To establish a $1,000,000 asset limit for eligibility for child care assistance.

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2014

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1086, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1086) to improve the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Harkin amendment No. 2811, to include rural and remote
areas as underserved areas identified in the State plan.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am going to give a recap of where we
are and then note the absence of a quorum as we sort through our
amendments.
This is the second day of the Senate's consideration of S. 1086, the
child care and development block grant reauthorization on which 1.5
million American children depend, including 20,000 children from the
State of Maryland. We have been working on this bill for over 2 years,
and now it is our second day of moving this legislation.
We have made an impressive amount of progress. Yesterday the Senate
agreed to nine amendments--three by rollcall vote and six by voice
vote. We had a great group of bipartisan amendments. Of the nine
amendments that were adopted, three were sponsored by Republicans, two
were sponsored by Democrats, and four amendments were bipartisan. The
amendments yesterday improved the underlying bill. They streamlined
Federal early learning programs; made sure tribes get the funding they
need; required States to develop childcare disaster plans; and ensures
that CDBG, as it is known, also

[[Page S1603]]

serves an often much-overlooked population--foster care.
We also had a healthy debate on the floor in which women Senators
came down to show their support for this bipartisan bill. Today we hope
to continue our due deliberation of amendments.
Last night we identified approximately 29 to 30 amendments that
remain. It is the hope of the chair and ranking member that sometime
today--around 11:30 a.m., before the lunch--we will move to votes. We
expect to have voice votes, possibly a rollcall vote, and I will give a
further progress report. The timeline for all amendments is closed. We
are now sorting through those amendments to see which we can adopt by
agreement or adopt by a voice vote so we can move ahead.
I also say to my colleagues, there are many who have excellent ideas
about childcare issues, and some are relevant to children but not
necessarily relevant to this bill. As we wrap up the legislation, we
hope to focus only on germane amendments to the bill today, and those
other ideas, as meritorious as they are for consideration, that they
either be withdrawn or find another vehicle for discussion and
consideration.
We thank our colleagues for the quality of the amendments that have
been brought forth. It shows that the Senate--on both sides of the
aisle--has been thinking about children and has actually been listening
to this compelling need around childcare and its availability and
affordability, its safety and helping children get their education. Not
all of the amendments--although they are focused on children--are
relevant to the block grant, which is a voucher program to help low-
income women qualify for childcare.
I will give further updates as the morning progresses and we sort
through this. In the meantime, we invite Senators to come to the floor
and talk about this very important topic facing American families.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by commending my colleagues
Senator Mikulski, Senator Harkin, Senator Alexander, and Senator Burr
for their hard work to reauthorize the child care development block
grant. This is a modest piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
The main point I wish to briefly make this morning is that even if
this modest piece of legislation passes, it will not begin to address
the very serious problems we face in childcare in our country and, even
more importantly, in childhood poverty.
The United States is the wealthiest Nation in the history of the
world. Unfortunately, despite our great wealth, we have the most
unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on
Earth. We have more people today living in poverty than at any time in
the history of our country. Most significantly, and related to the
discussion we are having about childcare today, the United States of
America has, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major
country on Earth. In my opinion, we have a moral responsibility to
address that issue and we should put our energy and our minds to
focusing on how we eliminate childhood poverty in America.
I will be offering an amendment today which is a very simple
amendment. My amendment says the President of the United States should
submit a plan to Congress which substantially reduces childhood poverty
over the next 5 years. That is the amendment--that the President of the
United States submit a plan to Congress which substantially reduces
childhood poverty over the next 5 years. I hope and expect we would
have unanimous support for this amendment.
As the Presiding Officer will recall, not too long ago, during the
Winter Olympics at Sochi, Americans there were shouting out to our
great athletes: ``USA, USA! We are No. 1.'' That was something I think
many of us in America supported. We wanted our athletes in the Winter
Olympics to be No. 1.
While we want to be No. 1 in terms of our athletic prowess, while we
want to be No. 1 in terms of our scientific and intellectual
accomplishments, while we want to be No. 1 in terms of economic growth
and prosperity, we surely do not want to be No. 1 in the world in terms
of childhood poverty. That is where we are today, with almost 22
percent of our kids living in poverty.
The reason, quite obviously, we do not want to be No. 1 in terms of
childhood poverty is not only the moral issue of turning our backs on
millions and millions of our most vulnerable people--kids who are 6
months old, kids who are 2 years old, kids who are 8 years old; human
beings who cannot fend for themselves--it seems to me, as a caring
people, we have the moral responsibility to make sure all of our
children receive the basic necessities of life and not live in poverty.
I think there is a moral obligation to make sure we eliminate
childhood poverty, but there is also an economic reality as well. I
will get to that in a minute. But the first point to be made is that
when we look at childhood poverty in America, which is 21.8 percent, we
should examine what is going on in other countries.
Is it possible to go forward and significantly reduce or eliminate
childhood poverty? The answer is yes. All we have to do is look around
the world. In Denmark, child poverty is 3.7 percent. In Finland, it is
3.9 percent; in Norway, it is 5.1 percent; in Iceland, it is 7.1
percent; in Austria, 8.2 percent; Sweden, 8.2 percent; Germany, 9.1
percent; in South Korea, 9.4 percent; in the United Kingdom, 9.4
percent; France, 11 percent; New Zealand, 13 percent; Poland, 13.6
percent; Canada, 14 percent. But in the United States of America, the
childhood poverty rate is 21.8 percent.
As I mentioned a moment ago, this is clearly a moral issue. A
powerful Nation which, in recent years, has seen huge increases in the
number of millionaires and billionaires, we should not be a society in
which almost one out of four of our kids gets their nutrition from food
stamps. We should not be a society where a significant number of young
people are dropping out of high school, standing out on street corners
and destroying their lives.
This is not just a moral issue; it is an economic issue. My
colleagues, please tell me what kind of economic future we have when we
are competing against countries around the world which are doing a
better job than we are in providing the intellectual and emotional
support their kids need; that are doing a better job than we are in
educating their young people. How do we compete against these countries
in the very competitive international global economy? Do we say to the
young children who are living in poverty: Sorry. We can't afford to
provide the preschool education you need; we can't afford to provide
the childcare your parents need for you, and we are really sorry the
odds are that many of you may drop out of school and that some of you
will end up in jail.
We have more people in jail in the United States of America than in
any other country on Earth. Clearly, one of the reasons for that has to
do with the fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in
the industrialized world. We pay for these things one way or we pay for
them another way. The way we are paying for it is by spending $50,000
or $60,000 a year incarcerating huge numbers of people rather than
making sure our kids get the nourishment--intellectual, emotional,
nutritional--they need in order to do well in life.
It is important for us to look at what happens around the world, to
see what we can learn, and to see what is working well around the
world. It is important for us to learn and to understand that in
countries such as Denmark, Finland, and Norway, where childhood poverty
is very low, childcare is free to all of its workers. Workers in these
countries get paid maternity leave. That means when a mom has a baby,
she has the opportunity to stay home with her baby during the most
important months of a baby's life and not have to worry about going to
work and making a living, because those societies have said the right
thing--that they want kids and mothers to bond and fathers to bond
well, for those kids to do well. In this country, if a person

