concerned about these infants and children. We see under the proposal offered by the majority that we do not have health and safety standards for child care if the parents go to work. These children under the age of 12 who are going to need a child care setting. Yet the bill eliminates today's health and safety standards for child care settings. We have standards for automobiles that must be met, emission controls that must be met. We have standards for pets in this country that must be met. For the life of me, I do not understand why we will not have health and safety standards for America's children in a child care setting. What is so radical or outrageous about saying that on basic health and safety, children who are put into a child care setting ought to have that minimum guarantee. I will offer an amendment, assuming--I hope it is not the case--that the Democratic alternative is rejected, to try to correct that situation on health and safety standards. I am hopeful my colleagues will support it. Senator Hatch and I, 6 years ago, wrote the child care legislation and included health and safety standards, and we have worked with it pretty well over the last 6 years. It is not in this bill. I would urge that we put it back in. The Democratic alternative does that. We have in our bill a minimum requirement that would require quality of child care. If we are saying to these parents, which we should, we want you to get to work, and we want you to be self-sufficient. Then we have to say that when these children are being cared for, there is going--Mr. President, I am having a hard time even hearing my own self speaking.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. Ten minutes, if I can.

Mr. DODD. I see one of the authors, my colleague from Louisiana, so I will try about 7 minutes or so.

Mr. DODD. I do not know. I see my colleagues from Pennsylvania and New Mexico. I can wait.

Mr. DODD. Let me, if I can, finish my remarks, because time is brief here, and then I will be glad at the end, if I do have an extra minute, to yield to my colleague. The proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Louisiana offers a safety net for children that I urge my colleagues to look at. The voucher system that allows for that safety net for children. The same on the food stamp issue that has been raised earlier. Again, by block granting it, you run the risk in certain States, because the political will is not there--and my colleagues know as well as I do that can happen--then the food stamp issue is also lost. I hope that is not the case. I heard my colleague from Pennsylvania earlier say he did not think that would happen. I hope he is right. But I do not know why we cannot require some safety net so all of us on a national level know these children are not going to be adversely affected. One of the other provisions that has not been the subject of much debate is the penalties imposed by the majority's proposal. We are told by the Congressional Budget Office that many States will not be able to meet the criteria laid out in the legislation, the standards here, and that in fact they will be imposing penalties of 5 percent of the assistance they will be receiving under this bill in the first year. Then it is cumulative. Whatever that number is, the penalty the first year, if there is a penalty the second it is 5 percent on that number. The point is, as has been pointed out by some of our Governors, this is an unfunded mandate, because that falls on the States, on local taxpayers. One estimate from one Governor is it may be as much as $12 billion in an unfunded mandate on the States as a result of the penalties being imposed if States do not get the numbers of people to work in the timeframe they are required to under our legislation. Again, I assume most of the States will try to get it done, but I think all of us know what happens when a recession or other economic difficulties hit. For one reason or another, the States would not meet those standards and the penalty is imposed. Then it gets cumulative thereafter. We collect that back. So that is, in effect, a tax, an unfunded mandate on the States. And I am looking specifically at our colleague in the chair because he authored very effectively, at the very outset of this Congress, a very successful piece of legislation on unfunded mandates. I urge him to look at this, because Governor Carper of Delaware and others at the Governors Conference raised this issue included in the majority bill, and I do not think any of us would like to see an unfunded mandate imposed as a result of this legislation despite our activities earlier in this Congress. I end where I began here. My concern is about these children, these kids. I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD. My concern is children. Again, on the health and safety standards, on the quality, on the vouchers and food, it seems to me we ought to try to correct these mistakes. Again, remember, we are talking about putting 2 million adults out of 4 million adults on welfare to work over the next 5 years, out of a Nation of 270 million people. Of the 8.8 million children on welfare, 80 percent are under the age of 12, 50 percent under the age of 6--of the 8.8 million. We ought to be able to say to those infants and those children that there is a safety net here. We are going to try to see to it that your parents go to work, but for whatever reason if they are unable to do it, no matter what we do to them, you are not going to be adversely affected by this. That ought not to be that hard to do. I do not understand why we cannot find common ground on that issue as we try to achieve the goal of putting people, adults on welfare, to work without jeopardizing the children. That is the simple question. Can we not write a bill, can we not come together and write a bill that puts people from welfare to work and does not adversely affect infants, infants in this country who I think will be hurt as a result of the legislation, if adopted unamended, as the majority has presented it? Mr. President, I see my colleague from Pennsylvania standing. I will be glad to ask for an additional minute if he wanted to ask me a question, or maybe my colleague from New Mexico would.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield?

Mr. DODD. No.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.