May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7389 

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. COATS, Mr. JEFFORDS, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DODD, and 

Mr. INOUYE): 

S. 850. A bill to amend the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant Act of 

1990 to consolidate Federal child care 

programs, and for other purposes; to 

the Committee on Labor and Human 

Resources. 

THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1995

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I 

rise today to introduce the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995 on behalf of myself, 

Senator COATS, Senator KENNEDY, Senator DODD, Senator INOUYE, and Senator JEFFORDS. This legislation reauthorizes the child care and development block grant of 1990 and makes 

several important changes to the law. 

The funding and leadership that the 

Federal Government has provided for 

child care has played a critical role in 

assisting low-income working families 

to maintain stable employment and 

helping welfare recipients gain independence. As States try to move welfare recipients into employment, the 

availability of affordable, quality child 

care will be of even greater importance. If Congress and the States are 

committed to having welfare reform 

succeed, then there needs to be a partnership between Federal and State governments to allocate funding for quality child care. 

The child care and development 

block grant was enacted in 1990 with 

bipartisan support. Congress recognized that there was a lack of adequate 

child care for many low-income families. This continues to be a nationwide 

problem. 

According to a 1991 report by the Bureau of the Census, 31 million children 

under the age of 15 had mothers employed outside the home—almost 2 million of these children were infants 

under 1 year of age. This trend is continuing, with more and more mothers 

entering the work force each year. It 

has become increasingly difficult for 

low-income working parents to find affordable child care. Despite the significant contributions the child care and 

development block grant and other 

Federal child care programs have made 

in assisting families with their child 

care needs, there are waiting lists for 

child care subsidies in almost every 

State. If Congress does not continue to 

commit Federal funding for child care, 

these waiting lists will continue to 

grow, and efforts to reform the welfare 

system will fail. 

The legislation which my colleagues 

and I are introducing provides States 

funding to provide quality child care 

for low-income families through a unified child care system. The Child Care 

and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995 consolidates Federal 

discretionary programs that provide 

child care services. The primary goal of 

this bill is to ensure that there is a 

seamless system of child care where it 

counts the most—at the point where 

the parent, child, and provider meet. 

This legislation maintains most of 

the critical provisions of the child care 

and development block grant—a program that has been working successfully in the States since its enactment. 

The bill emphasizes access to quality 

child care, parental choice, and consumer education. The bill continues to 

minimal health and safety standards 

established in 1990. The 1995 amendments to the act provide States with 

the flexibility to improve the quality 

and supply of child care, to design eligibility requirements through a sliding 

fee scale, and to provide broader access 

to referral and resource services for 

parents and providers. Provisions in 

the legislation ensure that Federal 

funds that States use for child care will 

be funneled through the existing State 

system designed to implement the 

child care and development block 

grant. The legislation also includes 

several important provisions designed 

to improve the availability of quality 

child care for native American families. 

The Child Care and Development 

Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995 

consolidates two discretionary programs, the State Department Care 

Planning and Development Grants and 

the Child Development Associate Credential Scholarship Program. The program is authorized for $1 billion in 1996, 

and such sums as necessary through 

the year 2000. This authorization level 

is based on current funding levels for 

all three programs, with a slight increase for inflation. 

I invite my colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle to join with Senator COATS, 

Senator JEFFORDS, Senator KENNEDY, 

Senator DODD, Senator INOUYE, and me 

in cosponsoring the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments 

Act of 1995. I hope there is as much bipartisan support for this reauthorization as there was for the original legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1995 

SUMMARY

1. Authorization: The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is amended 

to include two discretionary programs, the 

State Dependent Care Planning and Development Grants and the Child Development Associate Credential (CDA) Scholarships, into 

a discretionary block grant with no state 

match required. This is consistent with the 

current CCDBG structure. The authorization 

for fiscal year 1996 is $1,000,000,000 and such 

sums as necessary through the year 2000. 

II. State Requirements: 

A. The health and safety standards that 

were included in the CCDBG when it was enacted in 1990, are maintained. These standards are broadly defined, and states are given 

discretion in enforcing them. The standards 

are: (1) the prevention and control of infectious diseases; (2) building and physical 

premises safety; and (3) minimum health and 

safety training appropriate to the provider 

setting. Providers receiving funds from the 

block grant (via contract or parent voucher) 

must meet any existing state and local licensing and regulatory requirements. 

B. The quality set-aside, which is part of 

the 1990 act, is maintained. However, it is 

more broadly defined and gives states discretion in how they choose to spend the money. 