[[Page S1604]]

is low income and working class and they have a baby, they have to get
to work right away, because if they don't have that income, how do they
take care of their families? Those countries have done the right thing
and it is important to learn from them.
In many countries around the world, workers get allowances from their
governments to take care of their children. Their workers are
guaranteed a 4-week paid vacation. Health care is a right and not a
privilege for their citizens. In France, for example, if both parents
go back to work after having a child, they are entitled to receive
strong childcare benefits. In Germany--hard for us to believe--but if
children get sick, their parents get up to 25 days of paid leave to
stay home and take care of those children. These are just a few of the
many benefits people in other countries--our competitors--receive.
Maybe we can learn something from them.
Unfortunately, workers in our country--in this great Nation--have
none of those benefits. Here is what has happened as a result. More
than one in five children in America lives in households that lack
consistent access to adequate food because their parents don't make
enough money. In other words, the number of millionaires and
billionaires is growing--more and more income in wealth inequality--and
millions and millions of families today who are raising kids are
wondering how they are going to have enough food on the table to
provide basic nutrition to those kids. Should that be happening in the
United States of America?
The number of homeless children living in America has gone up by 73
percent since 2006. In every State in the country, including my State
of Vermont, there are families living with their kids in cars or in
emergency shelters. Is that the way we give kids the opportunity they
need to advance in their lives?
The psychologists tell us over and over that the most important years
of a human being's life in terms of intellectual and emotional growth
are those years between 0 and 4. Yet, in this country today, less than
half of 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in preschool. Ninety-six
percent of infants and toddlers living in low-income families don't
receive the early education they need through the early Head Start
Program. More than 220,000 American children are currently on waiting
lists for childcare assistance. And on and on it goes.
What does this mean in English? This is what it means. It means in
Vermont, in New Jersey, in Maryland--it means in States all over this
country--a mom and dad wake up in the morning with a 3-year-old and
they are worried about the quality and affordability of the childcare
they can find for that kid. So they go to work and they are saying,
what is happening? I have to go to work. I can't stay home with my
child. We need to make money. Yet, I cannot find quality, affordable
childcare for my child. And in this country that is exactly what we
should be providing.
According to a recent study by the Children's Defense Fund, childhood
poverty costs this Nation at least $500 billion each and every year in
extra education, health and criminal justice expenses, and in lost
productivity. In other words, rather than learning what other countries
are doing--investing in our kids, nurturing our kids, making sure our
kids get the great education they deserve--we turn our backs on
millions of kids and then we are shocked--just shocked--that they turn
to drugs or crime or self-destructive activity, and we spend a fortune
incarcerating them. Think about all of the intellectual and emotional
destruction that takes place in this country because we ignore the
needs of our children.
We hear our fellow Senators come to the floor and talk about how the
United States is the greatest country on Earth, and I share that
sentiment. But I do not believe the greatest country on Earth should
have, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the
industrialized world.
The amendment I have offered is a very simple amendment. I hope it is
accepted. I hope it will be supported unanimously. I hope it will allow
us to go forward.

