Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the United States has entered into a time of unprecedented budget surplus. Over $1 trillion is the amount we are discussing. What to do with it, and trillions that are expected into the future. For years we have struggled to balance the budget, forgoing spending for programs necessary to maintain our human infrastructure. We have not devoted enough to supporting our families and educating our children, but times have changed. There is enough money in the surplus to cut taxes, eliminate the death tax, and reduce the marriage penalty. I believe we must increase our investments in our children and families. To my colleagues I must ask, if not now, when? I commend Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their leadership. They have carefully crafted this legislation so it brings the benefits of tax relief of all Americans. They have included balanced rate reductions, a careful phaseout of the estate tax, and a refundable child tax credit. Especially important to me, they have fixed the marriage penalty for all taxpayers, including those who receive the earned-income tax credit. There is, however, one crucial area not sufficiently enhanced to meet our national education goals. The issue not addressed in this legislation is the great need for our Nation to improve childcare, particularly the early learning and developmental aspect of that care. America lags far behind all other industrialized nations in caring for and educating our preschool-age children. We have the opportunity to make improvements. We need to act now. If we want to get to the core of our most serious problems in education, we have to improve the care and education of our preschool children. This is something every other industrialized nation in this world does except the United States. And every industrialized nation in the world pays for that through Government funds. I rise to offer an amendment to increase the dependent care tax credit. The current law allows taxpayers to claim a small credit for childcare expenses. Right now, the maximum credit allowed is $720 for one child, and twice that amount for two children. Unfortunately, no families qualify to receive the maximum. My amendment would raise the maximum credit to $1,500, for one child, and $3,000, for two or more children. It would allow families with adjusted gross incomes of $30,000 or less to qualify for the maximum credit. And the credit amounts would be indexed for inflation still far from what we need but a major step forward. This increase in the dependent care tax credit is to be paid for by slowing the reduction of the top income tax rate. We know that from the time of birth, the human brain is making the connections that are vital to future learning. We know that what we do as parents, care providers, educators, and as a society can either promote or inhibit a child's healthy development---the acquisition of the cognitive, social, behavioral, and physical skills necessary for success in school and life. Far too many of America's children enter school without the requisite skills and maturity, and continue to lag behind for their entire academic career. Billions of dollars are spent on remediation efforts to get these children ``up to speed.'' But I believe that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,'' and if we are ever to achieve the first national education goal, we must improve the quality of child care and make it more affordable and available for working parents. We have known for years that high-quality preschool programs produce cognitive gains, improved school performance, decreased grade retention, and higher achievement in math and reading. The research has been around since the mid-1980s. The Perry Pre-school Project, the Carolina Abecedarian Project, and the recent Chicago Child-Parent Center study are just a few of the research studies that clearly show the benefits of high-quality early care and education to future academic success. Unlike the rest of the world, America has done little to ensure that our children have access to these kinds of programs. Quality early education is the bedrock upon which a child's future academic success is built. By giving every child a strong foundation for success in school we set the stage for that child to become a productive worker and a contributing member of society. A strong educational foundation for each child is the key to our national economic, military, and political future. Let me show the most dramatic evidence of what I am telling you. My first chart is the results of the so-called TIMS examination. These TIMS studies indicate how we compare to the rest of the world with respect to our 13-year-olds in mathematics. As you can see from this chart, where are we? We are 16th; at the bottom of the heap. That means that 55 percent fewer American students give correct answers on the exam. Who is at the top? That is China. There are a couple of reasons why I have this presentation. One is because it includes China. After we included China that time, someone decided not to do that again. It gives you evidence relative to the largest country with which we compete. If you take a look at the countries doing pretty well on this side of the chart--Switzerland, France, Italy--all industrialized nations that have early education and child care, these are for their 3- and 4-year-olds. More recent TIMS studies have shown no significant change for the United States, and the most recent report was even worse. Yet in international contests of the best math students, students from the United States are often the best in the world. So it is not the students, its the educational system that bears most of the responsibility for this failure. What does this mean for our children? It means that in the global economy in which we live, our children will not be prepared to compete for the high-tech jobs that rely on math skills. In a world of global finance and integrated information systems, it will be very easy for children from other countries to line up for the best, high paying jobs. Will this have a large impact on the U.S. economy? I am afraid so. The Information Technology Association of America has recently issued a report that states that at present there are 425,000 IT jobs nationwide that are unfilled because the American workforce lacks the skills to do the job. And these are high paying jobs, with an average income of $50,000 a year. To date, the United States has allowed almost 1 million H-1-B foreign students to take these jobs. I suggest to my colleagues that a child care tax credit that sets the stage for improved math performance by American students is a direct investment in the strength and health of our economy. John Glenn's Commission issued a report entitled ``Before It's Too Late,'' which emphasizes this need. The overall health of our society depends on our children coming to school ready to learn and ready to read. Our democracy itself; our leadership in the world, is dependent upon literate citizens. I want to now to refer to another National Center for Education study entitled ``The Nation's Report Card, 4th Grade Reading 2000.'' Forty percent of American fourth graders are reading below grade level, and 68 percent are not reading at a level that demonstrates solid academic performance. What this says to me is that more than half of our young students have not learned to read very well. And if you haven't learned to read you cannot read to learn. And I have to wonder if it is a coincidence that 40 percent of our Nation's 3- and 4-year-olds are not enrolled in preschool programs--40 percent, again. From first through third grades our children are supposed to learn to read so that they can go on to academic success. Without excellent reading skills and a love of reading and learning we are doomed to a spiral of ignorance in our society. We will lose the cultural and historical richness that informs us as a democracy. How can we rightfully retain our place as leader in the democratic world, if many of our students emerge from our public education system functionally illiterate? We must invest in our children from the moment they are born so that they are fully prepared to be excellent and early readers. This is an investment we must make. Today, two-thirds of our 3- to 5-year-olds are in some type of care outside the home. For some, that care is part-day or part-year. But many spend 35 hours or more in the care of someone other than their parents. A recent nationwide study found that 40 percent of the child care provided to infants in child care centers was potentially injurious-- not that it was beneficial but that it was injurious. Fifteen percent of center-based child care for all preschoolers is so bad that a child's health and safety are threatened. Seventy percent of center-based child care is rated mediocre--they are not hurting, but neither are they helping children. Only fifteen percent, I repeat, 15 percent actively promote a child's healthy development. We know that high quality, preschool education and care improves school readiness and school performance, leads to better socialization, and results in cognitive gains for our children. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. JEFFORDS. While there are benefits for all children, low-income children benefit even more than children from more economically advantaged families. And we see those benefits regardless of the setting in which the early education and care takes place--as long as it is a quality program. So I ask my colleagues, how can we, as a nation, continue to shortchange these programs? Why do we not view early care and education as an integral part of our educational system? How can we as a nation continue to view it as a private matter among families, rather than a social imperative? Every one of our industrial competitor countries do. Every one--and the government pays for it. We are leaving children behind. Our children are not entering school ready-to-learn. Our children are lagging behind most other industrialized nations in math and science. We know that the best predictor of quality early education and care and positive outcomes for children is a trained, competent teacher. So why do we have a child care workforce that has little education and training beyond a high school diploma? The majority of the providers in center-based child care receive less training and job specific education than child care workers in urban areas of Nigeria. We know that this surplus should be used to address the greatest needs in our nation today. So why don't we begin to take care of the most critical problem, the early education and care of our children? Spending for child care over the past few years by governments-- local, State and federal--has increased. Yet, less than 15 percent of the families eligible under Federal law to receive child care subsidies are receiving any assistance. The Head Start Program is only serving about 40 percent of the children eligible for the program. The educational component of that program is in the process of being expanded and strengthened. The Dependent Care Tax Credit helps offset a small portion of the costs of a family's child care expenses. American parents are the main source of funding for early care and education. They pay it right from their pocket. All of our competitors in the international marketplace, have government paying most of the costs of care. Of the total funds spent on early care and education, government pays for 39 percent, private sources--1 percent, and parents--60 percent. This is the reverse of the cost-sharing between parents and government in other industrialized nations. In all of the other industrialized nations, the costs of early care and education for 3- and 4-year-olds rests with government, employers, or a combination of both. Parents are responsible for a small percentage of the costs, generally in the ten to twenty percent range. In comparison, some low-income working families in the U.S. have to pay 10, 20, sometimes 30 percent of their household income just for the co- payments required to receive a Federal child care subsidy. In addition, much of the early care and education in America is of poor to adequate quality. High-quality care is expensive, and few families can afford to pay any more. In every State, except one--Vermont, the cost of 1 year of child care for a 3- or 4-year-old is more than the yearly cost of tuition at a public four-year university in that state. And Vermont's distinction is due to the high cost public higher education, rather than a lower cost of child care. We know how to improve the quality of early care and education. We need better trained and educated teachers. We need to pay those teachers more. We need to quit viewing child care and early education differently-- and recognize the critical importance of early education. We need to integrate quality early learning and healthy development into all care giving. We need to make quality early learning programs more affordable and available to all children--particularly 3- and 4- year-olds. We need to give providers funds to recruit and retain quality teachers, to upgrade facilities and equipment, and to provide staff training on a regular basis. We need to help states increase not only the number of low-income working parents receiving child care subsidies, but make sure those subsidies are high enough to allow families to afford quality care for their children. Middle and lower-middle income working families receive the least amount of help in covering the costs of child care, and spend a disproportionately high amount of their household budget on child care. We have to focus more government assistance in their direction. We need to increase the number of quality programs by improving existing care and starting new programs. We need to encourage businesses to provide more on- and near-site child care for employees and more resources to support the child care arrangements of their employees. Federal tax credits and incentives need to be increased to help these businesses. And we must make those improvements without increasing the costs to parents. In other industrialized nations, early education and care for 3- and 4-year-olds is universal, voluntary and free to parents, regardless of their income. Early education and care is viewed as good for children and an important part of the public education system. American families struggle to pay $4,000, $6,000, and sometimes over $10,000 a year for child care for their young children. Our own Senate employees, many using federally subsidized child care centers, pay $6,000 to $7,000 a year for one child--out of their own pockets with little financial help. A few local and State governments have already accepted this view of pre-school and have devised a variety of ways to finance their efforts. Some counties in Florida increased property taxes to pay for pre- school and child care services. Voters in Aspen, CO, approved a dedicated sales tax for child care. Maine has created tax increment finance districts and identified child care as an approved development program cost. Missouri dedicates a portion of the funds received from the state lottery to the Early Childhood Development, Education, and Care Fund. North Carolina has done a remarkable job in subsidizing child care wages and benefits in exchange for completing professional development activities. Rhode Island has extended health care benefits for child care providers through the State's publicly funded health insurance program. Connecticut makes long-term, low-interest loans for the construction and renovation of child care centers available as tax-exempt bond funding. It has started a school-readiness program to make sure low- income children have access to high quality early learning experiences. New York has a generous, refundable child care tax credit against state personal income taxes that are owed. And last, but never least, Vermont gives increased subsidy rates for accredited care, and provides cash bonuses to child care providers that get accredited or complete academic degrees. Other States have created voluntary income tax check-offs, car license plates, motor vehicle registration accounts, and other innovative means of financing high-quality pre-school programs. Even with these creative approaches, quality pre-school programs are still out of the reach of many parents. Several States have started programs and tax incentives to get the business community to assume more of the costs of child care for their employees. Some companies, such as IBM, AT&T, and Bank of America, have clearly stepped up to the plate. But too many others have not. It is particularly hard for small business owners. Unfortunately, many of these programs and incentives have met little success. Participation levels are very low, even among businesses that provide child care assistance for employees. We must work with the business community to create incentives that work for employers and employees alike. Government, businesses, or parents cannot do this alone. Providing quality early care and education must be a partnership. There must be joint responsibility and cost-sharing. Government needs to view early education and care as an integral part of the education system. It needs to provide additional funding to improve quality and decrease the costs for parents. The business community needs to view early education and care as necessary for recruiting and maintaining today's employees. It needs to see it as an investment in tomorrow's workforce. Parents are already paying most of the costs of care, and find few choices that provide high quality care at a price they can afford. They must have more choices so their children can grow up healthy and ready to succeed. We must improve the quality and financing mechanisms for early care and education, particularly for our Nation's 3- and 4-year-olds. This is an investment in the real ``infrastructure'' of our country--our children and families. It is one that we cannot afford to ignore any longer. Isabelle Sawhill of the Brookings Institute has estimated that a high-quality, 2-year program in the United States would cost about $8,000 annually per child. This translates to about $30 billion a year to serve all families with incomes under $30,000 a year. This amendment represents a down payment on that investment. In March, the HELP Committee held a hearing to compare the United States early care and education, with the rest of the world. At that hearing, a child care provider from Vermont testified. At the conclusion of her testimony, she said: ``Why do so many children get left behind?'' One, there simply is not enough capacity to meet the needs--it's that simple. Two, few parents can afford high quality care. We are talking about young families at the lowest point in their income earning years paying up to fifty-eight percent of their income on child care. These young parents absorb 87 percent of the cost of care, as opposed to their later years and incomes are higher and they bear only 47 percent of the cost of a year in college. We ask families to pay more at a time they can least afford it. I always tell my staff, don't come to me with a problem unless you have at least three potential solutions. Here are my suggestions for easing the child care crisis: Bring business on board as partners. Forgiveness of student loans, access to higher wages, and health care for providers will help attract and retain our child care workforce. Quality incentives work, whether we are talking about guaranteed bonuses for extended education or training, or accreditation. Tax cuts are great, but only after the true needs of a nation have been meet. You have a difficult choice: save a little now by not funding a comprehensive early care and education initiative or pay a lot later. Studies show that for every dollar we spend on early care and education, we save seven dollars in other government programs down the road. We can no longer afford to be a nation where only the poor or rich have access to high quality early care and education. You need to commit precious resources to our most precious resource, young children. Let me show you just some other documentation. I want to bring to your attention a study that all of my colleagues ought to read. This is done by the French-American Foundation. The study compares the French system with American childcare. They point out how well the French do in comparison. I urge Members to look at this study. We have copies of this study available. It demonstrates how beneficial the French system is. We should use it as a model. There are other systems also that we should look at for possible solutions to our early care and education crisis. Mr. President, at this time I yield to my friend from Connecticut 10 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his very helpful statement. I praise him for the work he has done in this area. To close up, I would like to follow up on my colleague's statement with a chart. This is the source of funds for child care in early learning in the U.S.: 60 percent by the parents, 1 percent by the private sector, and 39 percent by the Government. In the other countries, it is just the opposite. It is 60 percent by the Federal Government, about 30 percent by the parents, and about 1 percent by the private sector. That is just to emphasize what the Senator has pointed out. That was excellent testimony that dramatically pointed out to me the serious problems we have. I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Apgar's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the Budget Act, pass this amendment, and help our families who are struggling with the higher cost of child care. The research demonstrates so vividly that we have to do more now. Let me again reflect on the chart I displayed earlier. Nearly 40 percent of America's fourth graders are reading below grade level; 68 percent of fourth graders cannot read at a level that demonstrates solid academic performance. That, compared to the rest of the world, is abominable. Again, in mathematics, this is so critical for the Nation's workforce. We have hundreds of thousands of jobs and we find that American students are not qualified to take those jobs. We are at the very bottom of the heap. That is why we have nearly 1 million H-1-B foreign- born students, people from other countries coming in and taking those jobs which our young people could have--if they were qualified, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I am not alone in examining these issues. Here is, for instance, a report from California, ``Challenges for Higher Education,'' indicating how important it is for our young people to have the expertise, ready to enter the workforce; from Business Week, ``How to Fix America's Schools,'' because we are not providing the right type of trained workforce; and another one, ``Helping Students to be First in the World,'' recommending action in early care and education by the Council of Chiefs of State school officers. There are a many reports and studies. This is one I mentioned earlier, demonstrating how wonderful the French system is and how terrible our child care is. And there are more. I will conclude by asking the question I did at the beginning: If not now, when? If we have trillions of dollars of surpluses, and we have billions of dollars of need, why can't we solve it? I see no reason. Now, we have an opportunity to take an important but small step forward. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota returns us to a very important issue that we discussed at some length at the outset of the bill before us. Like the Hagel-Harkin amendment which was adopted and incorporated as part of the pending substitute, the amendment would convert the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to a mandatory spending program. Unlike the amendment we adopted 2 weeks ago, the Dayton amendment would provide for full funding of IDEA in 2 years. While I fully support that goal, I believe it is too ambitious a timetable. As we have seen in vote after vote over the past 2 weeks, the Senate believes there are several important funding priorities in education ahead. Neither the budget we adopted nor any budget we are likely to adopt in the future can accommodate the increase the Senator seeks. Yet at the same time we need to fulfill our commitment to fully fund IDEA, we also need to meet our obligation under title I for teacher training, recruitment, and retention, for afterschool care, early education, and a host of other priorities. So while I support the goal, I think the path taken by the Hagel- Harkin amendment is more reasonable and still very ambitious. I believe we can keep it, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the Dayton amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I agree with the statement just made by my friend from Massachusetts. Senator Voinovich has been a leader--both as Governor and as a Senator--in recognizing the critical need to improve the quality of the care and education we provide to our youngest children. The amendment he offers with Senator Feinstein would address this vital issue. My colleagues are absolutely correct that the key to a child's achievement in elementary school is found in the years prior to going to school, especially at ages 3 and 4. But as I mentioned 2 days ago during the debate on another amendment, I have agreed to oppose amendments to this bill that are not directly relevant, and, therefore, I must reluctantly oppose Senator Voinovich's amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California for what she is doing with this very wonderful program. I introduced the original legislation which resulted in this program. It was modeled after a school I found in Vermont which had the foresight to understand the need to extend the child's time in school, or on the school grounds, and to give them constructive things to do, something educational during the period of time before they can go home and find someone there to greet them. Actually, it came further in the past than that. When I had the opportunity to visit the former Soviet Union, not too long after the end of the Soviet Union in that sense, I visited what were called Pioneer Palaces. They were spread throughout the Soviet Union. I visited them. I found what they did. From the time school ended, from 3 in the afternoon until 6 at night, every child was required to do something that was constructive and hopefully leading towards some occupation or whatever. As you walked around, you found people learning how to be cosmonauts, 8- or 9-year-olds. Then as you went further, you saw people very intensely working on musical instruments and all sorts of things. Every child was required to find something to do that was constructive during that period. As we know, as the Senator from Nevada pointed out, the studies show how important it is, in the time from the midafternoon until suppertime, to keep young people fully occupied. Crime, pregnancies-- almost all of that results from behavior during that period of time. So I have a certain feeling of thankfulness for the way this program has grown. President Clinton grabbed onto a program which had a little bit of funding and had the foresight to make it into a really well funded program. I thank the former President for doing that, but right now it is up to us to do all we can to make sure this kind of a program is available as far across this land as possible and in such numbers that at least every young person ought to have an opportunity to have a fulfilling full day rather than just the hours at school. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. May I interrupt for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Boxer amendment occur at 11:15 a.m.

Mr. JEFFORDS. My understanding is there will be a second-degree amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will meet with the Senator. I hope we can go forward with this vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have one which will be here momentarily.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I do.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka now be recognized to call up amendment No. 407 and there be up to 5 minutes under his control. I further ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized as in morning business for the following times: Senator Helms, up to 15 minutes; Senator Kerry, 10 minutes; Senators Baucus and Jeffords, 5 minutes each. I further ask unanimous consent that following the morning business, Senator Reed of Rhode Island be recognized to call up and modify his amendment No. 425 and the time between then and 1:45 be equally divided, with no second- degree amendments in order, and that the vote occur in relationship to the amendment at 1:45 today.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It is in the UC.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator has 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe I have time allotted as in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.