The only required quality activity is that 

states must provide consumer education to 

encourage maximum parental choice and improve availability of child care through a 

comprehensive referral and resource system. 

The set-aside is 15 percent of the state allotment. 

C. States are required to submit a plan, 

similar to what they currently are providing 

under the CCDBG, which designates a lead 

agency and outlines procedures that are in 

place for assuring parental choice of providers, parental complaints, consumer education, and compliance with state and local 

licensing and health and safety requirements. 

D. States shall submit a report to the Secretary of HHS every 2 years specifying how 

they used the money, the number of children 

who were assisted, activities that were implemented to encourage a public-private 

partnership, and the extent and manner in 

which they implemented a resource and referral network. 

E. States are required to establish a sliding 

fee scale that ensures a representative distribution of participation among the working poor and welfare recipients. 

F. States may not expend more than 5 percent on administrative costs. 

G. If states expend monies for child care 

from other federal funding sources, then this 

funding shall be allocated through the 

CCDBG. This will reduce federal regulations 

and requirements by establishing one consolidated child care program. This will also 

provide beneficiaries with more stability in 

child care since eligibility requirements will 

be streamlined. 

III. Enforcement Mechanisms: If a state is 

determined (via the HHS appeals and hearing 

process) to have improperly expended the 

block grant funds, the Secretary is given the 

option of: (1) imposing additional requirements to ensure state compliance or correct 

areas of noncompliance with the act; (2) require states to repay funds improperly expended; (3) deduct from the administrative 

portion of the state allotment an amount 

less than or equal to the improperly expended funds; (4) or a combination of these 

options. 

IV. Indian Tribes: The following provisions 

have been added for Indian tribes: (1) allowing tribes to use funds for facilities construction if the Secretary of HHS determines that 

this is a barrier to providing child care (this 

applies only to Indian tribes); (2) allowing 

any tribal allotments that are not expended 

to be redistributed to other tribes, which is 

similar to what happens with unused state 

allotments; and (3) exempting tribes from 

state licensing requirements and allowing 

the Secretary, in consultation with the 

tribes, to develop minimum standards for 

child care providers that takes into account 

tribes’ needs and available resources. The 

set-aside for Indian tribes of up to 3 percent, 

which is part of the 1990 law, has been maintained. 

PROGRAMS TO BE CONSOLIDATED

Child Care and Development Block Grant—

discretionary grant program to help low-income parents pay for child care, to expand 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7390 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

early childhood development programs to 

improve the availability and quality of care. 

No state match is required. (Enacted in 1990 

as part of OBRA ’90) 

FY 94 Actual, $893 million. 

FY 95 Enacted, $935 million. 

State Dependent Care Planning and Development Grants—discretionary grant program for child care resource and referral and 

for before- and after-school child care services. Provides a 75 percent federal matching 

rate to states. 

FY 94 Actual, $13 million. 

FY 95 Enacted, $13 million. 

Child Development Associate Credential 

(CDA) Scholarships—discretionary grant 

program to states to provide scholarships to 

qualified child care workers to cover the cost 

of the CDA application, assessment, and 

credentialing. This credential is awarded by 

the Council for Early Childhood Professional 

Recognition. No state match is required. 

FY 94 Actual, $1 million. 

FY 95 Enacted, $1 million. 

∑ Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today, I 

am pleased to join Senator KASSEBAUM

in introducing the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments 

Act of 1995. Since its passage in 1990, 

this program has, and continues to 

enjoy strong bipartisan, community 

and grassroots support. With the assistance provided under this act thousands of families have, for the first 

time, been able to work without fearing the placement of their children in 

less than quality child care environments. 

Currently, 55 percent of all working 

families enroll their children in some 

form of child care. The dramatic increase in labor force participation of 

mothers continues to heighten our 

awareness of the need for child services. And with the imminent passage of 

welfare reform, the need will undoubtedly be even greater. 

The goals of a Federal child care program are many. First, to ensure a safe, 

healthy and stimulating environment 

for the children. Second, to afford parents the maximum amount of choice in 

the selection of a provider. Third, to 

assist with the availability of child 

care slots. Fourth, to ensure that limited Federal dollars are targeted to 

those most in need. And fifth, to distribute funds to States in a way that 

makes sense, eliminates redtape, and 

ensures maximum use of resources. 

I believe we have met each of these 

goals in this legislation. 

First, we continue the minimum 

health and safety standards negotiated 

in 1990. These standards are not prescriptive but they do insist that child 

care providers provide a safe and 

healthy environment for children in 

their care. Second, parents are able to 

select from a wide range of child care 

providers through the use of direct 

grants, contracts, and parent certificates. These include sectarian providers and family day care homes 

which currently are the largest group 

of providers of child care services. 