What the amendment says, again, is very simple. It says the President
of the United States should submit a plan to the Congress which allows
us to substantially reduce childhood poverty in the next 5 years. That
is it.
With that, I yield the floor and hope very much this amendment is
adopted. Thank you.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are in the process of sorting out the
amendments that are pending, again, to see what we could accept by UC,
what we could accept by voice vote, and those that might require a
rollcall vote. The chairman and the ranking member of the committee,
Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander, are discussing this, and we are
looking forward to some type of votes on or about 11:30 a.m.
But I see there are a lot of amendments out here about streamlining
this and duplicating this and others--very thoughtful--but I wish to
clarify exactly what is the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Program. This is a program that meets a particular need to help people
have access to childcare, and we are strengthening the quality
requirements. It does not solve all of the childcare problems in the
United States of America.
The overall need of childcare for both poor women and middle-class
women or families is well known. It is one of the agonizing choices
families need to make.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant Program--and this is why
we are looking at a variety of other issues. We have on the books the
childcare tax credit bill, where many of us hope to expand the
deduction. Senator Gillibrand has others. But today we are focusing on
the child care and development block grant. It is the primary Federal
grant program to provide childcare assistance for working families.
It was passed originally in 1990, under George Herbert Walker Bush.
Before 1996, there were four childcare programs for low-income
families. All of them had different eligibility criteria and work
requirements--exactly what we have talked about here, the need to
streamline. Three were targeted to families in or at risk of being in
the welfare system. One was targeted to low-income families outside of
welfare.
But in 1996 under welfare reform, on a bipartisan basis, we created
one unified program to serve low-income families with one set of
eligibility criteria and work requirements. It was then streamlined.
The overarching purpose of the childcare bill in welfare reform was to
give parents aid, substantial assistance, so they could go from welfare
to work or get the training to go to work.
It has been a very successful program--a very successful program. One
and one-half million children in America benefit from it; 20,000 in
Maryland alone--a substantial waiting list if we had more vouchers.
What we are doing in this bill is reauthorizing, following the spirit
of 1996, streamlining and taking now what we know--new knowledge and
best practices of how to help children in childcare be able to be safe,
have a sense of security and stability, and then also enhance their
ability to learn. We know now--all the research shows--from infancy to
age 5 is one of the greatest growth spurts for brain development in a
person's life. Vocabulary development and so many other things occur.
So what our bill does is help improve that, but we do not so
overmandate to the States that we do not allow for local flexibility.
So we are trying to streamline the bill, have a better emphasis on
quality, without stringent new Federal mandates, and at the same time
streamline this legislative process by moving through our amendment
process.
I now look forward to conferring with my colleague. Members should
stay tuned. If they would like to speak on this or the matter of
childcare, we welcome them. We have had an open amendment process. We
have had an open dialogue. We have had an open floor. I think this has
been very constructive.

[[Page S1605]]

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. BURR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for
withholding on that quorum call.
We have made tremendous progress. Our joint staffs worked well into
the night with Members who have amendments to this bill that they think
improve the bill. We have worked aggressively to try to work out as
many of those as we possibly can, and I am here to report to our
colleagues we have made tremendous progress. We have processed, since
we started yesterday, a number of amendments and this bill has become
better. We still have several on both sides that we are still working
on with our Members to try to accommodate their intent with language
that is acceptable and continues to improve this bill, and we will do
that.
Let me say to our colleagues who still might have amendments, if you
have them, we need you to come to the floor. We need you to offer those
amendments. If you have amendments that have yet to be cleared, I would
urge you to come to the floor and work with Senator Mikulski and myself
and our staffs to figure out how we can process those in a timely
fashion.
It is our intent that in approximately 1 hour, with agreement from
our leaders, we would move to votes--both recorded and voice votes--on
all amendments that remain on this bill in the hopes that Members could
then leave to go to their caucus lunches, and after returning from
those lunches, hopefully, we would be in a position to have final
passage on this legislation; again, that is with the chairman's, the
ranking member's, and the leaders' blessings, but that is certainly the
intent of Senator Mikulski and myself.
We can only do that if, in fact, those Members who want to offer
amendments offer them and those who still have some to be worked out
come and try to work out those differences.
I urge my colleagues now, we have over an hour before we intend to
move to a period where we might process the remainder of the
amendments. We would like to be in a situation where we can give
certainty--at least as it relates to the disposition of this bill--to
our Members that we would finish shortly after the lunch. I encourage
all of our colleagues, if they have interest in this bill, come to the
floor. Work with us.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to give an update. We had originally thought we
would be voting around 11:30. We are going to delay that until on or
about 12:15--nothing fixed, nothing mandatory. People have said: Well,
what are you all doing? Look at the Senate floor. Where is the action?
This is a compelling issue.
Actually, there is a lot of action going on in the sense that we are
reviewing over 20 amendments that are still outstanding to see what
could be accepted by unanimous consent, what could be accepted by a
voice vote, and what requires a mandatory rollcall vote. So there is a
lot of discussion going on, and Senators and their staffs are talking.
It is not to be debated; it is to be discussed right now. I think it
is so healthy. This is one of the first times in a couple of years
where we have had an open amendment process. In some ways we are
getting adjusted to how that actually works. This is terrific. So just
because you do not see Senators in intense debate, there are intense
conversations about how we help children, how to not create new
bureaucracies, how we have the sense that all this is child focused and
yet not creating lots of new mandates or whatever.
So this has been really very good. I compliment Senator Harkin, who
is the chair of the full HELP Committee. It is under his leadership
that Senator Burr and I held some hearings. His advocacy for children
is so well known. If we can move this bill today, we will have
accomplished two major goals. We would have reauthorized the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Program, made improvements and new reforms,
and refreshed the program.
At the same time I think we have improved the process in the Senate
to show we can govern by moving bills, by offering amendments, by
discussion and by debate. But we could not have done it had Senator
Harkin not been willing to establish such a great tone with Senator
Enzi and Senator Alexander while Senator Burr and I did this.
This is the way the Senate ought to be. There were differences. But
differences do not mean that you have to be filled with rancor and
ranting all the time. At the end of day, when all is said and done,
people want us to get more done and less said.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a lot of work has gone into this bill. The
person who led that whole work for a 2-year period of time was Senator
Mikulski. I happen to be chair of the committee. But it was Senator
Mikulski and Senator Burr, working together, who really have brought
this to fruition. It is a good bill.
Senator Alexander always says that our committee probably has the
biggest divergence ideologically of any committee in the Senate. Yet we
have reported out, I think, 19 bills out of our committee, 10 of which
have been signed into law during this Congress. We are able to do that
because people work together. We work things out.
That is what has happened with this bill. There are a lot of
crosscurrents on this bill. There are a lot of items that Senator
Mikulski would like to have had in the bill, that I would have liked to
have had in the bill, and I am sure I can say the same thing for the
Republican side.
But over a 2-year period of time--I know it has been at least that--
Senator Mikulski has worked on this. We made our agreements, and we
worked it out to the point where the bill passed our committee
unanimously. We have, as I said, a wide divergence of ideological views
on our committee. So, here is a bill that passed unanimously. We will
have an open process here of debate, deliberation, and amending.
I think at this time we have a pretty defined universe of the
amendments, unless something else pops up that I did not know about.
We are working on those. The staffs are working on those now with the
Senators. With any legislation that comes through, let's face it, as
Senators we probably would like to change something here or there. I
understand that. I have been in the Senate a long time, and I know I
have wanted to add an amendment to something to change it, to do
something different, maybe, that I cared about.
But in the interests of the broader perspective of the legislation at
hand, I didn't offer it. I would wait until some other point in time to
offer it or perhaps to offer a different pathway. That is what I am
asking Senators on both sides of the aisle to think about.
We have a great bill. It is sorely needed. It updates a law that
hasn't been changed. I know Senator Mikulski has told us many times,
and it bears repeating. We have not addressed this since 1996, and a
lot has changed since 1996 in terms of childcare.
This bill updates, modernizes, and does some things that will move us
ahead and better this country in terms of the child care and
development block grant program.
I know that different people have different ideas, saying: Well, I
would like to change this or modify that. I get it; I understand that.
But if there is a problem in terms of bringing an amendment up that
might jeopardize the bill, I ask Senators to consider whether their
interests, whatever it might be, and I am not saying it is not
legitimate, but if it upsets the

[[Page S1606]]

balance we have worked out in this committee with this broad,
ideological spectrum, I ask them to reconsider whether they would want
to jeopardize this bill, which we are so close to passing. I think we
could actually pass this bill this afternoon.
I ask Senators, if they have those kinds of amendments, to reconsider
maybe the broader implications of this legislation and whether they
would want to jeopardize it for their legitimate interests, as I said.
I don't deny any Senator the right to offer an amendment and to push an
interest that he or she might have. Some of them I might agree with.
But if it really jeopardizes the bill, then I would have to say, no, I
wouldn't support it because of the broader interests of getting the
bill passed.
Senator Mikulski and her staff, Senator Alexander, Senator Burr, and
my staff, we are working together on this. I still hope we can bring
this bill to fruition sometime early this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I come to the floor today to thank the bipartisan
leadership that has brought us to the place where we are considering
reauthorizing this important child care and development block grant
bill.
In my home State of Washington there is a young woman named Janelle
who is a single mom. She lives in southeast Seattle and was looking for
opportunities to support her family. But before she could go back to
school or participate in a job-training program so she could advance
her career, she had to find affordable childcare for two of her
children.
Thankfully, with the assistance of this Child Care and Development
Block Grant Program, she was able to get some subsidies to help cover
the costs. She now works. She works part-time, and she is attending
school and becoming a surgical tech.
This Federal grant program expands opportunities to parents such as
Janelle and so many families across our country by helping them with
the cost of childcare. That is why I support this effort to reauthorize
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program.
We all know the cost of childcare has soared in recent decades. The
Census Bureau found that childcare costs have nearly doubled since the
1980s, and that high cost hits low-income families especially hard. For
working families who live below the poverty line, the cost of childcare
can eat up more than 30 percent of their monthly income. For single
parents, if they only have one income, it is an even bigger burden.
When low-income parents don't have access to reliable and affordable
childcare, they can't work. They can't go back to school. They can't
advance their skills with job training. They are stuck.
That, as we know, is particularly problematic for women. Women are
more likely than men to cut back their hours at work or quit their jobs
all together so they can take care of their children.
In the long run, that puts women on an uneven playing field with
their male counterparts, both in terms of earnings and of opportunities
to advance in the workplace.
We have to break down those barriers. We need to make sure that
working doesn't become cost prohibitive for parents, and we have to
strengthen access for low-income families so they can get affordable,
quality childcare.
This bipartisan Child Care and Development Block Grant Act is part of
the solution. These grants expand opportunities for parents with low
income. It allows them to work, to go to school or to get job
training--all with the peace of mind that their kids are taken care of
in a safe childcare center.
In 1990 President George H. W. Bush signed this grant program, as we
know it, into law. Today it helps 1.6 million kids get childcare.
To participate a parent has to have a job or be enrolled in school or
in a job training program. That has helped countless parents across our
country.
I want to mention a woman who has contacted us. She is a single mom
whose name is Star. She lives in Skagit County, a rural part of my
State. She wants to advance her skills to support her family, as so
many people do today.
With this assistance she is able to go to a community college 1 hour
away from home, knowing that her kids are OK in a reliable childcare
program. There is nothing more important to a parent than the safety
and well-being of their child. I have said many times: You do a better
job at work if you know your kids are safe. If you are worried about
whether your kids are OK, you can't do a good job at work.
Reauthorizing this program is a critical part of this, and it helps
parents such as Star feel comfortable when they are away from their
kids.
In this reauthorization bill we are looking at ways to improve these
grants. We know that stability is critically important for a young
child's development. But before kids could lose their spot in
childcare, if their parents didn't meet the eligibility requirements,
even temporarily, that disruption in care is exactly what we need to
work to avoid.
I have seen this a lot in my work on behalf of foster kids, military
students, and homeless children. These are highly mobile populations.
Now with this legislation and the work that has been done, we have
ensured that these kids have a mandatory 12 months to access that care
so they don't have that disruption of stability in their lives. That is
critically important.
This bill also reduces barriers for homeless families to access
childcare and will train more childcare providers in identifying and
serving homeless kids and families so they can get the support they
need. I truly appreciate the inclusion of those provisions.
For many families it can be very difficult, as we know, to find
quality childcare. This legislation authorizes a toll-free hotline and
a Web site so parents can get and find good-quality care in their own
community. Those provisions are why I am such a strong supporter and so
delighted we are at the point where we are able to pass this critical
piece of legislation.
Let me end by saying in Washington State there is a young couple
named Edward and Constance. They are struggling to make ends meet on a
very low income. They are working, and they are studying to ensure that
times won't always be as tough as they are today. Because of childcare
assistance with this grant money, Edward now works full time. When
Constance is not working at her part-time job, she is training to
become a dental assistant. Supporting parents such as this couple,
giving them these opportunities to make sure their kids are in a safe,
quality childcare program is what the grants are about in this program.
I urge our colleagues to support this legislation, and again, I thank
the Senators who have participated in making this a strong bipartisan
proposal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Washington for her comments
and her leadership in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, as well. She has been a consistent spokesman for children,
especially for homeless children.
I want to make an observation about the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Program that the Presiding Officer from New Jersey will
especially find of interest because of his work with children and
schools in New Jersey. We have heard this morning a great deal of
support for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, which is a
very remarkable piece of legislation in terms of the way it is
structured, if we think about it.
It has been around for about 20 years, but it takes 5 to 6 billion
Federal dollars each year and gives it to States--a block grant with a
lot of flexibility. Then the money is distributed as vouchers to
individual parents--low-income women, mostly--who then choose among
thousands of certified childcare centers. That, I would argue, while it
was done 20 years ago, fits the Internet age.
Newt Gingrich--and I have sometimes accused Newt of being Vesuvian in
his qualities because he has such a steady flow of new ideas--has done
some very interesting work recently. He quotes a computer programmer
named Tim O'Reilly who made a suggestion for how the Internet could
transform government. Mr. O'Reilly said:

The best way for government to operate is to figure out
what kinds of things are

[[Page S1607]]

enablers of society and make investments in those things. The
same way that Apple figured out, ``If we turn the iPhone into
a platform, outside developers will bring hundreds of
thousands of applications to the table.''

In a way, the developers of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Program in the early 1990s, under the first President Bush, were
ahead of their time because, rather than having a big burdensome
program run from Washington with lots of rules made here, we have a
piece of legislation that survived for more than two decades and that
helps 1.5 million children this year.
It enables people such as the mother in Memphis I talked about on the
floor yesterday who became eligible for a childcare voucher in
Tennessee. She was at LeMoyne-Owen College studying for her business
degree and was able to place her infant in a childcare center of her
choice. The State gave her $500 to $600 a month for a voucher--infant
care is more expensive. She earned her degree and is now an assistant
manager at Walmart. She now has a second child in the same childcare
center--but she can afford to pay for it herself.
That is a perfect example of enabling her, using taxpayer money, to
move up the economic ladder, to reach the American dream and succeed.
Rather than making her do it or mandating her to do it, we enabled her
to do it.
We also do this--and we have done it very successfully since World
War II--with college grants and loans, which also have virtually
unanimous support in the Senate on both sides of the aisle.
Beginning with the GI bill for veterans in 1944, we have given
vouchers to veterans, and those vouchers follow them to any educational
institution of their choice. At the beginning, many of them went to
high schools. Some of them went to colleges overseas.
That was the beginning of our current system of Federal Government
support for grants and loans, and now half of our college students have
a Federal grant or a loan to help pay for college. All of those grants
and loans follow them to the institution of their choice. That is a lot
of money. It is over $100 billion in loans--new loans--every year. It
is $33 billion in Pell grants each year.
We followed Tim O'Reilly's suggestion there as well. We haven't set
up a lot of complicated Washington programs and managers. We have
simply said this. If you are eligible and go to an accredited
institution--whether it is public, private, for-profit, nonprofit,
Yeshiva, Notre Dame or Rutgers--the money will follow you to the
college of your choice. That is what we have done since World War II
with college students--and since the era of George Walker Bush, with
children--we have given them tickets to the institutions of their
choice.
But what have we done in the middle? We have vouchers for college
students and vouchers for very young children, but what about students
who go to elementary school? And what about students who go to high
school? Especially, what about students who are low-income students who
are trapped in failing schools? Our childcare vouchers are for low-
income parents, mainly women. Our vouchers for college students are for
low-income students. We call those Pell grants. But we give our K-12
money to the schools instead of allowing it to follow students to the
schools of their choice.

I have always wondered, if we have had such success with the GI bill
and the Pell grant and the student loan and the childcare voucher, why
don't we try it with kindergarten through the 12th grade? Many
enterprising mayors and Governors have tried that, usually facing a lot
of resistance from people who see something un-American about vouchers.
It is not very un-American if it is the GI bill, not very un-American
if it is a Pell grant, not very un-American if it is a childcare
voucher, but something somehow is wrong with it if you are in third
grade or the seventh grade or the ninth grade.
So I have introduced something called Scholarships for Kids, which is
almost like the child care development block grant for students who are
in elementary and secondary schools. It would take 80 Federal education
programs that spend about $24 billion a year and say to New Jersey or
Tennessee or Iowa: You can take all that money, whatever your share of
that is, and create a $2,100 scholarship for every single child in your
State below the Federal poverty level, and it can follow that child to
whatever school in your State the child attends.
If you live in a city or a State where you want the child to be able
to go to any accredited institution, public or private, the way we do
with Pell grants, you may do that. If you believe that Federal dollars
for elementary and secondary schools should only go to public schools,
you may do that. You may design the program however you want to do it
in your State. But the idea would be that we would enable low-income
children, the ones who are below the Federal poverty level--and there
are 11 million of those in our country--we would allow you to pin
$2,100 to their shirt to follow that child to school. I think we know
what would happen if we were to do that. Those children may need to be
in school longer each day. They may need a meal. They may need to be
there during vacation time. They may need to be there in the summer.
And if the teacher has the extra money and the freedom to use it, that
gives that school more autonomy and that helps that child succeed.
Does every school succeed at the same rate? No. Not every college
succeeds at the same rate. Not every childcare center succeeds at the
same rate. But if we have 70 years of experience with colleges of
creating autonomy and choice and letting the money follow the students
to the school--and people all around the world tell us we have the best
system of colleges in the world--why don't we try it with our schools?
I see the Senator from Oklahoma, and I will wind down so he can wind
up. I thank him for his contribution to the debate.
While we are in the middle of so much testimony about what a great
thing the child care development block grant is--vouchers to little
children who are poor--and while we all believe Pell grants are a great
idea--vouchers to college students who are low income--should we not
think about doing exactly the same thing with elementary and secondary
school students as a way to help them succeed? And not as a Federal
mandate but simply giving Governors and State legislators and educators
the opportunity to say: Give us that share of our $24 billion. Give
every one of our children who is below the Federal poverty level $2,100
each and let us decide how it follows them to the school they attend.
So I wanted to make that observation. And I am delighted to know the
Senator from New Jersey is presiding today because of the work he has
done in his State in that area.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma wish to speak?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Oh, I am sorry, I thought the Senator from Oklahoma was
involved in a conversation with the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. COBURN. I was, but I would like to speak, if I might.
Ms. MIKULSKI. No way we want to inhibit the Senator's ability to
speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I was going to call up amendment No. 2829,
but I have chosen not to do that because of the plan of the manager of
the bill to table it. So I will talk about what it is and make a few
observations.
Four years ago we got the GAO to start a process on duplication, to
look at what we are doing in a multitude of areas across the whole
Federal Government. That will be finished, and for the first time it
will have taken a complete look. We will see it at the end of this
month, the first part of the fourth report.
One of their findings was, according to early learning and childcare
programs, within 8 different departments there are 45 separate
programs--8 different departments within the administration, 45
separate programs, spending $16 billion a year. So the amendment I was
going to offer would have forced us to do the metrics to look at what
our outcomes are. It would have forced us to consolidate programs,
other than major programs such as this one we are debating today, which
has been markedly improved and enhanced.

[[Page S1608]]

Now, I don't want to put the Senate through a timely vote when I know
what the outcome is going to be, so I won't call up that amendment. But
I would remind my colleagues that the only way we are really ever going
to get control of our budget is to do the hard work of eliminating
duplication, so that when we have a program, such as the one the
manager of the bill has on the floor today, it is really directed, it
is focused, it has metrics, and we know what we are getting for what we
are spending.
Most people don't realize we have 45 of these programs in 8 different
departments spending $16 billion a year.
So I hope we will consider that this is a great movement on this one
particular bill, and I congratulate the people who worked on it--
Senator Harkin and his staff, Senators Burr and Alexander and their
staff--because I think they have done a good job. But it is not enough
because we are still going to have 44 other programs and we are still
going to have programs that don't have a metric on them. We are
spending money on them, and we don't know if they are accomplishing
what we want them to accomplish.
The whole purpose of the amendment was to force us to do that. I
understand that is not going to move, and I am fine with that. I will
work in every other way behind the scenes to try to accomplish the same
purpose.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield for a question.
Mr. HARKIN. First of all, I just want to say--and I mentioned it on
the floor the other day--that I spent this weekend in Iowa at two early
learning centers, and what became clear to me was the number of
different conduits of funding and the different programs,
qualifications, requirements, and paperwork.
I said at the time: I am confused.
The man at the center said: If you think you are confused, how do you
think we feel about it?
That is why I was very supportive of the amendment offered by Senator
Enzi. The Enzi amendment was a mandate on HHS, I believe, to take a
look at all of these things and have a report back within a certain
amount of time--I think it was 1 year--on how we can better coordinate
these.
I agree with the Senator. There are way too many conduits into
childcare, and it is horribly confusing, and there are all these
different requirements that overlap, and this just causes confusion.
I wanted to ask the Senator if he had looked at the Enzi amendment,
which gives us some time, and I can assure the Senator that our
committee--and I am sure I can speak for Senator Burr on this on the
Republican side--will be riding herd on this because I think we all
agree with the Senator from Oklahoma that it has to be fixed.
Mr. COBURN. To answer the Senator's question, I supported the Enzi
amendment. I don't think it went far enough because you are not going
to look at some of the programs that are outside the purview of the
Senator's committee. We have eight different Federal departments
running these programs. They come from eight different sets of
authorizations.
So the point is that I am going to work behind the scenes with
Senator Burr and with Senator Harkin to try to accomplish this.

Amendment No. 2830

Now I would like to call up amendment No. 2830 and ask unanimous
consent to set aside the pending amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield to me before he offers his
amendment?
Mr. COBURN. Yes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, actually, I want to comment on how I want to work
together with the Senator. Go ahead and offer the amendment, and then I
would like to comment and not engage in klutzy conversation by asking
questions. I think we are on the same broadband.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Hearing no objection, the clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposed an
amendment numbered 2830.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered
as read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. The desk has a modification of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Hearing no objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2830), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a $1,000,000 asset limit for eligibility for
child care assistance)

On page 138, line 8, insert ``, and whose family assets do
not exceed $1,000,000 (as certified by a member of such
family)'' after ``size''.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what we are trying to accomplish with this
amendment--and I have cleared it on our side, and I think it is being
cleared on the other side as well--is to make sure the significant
amount of money we spend in this area goes to people who really need
it. So all this amendment does is require a self-certification when an
individual acquires one of these grants that they don't have real
assets greater than $1 million. If they do, maybe they should be
spending their money rather than taxpayers' money on their kids'
childcare.
That is all this amendment does. All we have done is to put in there,
in the application process, a box they have to check that says: I don't
have real assets in excess of $1 million. This will ensure that we know
that at least the vast majority--and by the way, 16 percent of this
money has gone to people who are very wealthy, in terms of these
vouchers. I have that data. I don't have it with me. Actually, I may
have it with me, and I will pull it up and speak about that in a
minute.
But the fact is we want this money to help the people who need help,
not to help people who don't need the help. So that is the purpose of
this amendment. I have agreed, if it becomes acceptable, to have a
voice vote.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves the floor and
we proceed to a voice vote, et cetera, I wish to thank him for his
steadfast advocacy in getting more value out of the taxpayers' dollar
for the taxpayers' contribution to the Federal Treasury. He has been a
well-known advocate for the consolidation and streamlining of existing
programs, and I salute him for that.
Going back to 1996, we actually started this with streamlining
childcare bills. In 1996, because I was here during the welfare reform
debate and passage, we had four different childcare bills, with four
different eligibility requirements, with four different levels of
bureaucracy. So the money was going into the bureaucracy's determining
eligibility rather than into childcare. In the 1996 welfare reform
bill, we consolidated so that we have the child care and development
block grant. That is how we got to where we are.
The Senator from Oklahoma talks about how he has data that cuts
across eight different Federal agencies. I pledge to him, as the chair
of the Appropriations Committee, to actually sit down and look at this
data, to put our heads together. And really, with money as tight as it
is, the stringent budgets we are under, particularly when it comes to
funding the kinds of compelling human needs that are in health and
human services and education, we want to get more value for the dollar.
We don't want to get more bureaucracy for the dollar.
So I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that we appreciate his
withdrawing his amendment. We know the Senator from Wyoming Mr. Enzi
has offered an amendment to get a report as well. But as we look at our
appropriations for this year, I invite my colleague, with the greatest
sincerity--and I pledge to him my word as a Senator--to sit down and
review these documents and see how we can put this suggestion he has
into action. I look forward to it, and, quite frankly, I am eager to
see what we can get done.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to join in. One, as the Senator
from Maryland said, I recognize he has been out front in trying to get
value for the taxpayers' dollar; and, second, he is working in a
cooperative way to help us get a result. Those are two

[[Page S1609]]

great characteristics in a body of 100 people which operates by
unanimous consent. So I am grateful for that.
On the first point, I completely agree with him on the early
childhood money. We have about $18 billion from various streams of
Federal dollars aimed at children below 5 or 6; then we have State
dollars; then we have local dollars; then we have private dollars. We
have grappled with ways to try to make sure we spend that money more
effectively. One way is to emphasize centers of excellence, like
Oklahoma City, Nashville, or Jersey City, where they try to put all
that money together.
But I am committed to work with Senator Harkin and Senator Mikulski
to take the research which Senator Coburn has done and see if we can
consolidate, streamline, and get more value for early childhood.
Second, he has called attention to a problem which I would appreciate
his help in solving with his ``Millionaires' Amendment,'' which I think
we will be voting on in a little while. Let me give an example, if I
may.
The application form students fill out for Federal grants and loans
to attend college is ridiculous. If I had it in my hand and held it up
here, it would go from up here all the way to the floor. It is 100
questions. We had testimony in our committee that if we just answered
two questions, in 95 percent of the cases it would be accurate. One:
What was your family income 2 years ago? And, two: How many people are
in your family? But the other 5 percent is the problem, because there
could be abuse of the kind the Senator is talking about here.
What I would like to do--and I think others here would like to do--is
to simplify the application form for Federal grants and loans, but do
it in such a way we make sure the money goes where it is supposed to
go. When there are 100 complicated questions to fill out, it
discourages a lot of low-income people from going to college who we
hope would, and it wastes time and money of administrators and
families. Many of these families are not families with college degrees
and accountants to help them fill out these long forms.
So we need the Senator from Oklahoma's help when we get to that
discussion, sometime, of: How do we simplify the form of application
for Federal grants and loans? And, with the 5 percent which remains,
how do we narrow that down to 4, 3, 2, 1, to make sure almost all the
money we are appropriating goes where it is supposed to go?
I salute him for both amendments. I look forward to supporting his
amendment on the child care block grants, and hope it is a first step
for dealing with the misapplication of Federal dollars aimed to help
people move up the economic ladder.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, if I could have the attention of Senator
Alexander and Senator Burr. I am about to propose a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15
p.m. today, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following
amendments in the order listed: Coburn No. 2830, as modified; Portman
No. 2827; Tester No. 2834; Thune No. 2838; Warren No. 2842; Bennet No.
2839, as modified; further, that no second-degree amendments be in
order to any of these amendments prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. For the information of all Senators, it is our
understanding we will need one roll call vote in this sequence and the
remaining amendments can be disposed of by voice vote.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendments be set aside and the following amendments be made pending:
Portman No. 2827; Tester No. 2834; Thune No. 2838; Warren No. 2842; and
Bennet No. 2839, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I realize the Senator is trying to move through this
very important bill on the floor, which I fully support and thank him
for the amendment.
Does the Senator know what the action of the Senate will be once this
bill is completed? And is the intention to do final passage of this
bill today?
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend I am hopeful we will have final
passage today. We are working through it. We are down to just a couple
of amendments. I haven't seen any others pop up right now. So I am
hopeful we will have this series of votes, people will go to lunch, we
will come back, and hopefully we will dispose of maybe a couple more
amendments and then we will have final passage.
Ms. LANDRIEU. So final passage could potentially be--is it the
Senator's understanding through the Chair--about 3 or so?
Mr. HARKIN. If we don't have any kind of extended debate on the
floor, I would say probably at least by 3, I would hope we would be
finished. If we work out agreement on a couple amendments, we might be
done before that.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Without objection, the clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes amendments
numbered 2827, 2834, 2838, 2842, and 2839, as modified.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2827

(Purpose: To provide for evidence-based training that promotes early
language and literacy development)

On page 78, line 9, insert ``and early language and
literacy development'' after ``readiness''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2834

(Purpose: To permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive
the prohibition on the use of amounts by Indian tribes and tribal
organizations for construction or renovation of facilities for child
care programs if the use will result in an increase of the level of
child care services)

On page 136, strike line 16 and all that follows through
page 137, line 7, and insert the following:
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Licensing and standards.--In lieu of any licensing
and regulatory requirements applicable under State or local
law, the Secretary, in consultation with Indian tribes and
tribal organizations, shall develop minimum child care
standards that shall be applicable to Indian tribes and
tribal organizations receiving assistance under this
subchapter. Such standards shall appropriately reflect Indian
tribe and tribal organization needs and available resources,
and shall include standards requiring a publicly available
application, health and safety standards, and standards
requiring a reservation of funds for activities to improve
the quality of child care provided to Indian children.''; and
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following:
``(C) Limitation.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
Secretary may not permit an Indian tribe or tribal
organization to use amounts provided under this subsection
for construction or renovation if the use will result in a
decrease in the level of child care services provided by the
Indian tribe or tribal organization as compared to the level
of child care services provided by the Indian tribe or tribal
organization in the fiscal year preceding the year for which
the determination under subparagraph (B) is being made.
``(ii) Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive the limitation
described in clause (i) if--

``(I) the Secretary determines that the decrease in the
level of child care services provided by the Indian tribe or
tribal organization is temporary; and
``(II) the Indian tribe or tribal organization submits to
the Secretary a plan that demonstrates that after the date on
which the construction or renovation is completed--

``(aa) the level of child care services will increase; or
``(bb) the quality of child care services will improve.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2838

(Purpose: To specify that child care certificates may be included in
State strategies to increase the supply of child care)

On page 88, line 5, insert ``offering child care
certificates to parents,'' after ``tions,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2842

(Purpose: To allow funds reserved under section 658G(a) of the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to be used to connect
child care staff members with Federal and State financial aid, or other
resources, in order to assist the staff members in pursuing relevant
training)

On page 111, strike line 17 and insert the following:

[[Page S1610]]

early neurological development of children; and
``(L) connecting child care staff members of child care
providers with available Federal and State financial aid, or
other resources, that would assist child care staff members
in pursuing relevant postsecondary training.

AMENDMENT NO. 2839, as modified

(Purpose: To expand the requirement that space allotted to child care
providers in Federal buildings will be used to provide child care
services to children of whom at least 50 percent have 1 parent or
guardian employed by the Federal Government)

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. __. ALLOTMENT OF SPACE IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS FOR CHILD
CARE.

Section 590 of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (g) as
subsections (b) through (h), respectively;
(2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(a) Definition of Federal Employee.--In this section, the
term `Federal employee' does not include a person that--
``(1) is not employed by the Federal Government; and
``(2) meets the requirements described in subsection
(c)(2)(C)(i)(II).'';
(3) in paragraph (2)(C) of subsection (c) (as so
redesignated), by striking clause (i) and inserting the
following:
``(i) the space will be used to provide child care services
to children of whom at least 50 percent have 1 parent or
guardian who--

``(I) is employed by the Federal Government; or
``(II)(aa) has met the requirements for a master's degree
or a doctorate degree from an institution of higher education
(as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)); and
``(bb) is conducting research in the Federal building under
an arrangement between the parent or guardian and a Federal
agency.''; and

(4) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated), by striking
``subsection (b)'' each place it appears and inserting
``subsection (c)''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Session

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following
disposition of the Bennet amendment, the Senate proceed to executive
session to consider the following nominations, en bloc: Calendar Nos.
634, 625, and 550; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening
action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that
any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume
legislative session; further, that there be 2 minutes for debate,
equally divided in the usual form prior to each vote, and that the
votes be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I am told we expect the amendments we are bringing up to
be voice-voted this afternoon.

Vote on Amendment No. 2830

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now
on agreeing to amendment No. 2830, as modified, offered by the Senator
from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The amendment (No. 2830), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 2827

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Portman amendment No. 2827.
The amendment (No. 2827) was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 2834

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Tester amendment No. 2834.
The amendment (No. 2834) was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 2838

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Thune amendment No. 2838.
The amendment (No. 2838) was agreed to.

Vote On Amendment No. 2842

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Warren amendment No. 2842.
The amendment (No. 2842) was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment 2839, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 2839, as modified, offered by the Senator
from Colorado Mr. Bennet.
The amendment (No. 2839), as modified, was agreed to.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider and then move to
lay those motions on the table, for all the voice votes we just
considered.
The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.

____________________