Third, the authorization level reflect a 

continued Federal priority for quality 

child care services. Expansion of available child care slots is important, but 

is equally important to maintain quality in our expansion efforts. The Kassebaum-Coats bill strikes this important 

balance in authorizing a 15-percent setaside for quality improvement. Fourth, 

the bill targets dollars to the working 

poor by requiring States to establish a 

sliding fee scale for families up to 100 

percent of the State medium income. 

And finally, we have included language 

to ensure that Federal resources used 

for child care are consolidated into 

one, uniform system. 

This last point is significant. In recent years, growing concern has been 

expressed about the number of Federal 

child care programs. The General Accounting Office reports there are currently 93 different child care programs 

administered by 11 Federal agencies 

and 20 offices, at a total cost to the 

taxpayer of at least $11.5 billion, and 

that does not include various tax programs targeted at families with children. 

The Kassebaum-Coats bill ensures 

that those dollars will be used in a way 

that meets the goals of our Federal 

child care policy and not in ways that 

contravene it. 

In addressing child care within the 

context of the welfare reform debate 

we must be careful not to force parents 

to choose between work, and quality 

day care. Many families, especially 

low-income working families, need help 

with their child care needs. Solutions 

and welfare reform must be pursued 

with compassionate realism, recognizing our budgetary limitations, but 

motivated by a concern for children 

and their best interests. The Kassebaum-Coats bill, coupled with the 

block grant and cash assistance program will significantly help those entering the work force with their child 

care needs—and does so in a way that 

is fiscally responsible. 

I would again like to thank Senator 

KASSEBAUM for her leadership in this 

area, and hope that this legislation receives swift approval in the Senate.

f 

∑ 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 256

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the 

names of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SANTORUM] and the Senator 

from Minnesota [Mr. GRAMS] were 

added as cosponsors of S. 256, a bill to 

amend title 10, United States Code, to 

establish procedures for determining 

the status of certain missing members 

of the Armed Forces and certain civilians, and for other purposes. 

S. 388

At the request of Ms. SNOWE, the 

name of the Senator from Mississippi 

[Mr. LOTT] was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 388, a bill to amend title 23, United 

States Code, to eliminate the penalties 

for noncompliance by States with a 

program requiring the use of motorcycle helmets, and for other purposes. 

S. 471

At the request of Mr. BIDEN, the 

name of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 

WARNER] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

471, a bill to provide for the payment to 

States of plot allowances for certain 

veterans eligible for burial in a national cemetery who are buried in 

cemeteries of such States. 

S. 582

At the request of Mr. HATFIELD, the 

name of the Senator from Montana 

[Mr. BURNS] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 582, a bill to amend title 28, 

United States Code, to provide that 

certain voluntary disclosures of violations of Federal laws made pursuant to 

an environmental audit shall not be 

subject to discovery or admitted into 

evidence during a Federal judicial or 

administrative proceeding, and for 

other purposes. 

S. 585

At the request of Mr. SHELBY, the 

names of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. 

KEMPTHORNE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. ABRAHAM], the Senator from 

Tennessee [Mr. FRIST], and the Senator 

from Texas [Mrs. HUTCHISON] were 

added as cosponsors of S. 585, a bill to 

protect the rights of small entities subject to investigative or enforcement 

action by agencies, and for other purposes. 

S. 758

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the 

name of the Senator from Connecticut 

[Mr. LIEBERMAN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 758, a bill to amend the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for S corporation reform, and for 

other purposes. 

S. 770

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the name 

of the Senator from Maine [Ms. SNOWE] 

was added as a cosponsor of S. 770, a 

bill to provide for the relocation of the 

United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and for other purposes. 

S. 794

At the request of Mr. LUGAR, the 

name of the Senator from Wyoming 

[Mr. THOMAS] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 794, a bill to amend the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act to facilitate the minor use of a pesticide, and for other purposes. 

S. 814

At the request of Mr. MCCAIN, the 

name of the Senator from Wyoming 

[Mr. THOMAS] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 814, a bill to provide for the reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and for other purposes. 

S. 816

At the request of Mr. DEWINE, the 

name of the Senator from Mississippi 

[Mr. LOTT] was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 816, a bill to provide equal protection for victims of crime, to facilitate 

the exchange of information between 

Federal and State law enforcement and 

investigation entities, to reform criminal procedure, and for other purposes. 

S. 847

At the request of Mr. GREGG, the 

names of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 

BRYAN], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SANTORUM] were added as 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS