STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - January 28, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S114-S179]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1576. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive
application of California State regulations regarding reformulated
gasoline in certain areas within the State; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
THE MTBE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF 1998
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which will amend the Clean Air Act to allow California to operate its
own reformulated gasoline program, which is stricter than the federal
program and meets the air quality requirements set forth in the 1990
Clean Air Act.
What the bill does
The bill provides that if a state's reformulated gasoline rules
achieve equal or greater emissions reductions than federal regulation,
that state's rules will take precedence. This works to exempt
California from overlapping federal oxygenate requirements.
The bill is the Senate version of legislation introduced last year in
the House by Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego) and cosponsored by
46 members of the California Congressional delegation.
The bill applies only to states which have received waivers under
Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, for which California is the
only state currently eligible for such a waiver.
By exempting California from the oxygenate requirement, this
legislation will give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to reduce
or even eliminate the use of gasoline oxygenates, such as methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)--which has been detected in alarming
amounts in California groundwater.
The legislation allows the companies who serve California's gasoline
needs to continue to adopt better methods of producing California
Cleaner Burning gasoline, without being restricted by oxygenate
requirements.
california air quality history
California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal
efforts, and have achieved marked success in reducing toxic emission
levels, resulting in the cleanest air Californians have seen in
decades. This trend will continue with the passage of this bill.
Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline
program, there has been a 300 ton per day decrease in ozone forming
ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent
of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated
gasoline reduces smog forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent.
The state has also has seen a marked decrease in first stage smog
alerts, during which residents with respiratory ailments are encouraged
to stay indoors.
California Environmental Protection Agency Chairman John Dunlop, who
supports this legislation, says:
. . . our program has proven (to have) a significant effect
on California's air quality. Following the introduction of
California's gasoline program in the spring of 1996, monitor
levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10 percent in Northern
California, and by 18 percent in the Los Angeles area.
Benzene levels (have decreased) by more than 50 percent.
Although California has made great progress in decreasing the amount
of toxins in the air, the overlap of federal regulations, on top of the
strict state regulations, does not allow the state much flexibility in
the design and implementation of its reformulated fuels program.
This inflexibility makes it difficult for gasoline producers to
respond effectively to unforeseen problems associated with their
product. Such is the case with the oxygenate MTBE leaking into
California groundwater.
Refiners are bound by federal law to include an oxygenate in their
gasoline, even if they can make gasoline which meets Clean Air Act
emissions requirements without its use.
Thus, the need for the legislation is twofold--to streamline
overlapping federal and state regulations, and to allow gasoline
manufacturers the flexibility to make California Cleaner Burning
Gasoline without oxygenated fuels.
Federal reformulated gasoline requirement history
Federal reformulated gasoline, and the oxygenate requirement included
in it, came as a response to the worsening air quality of many American
cities.
For many years major cities, including San Diego, Sacramento and Los
Angeles, were facing serious pollution problems due to increasing
amounts of smog and ozone in the air.
As the air quality worsened, people around the country began
experiencing more frequent respiratory illnesses, and increased asthma
attacks due to the toxins in the air.
In 1990, Congress recognized the gravity of this national problem and
amended the Clean Air Act to ensure that our nation's most smoggy and
polluted areas were the beneficiaries of tougher motor vehicle emission
control standards.
One of these amendments directed the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a federal reformulated gasoline
program for urban areas with the most serious pollution problems.
The federal reformulated gasoline program mandated that this new
cleaner burning gasoline reduce emissions of benzene, a known human
carcinogen, and other toxins.
The federal program also mandated that this reformulated gasoline
contain 2 percent by weight oxygenate, which functions to make the gas
burn more completely and efficiently.
california reformulated gasoline
By December 1994, the oxygenate requirement went into effect. In
California, this mandate affected three cities in particular, where the
air quality was the worst.
Reformulated gasoline was required to be sold during the winter
season in the greater Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento regions.
This gasoline contained 11 percent MTBE, in order to meet the federal
oxygenate requirement.
While federal Clean Air Act regulations were being promulgated, the
California Air Resources Board developed even tougher and more
stringent environmental standards. However, these standards permitted
more flexibility in how they could be achieved by California's gasoline
manufacturers.
By establishing a State Implementation Plan which restricts eight
different properties that affect emissions of toxic air pollutants and
ozone forming compounds, California's stricter regulations were
approved by the U.S. EPA and are federally enforceable.
Additionally, California regulations contain an innovative predictive
model which is based on the analysis of a large number of vehicle
emission test studies. Refiners have the option of using this model to
produce reformulated gasoline as long as its usage results in
equivalent or greater reductions in emissions than federal regulations.
California EPA states that the predictive model ``shows that a
different formulation will achieve equivalent or better air quality
benefits.''
While the amendments to the Clean Air Act have helped reduce
emissions throughout the United States, they imposed limitations on the
level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to California.
The overlapping applicability of both the federal and state
reformulated gasoline rules has actually prohibited gasoline
manufacturers from responding as effectively as possible to unforeseen
problems with their product. This bill addresses exactly this type of
situation.
This legislation rewards California for its unique and effective
approach in solving its own air quality problems by permitting it an
exemption from federal oxygenate requirements as long as tough
environmental standards are enforced.
[[Page
S115]]
mtbe contamination of california groundwater
This legislation will allow refiners to address the problems that
have occurred with the use of MTBE as it has leaked into groundwater
supplies.
Such problems were certainly not anticipated during the drafting of
these amendments, and therefore only exemplifies the need for a
California exemption to this requirement.
MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through
soil and gravel, therefore posing a more rapid threat to aquifers than
the other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily
traced, but very difficult and expensive to clean up.
Higher quantities of MTBE in drinking water has a smell similar to
turpentine and a taste like paint thinner.
Although we do not have all of the data we need to determine the
potential damage of MTBE to our water and our health, we do know that
it is increasingly a problem for California:
MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of
cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles and San
Francisco;
MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs
including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in
the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara;
The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which
lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of
shallow gas tanks beneath the surface;
MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100
feet from City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe;
In Glennvile, California, Near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been
detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion--
dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of
35 parts per billion; and
250 underground fuel tank sites have leaked MTBE in Santa Clara
County not far from water wells used by the residents of San Jose.
In the face of mounting evidence of extensive MTBE contamination in
California groundwater, several gasoline manufacturers, including
Chevron and Tosco (Union 76), have made it clear they would like to
have the flexibility to use only the amount and type of oxygenate
necessary to continue to meet the environmental specifications of clean
burning gasoline.
Many manufacturers believe that it is possible to meet California's
more stringent clean air standards using reduced amounts of, or in some
cases, no oxygenate in their gasolines.
In a recent letter to me, Chevron chairman Ken Derr
expressed
his belief that while he believes MTBE is safe if handled properly, his
company is exploring other options. He says:
(Chevron has) taken another look at the extensive body of
data that relates to fuel composition to vehicle emissions
and have concluded that it may be possible to make more
gasoline without MTBE and still meet California's cleaner
burning gasoline standards.
If California refiners can meet the stricter state clean air standard
while reducing or eliminating the use of a chemical that is
contaminating California water, it makes good sense to give them the
flexibility they need to solve the problem.
By amending the Clear Air Act to waive the requirement for oxygenates
in California, which already has in place its own stricter standards,
this legislation does not detract in any way from the gains in emission
reductions mandated in the Clear Air Act. It will simply allow for
companies like Chevron to meet Clean Air Act requirements, while
maximizing the advantages of increased flexibility in order to respond
more efficiently and effectively to any unforseen problems encountered
in the production of California cleaner burning gasoline.
If exempting California from the oxygenate requirement meant
weakening the Clear Air Act in any way, I would be the first person to
stand up and lead the battle against such an effort.
This bill does not weaken the Clear Air Act, but instead is a step in
the right direction, towards sound environmental policy.
This narrowly-targeted legislation simply makes sense. With this
bill, California is once again taking the initiative to lead the way in
ensuring the protection of the air we breathe, and the water we drink.
By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to utilize
good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals
set forth by the Clear Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean
water.
In short, when we pass this legislation, we will take another step
forward in ensuring that protecting our air qualify does not come at
the expense of safeguarding our water.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1576
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GASOLINE RULES.
Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``If any such State that has received a waiver under section
209(b)(1) promulgates reformulated gasoline rules for any
covered area of the State (as defined in subsection (k)(10)),
the rules shall apply in the area in lieu of the requirements
of subsection (k) if the State rules will achieve equivalent
or greater emission reductions than would result from the
application of the requirements of subsection (k) in the case
of the aggregate mass of emissions of toxic air pollutants
and in the case of the aggregate mass of emissions of ozone-
forming compounds.''.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Specter and Ms. Collins):
S. 1577. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
additional tax relief to families to increase the affordability of
child care, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE CARING FOR CHILDREN ACT
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Caring
for Children Act, legislation to help all families with their child
care needs.
I want to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to put this
bill together. Senator Hatch, who was a leader in the development of
the child care block grant, and is always a stalwart supporter of
children. Senator Snowe, who has worked on this issue for many years.
Senator Roberts, who has taken an active interest in this issue.
Senator Specter, who made an enormous contribution to the development
of this bill. And Senator Susan Collins, who we are very fortunate to
have on our child care proposal.
Last night, in his State of the Union Address to the nation,
President Clinton issued a challenge to Congress to develop child care
legislation in a bipartisan manner with the Administration. Well, that
is exactly what we are doing today.
Our proposal is straightforward and far-reaching. It makes the
current child care credit more equitable for lower and middle income
families. And, for the first time, makes the credit available to
families where one parent stays at home to care for the children. That
is a critical step and an important change for families across America.
Raising children in today's world is a true challenge. In many
families, both parents must work in order to support the family. Often,
the child care expenses consume all or most of one parent's income. How
often do we hear the refrain, particularly from women, that after they
pay for day care, there is little or nothing left of their wages.
Another common complaint is from parents who desperately want to stay
home and raise their children themselves--especially in those very
critical, early years of childhood--but who simply cannot afford to
forego that second income.
The legislation we are introducing today responds to both of these
concerns. We believe that parents should make their own decisions about
who is going to care for their children. The government and the tax
code should not be promoting one choice over another.
By making more of the existing child care tax credit available to
lower and middle income families, and making it available also to
families where one parent stays at home, we are sending the message
that the choice is yours, and we support your choice.
Our bill makes several changes to the existing dependent care tax
credit.
[[Page
S116]]
First, the maximum credit percentage is increased from 30 percent to 50
percent to provide more benefits to those most in need. Second, the
income level at which the maximum credit begins to be reduced is moved
from $10,000 to $30,000, so that more lower-income families will
qualify for the maximum amount of assistance. Third, we propose to
completely phase out the credit for wealthier families. Finally,
families where one spouse stays at home to care for the children will
be eligible for a credit similar to the one they would receive if both
parents were working outside the home and the child was in daycare.
We also acknowledge that we cannot solve the entire child care
problem through the tax code alone. Many low-income families do not
have taxable income, and therefore cannot benefit from a tax credit.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides critical
funding to help these lower-income families--and I have been a strong
supporter of the program. Recognizing the critical role CCDBG plays in
subsidizing daycare for low-income families in the states, our proposal
doubles the block grant over a five-year period.
Of course, the problem with child care is not limited to just
affordability. Many parents cannot find an available child care slot.
Our proposal addresses this issue of accessibility by providing a tax
credit to businesses to build or renovate on or near-site child care
centers for their employees.
Finally, there is the issue of quality daycare. Parents cannot be
productive in the workplace if they are constantly worrying about the
health and safety of their children in daycare. We have all read the
horrifying stories in the newspapers about daycare facilities that are
unsafe or unsanitary, about the poor record of enforcement of standards
in many states.
while we acknowledge that the federal government should not be
setting standards for daycare providers, we do believe the states
should set at least minimum health and safety standards and enforce
them rigorously. Our legislation beefs up this enforcement by rewarding
states with a good enforcement record and penalizing those with poor
records.
I am very proud of this legislation, and proud that this group was
able to come together and produce this initiative. Child care is a
problem that must be solved, and we are committed to doing that. I look
forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Congress
to find workable, affordable solutions for all families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1577
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Caring for
Children Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--TAX RELIEF TO INCREASE CHILD CARE AFFORDABILITY
Sec. 101. Expansion of dependent care tax credit.
Sec. 102. Promotion of dependent care assistance programs.
Sec. 103. Allowance of credit for employer expenses for child care
assistance.
TITLE II--ENCOURAGING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Subtitle A--Dissemination of Information About Quality Child Care
Sec. 201. Collection and dissemination of information.
Sec. 202. Grants for the development of a child care training
infrastructure.
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Increased Enforcement of State Health and Safety Standards
Sec. 211. Enforcement of State health and safety standards.
Subtitle C--Removal of Barriers to Increasing the Supply of Quality
Child Care
Sec. 221. Increased authorization of appropriations for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act.
Sec. 222. Small business child care grant program.
Sec. 223. GAO report regarding the relationship between legal liability
concerns and the availability and affordability of child
care.
Subtitle D--Quality Child Care Through Federal Facilities and Programs
Sec. 231. Providing quality child care in Federal facilities.
TITLE I--TAX RELIEF TO INCREASE CHILD CARE AFFORDABILITY
SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.
(a) Percentage of Employment-Related Expenses Determined by
Taxpayer Status.--Section 21(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining applicable percentage) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `applicable percentage' means 50
percent reduced (but not below zero) by 1 percentage point
for each $1,500, or fraction thereof, by which the
taxpayers's adjusted gross income for the taxable year
exceeds $30,000.''.
(b) Minimum Credit Allowed for Stay-at-Home Parents.--
Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to special rules) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer
with one or more qualifying individuals described in
subsection (b)(1)(A) under the age of 4 at any time during
the taxable year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have
employment-related expenses with respect to such qualifying
individuals in an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) the amount of employment-related expenses incurred
for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year
(determined under this section without regard to this
paragraph), or
``(B) $150 for each month in such taxable year during which
such qualifying individual is under the age of 4.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
SEC. 102. PROMOTION OF DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Promotion of Dependent Care Assistance Programs.--The
Secretary of Labor shall establish a program to promote
awareness of the use of dependent care assistance programs
(as described in section 129(d) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986) by employers.
(b) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the program under paragraph
(1) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002.
SEC. 103. ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER EXPENSES FOR CHILD
CARE ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 45D. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILD CARE CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the
employer-provided child care credit determined under this
section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent
of the qualified child care expenditures of the taxpayer for
such taxable year.
``(b) Dollar Limitation.--The credit allowable under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
$100,000.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified child care expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care
expenditure' means any amount paid or incurred--
``(i) to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, or expand
property--
``(I) which is to be used as part of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer,
``(II) with respect to which a deduction for depreciation
(or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
``(III) which does not constitute part of the principal
residence (within the meaning of section 1034) of the
taxpayer or any employee of the taxpayer,
``(ii) for the operating costs of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer, including costs related to the
training of employees,
``(iii) under a contract with a qualified child care
facility to provide child care services to employees of the
taxpayer, or
``(iv) under a contract to provide child care resource and
referral services to employees of the taxpayer.
``(2) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The
term `qualified child care expenditure' shall not include any
amount to the extent such amount is funded by any grant,
contract, or otherwise by another person (or any governmental
entity).
``(3) Qualified child care facility.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care facility'
means a facility--
``(i) the principal use of which is to provide child care
assistance, and
``(ii) which meets the requirements of all applicable laws
and regulations of the State or local government in which it
is located, including, but not limited to, the licensing of
the facility as a child care facility.
Clause (i) shall not apply to a facility which is the
principal residence (within the meaning of section 1034) of
the operator of the facility.
``(B) Special rules with respect to a taxpayer.--A facility
shall not be treated as a qualified child care facility with
respect to a taxpayer unless--
[[Page
S117]]
``(i) enrollment in the facility is open to employees of
the taxpayer during the taxable year,
``(ii) the facility is not the principal trade or business
of the taxpayer unless at least 30 percent of the enrollees
of such facility are dependents of employees of the taxpayer,
and
``(iii) the use of such facility (or the eligibility to use
such facility) does not discriminate in favor of employees of
the taxpayer who are highly compensated employees (within the
meaning of section 414(q)).
``(d) Recapture of Acquisition and Construction Credit.--
``(1) In general.--If, as of the close of any taxable year,
there is a recapture event with respect to any qualified
child care facility of the taxpayer, then the tax of the
taxpayer under this chapter for such taxable year shall be
increased by an amount equal to the product of--
``(A) the applicable recapture percentage, and
``(B) the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed under
section 38 for all prior taxable years which would have
resulted if the qualified child care expenditures of the
taxpayer described in subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to
such facility had been zero.
``(2) Applicable recapture percentage.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable recapture percentage shall be determined from the
following table:
The applicable
recapture
``If the recapture evpercentage is:
Years 1-3....................................................100
Year 4........................................................85
Year 5........................................................70
Year 6........................................................55
Year 7........................................................40
Year 8........................................................25
Years 9 and 10................................................10
Years 11 and thereafter........................................0.
``(B) Years.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), year 1
shall begin on the first day of the taxable year in which the
qualified child care facility is placed in service by the
taxpayer.
``(3) Recapture event defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `recapture event' means--
``(A) Cessation of operation.--The cessation of the
operation of the facility as a qualified child care facility.
``(B) Change in ownership.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
disposition of a taxpayer's interest in a qualified child
care facility with respect to which the credit described in
subsection (a) was allowable.
``(ii) Agreement to assume recapture liability.--Clause (i)
shall not apply if the person acquiring such interest in the
facility agrees in writing to assume the recapture liability
of the person disposing of such interest in effect
immediately before such disposition. In the event of such an
assumption, the person acquiring the interest in the facility
shall be treated as the taxpayer for purposes of assessing
any recapture liability (computed as if there had been no
change in ownership).
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit
under subpart A, B, or D of this part.
``(C) No recapture by reason of casualty loss.--The
increase in tax under this subsection shall not apply to a
cessation of operation of the facility as a qualified child
care facility by reason of a casualty loss to the extent such
loss is restored by reconstruction or replacement within a
reasonable period established by the Secretary.
``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Aggregation rules.--All persons which are treated as
a single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52
shall be treated as a single taxpayer.
``(2) Pass-thru in the case of estates and trusts.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the
rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
``(3) Allocation in the case of partnerships.--In the case
of partnerships, the credit shall be allocated among partners
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(f) No Double Benefit.--
``(1) Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle--
``(A) In general.--If a credit is determined under this
section with respect to any property by reason of
expenditures described in subsection (c)(1)(A), the basis of
such property shall be reduced by the amount of the credit so
determined.
``(B) Certain dispositions.--If during any taxable year
there is a recapture amount determined with respect to any
property the basis of which was reduced under subparagraph
(A), the basis of such property (immediately before the event
resulting in such recapture) shall be increased by an amount
equal to such recapture amount. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `recapture amount' means any increase in
tax (or adjustment in carrybacks or carryovers) determined
under subsection (d).
``(2) Other deductions and credits.--No deduction or credit
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter
with respect to the amount of the credit determined under
this section.
``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2003.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) by striking out ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
(B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph
(12), and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the employer-provided child care credit determined
under section 45D.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45D. Employer-provided child care credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
TITLE II--ENCOURAGING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Subtitle A--Dissemination of Information About Quality Child Care
SEC. 201. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.
(a) Collection and Dissemination of Information.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, directly or
through a contract awarded on a competitive basis to a
qualified entity, collect and disseminate--
(1) information concerning health and safety in various
child care settings that would assist--
(A) the provision of safe and healthful environments by
child care providers; and
(B) the evaluation of child care providers by parents; and
(2) relevant findings in the field of early childhood
learning and development.
(b) Information and Findings To Be Generally Available.--
(1) Secretarial responsibility.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall make the information and findings
described in subsection (a) generally available to States,
units of local governments, private nonprofit child care
organizations (including resource and referral agencies),
employers, child care providers, and parents.
(2) Definition of generally available.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term ``generally available'' means that
the information and findings shall be distributed through
resources that are used by, and available to, the public,
including such resources as brochures, Internet web sites,
toll-free telephone information lines, and public and private
resource and referral organizations.
SEC. 202. GRANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD CARE TRAINING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall award grants to eligible entities to
develop distance learning child care training technology
infrastructures and to develop model technology-based
training courses for child care providers and child care
workers. The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible,
ensure that grants for the development of distance learning
child care training technology infrastructures are awarded in
those regions of the United States with the fewest training
opportunities for child care providers.
(b) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under subsection (a), an entity shall--
(1) develop the technological and logistical aspects of the
infrastructure described in this section and have the
capability of implementing and maintaining the
infrastructure;
(2) to the maximum extent possible, develop partnerships
with secondary schools, institutions of higher education,
State and local government agencies, and private child care
organizations for the purpose of sharing equipment, technical
assistance, and other technological resources, including--
(A) sites from which individuals may access the training;
(B) conversion of standard child care training courses to
programs for distance learning; and
(C) ongoing networking among program participants; and
(3) develop a mechanism for participants to--
(A) evaluate the effectiveness of the infrastructure,
including the availability and affordability of the
infrastructure, and the training offered the infrastructure;
and
(B) make recommendations for improvements to the
infrastructure.
(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may require, and that includes--
(1) a description of the partnership organizations through
which the distance learning programs will be disseminated and
made available;
(2) the capacity of the infrastructure in terms of the
number and type of distance learning programs that will be
made available;
(3) the expected number of individuals to participate in
the distance learning programs; and
[[Page
S118]]
(4) such additional information as the Secretary may
require.
(d) Limitation On Fees.--No entity receiving a grant under
this section may collect fees from an individual for
participation in a distance learning child care training
program funded in whole or in part by this section that
exceed the pro rata share of the amount expended by the
entity to provide materials for the training program and to
develop, implement, and maintain the infrastructure (minus
the amount of the grant awarded by this section).
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as requiring a child care provider to subscribe to
or complete a distance learning child care training program
made available by this section.
SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2003.
Subtitle B--Increased Enforcement of State Health and Safety Standards
SEC. 211. ENFORCEMENT OF STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
(a) Identification of State Inspection Rate.--
(1) In general.--Section 658E(c)(2)(G) of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(2)(G)) is amended by striking the period and inserting
``, and provide the percentage of completed child care
provider inspections that were required under State law for
each of the 2 preceding fiscal years.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies to State plans under the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) on and after
September 1, 1998.
(b) Increased or Decreased Allotments.--Section 658O(b) of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 9858m(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``, subject to paragraph (5),'' after
``shall''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Increased or decreased allotment based on state
inspection rate.--
``(A) Increased allotment for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001, the allotment determined for a
State under paragraph (1) for each such fiscal year shall be
increased by an amount equal to 10 percent of such allotment
for the fiscal year involved with respect to any State--
``(I) that certifies to the Secretary that the State has
not reduced the scope of any State child care health or
safety standards or requirements that were in effect in
calendar year 1996; and
``(II) that, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, had
a percentage of completed child care provider inspections (as
required to be reported under section 658E(c)(2)(G)), that
equaled or exceeded the target inspection and enforcement
percentage specified under clause (ii) for the fiscal year
for which the allotment is to be paid.
``(ii) Target inspection and enforcement percentage.--For
purposes of clause (i)(II), the target inspection and
enforcement percentage is--
``(I) for fiscal year 1999, 75 percent;
``(II) for fiscal year 2000, 80 percent; and
``(III) for fiscal year 2001, 100 percent.
``(iii) Pro rata reductions if insufficient
appropriations.--The Secretary shall make pro rata reductions
in the percentage increase otherwise required under clause
(i) for a State allotment for a fiscal year as necessary so
that the aggregate of all the allotments made under this
section do not exceed the amount appropriated for that fiscal
year under section 658B.
``(B) Decreased allotment for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.--
``(i) In general.--The allotment determined for a State
under paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001
shall be decreased by an amount equal to 10 percent of such
allotment for the fiscal year involved with respect to any
State that, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, had a
percentage of completed child care provider inspections (as
required to be reported under section 658E(c)(2)(G)) that was
below the minimum inspection and enforcement percentage
specified under clause (ii) for the fiscal year for which the
allotment is to be paid.
``(ii) Minimum inspection and enforcement percentage.--For
purposes of clause (i), the minimum inspection and
enforcement percentage is--
``(I) for fiscal year 2000, 50 percent; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2001, 75 percent.
``(iii) Requirement to expend State funds to replace
reduction.--If the allotment determined for a State for a
fiscal year is reduced by reason of clause (i), the State
shall, during the immediately succeeding fiscal year, expend
additional State funds under the State plan funded under this
subchapter by an amount equal to the amount of such
reduction.''.
Subtitle C--Removal of Barriers to Increasing the Supply of Quality
Child Care
SEC. 221. INCREASED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT.
Section 658B of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 658B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subchapter--
``(1) for each of fiscal years 1996 through 1998,
$1,000,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 1999, $1,500,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2000, $1,750,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,000,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2002, $2,250,000,000; and
``(2) for fiscal year 2003, $2,500,000,000.''.
SEC. 222. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish a program to award grants to States to assist
States in providing funds to encourage the establishment and
operation of employer operated child care programs.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including an assurance that the funds required under
subsection (e) will be provided.
(c) Amount of Grant.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of a grant to a State under this section based on the
population of the State as compared to the population of all
States.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use amounts provided under a
grant awarded under this section to provide assistance to
small businesses located in the State to enable the small
businesses to establish and operate child care programs. Such
assistance may include--
(A) technical assistance in the establishment of a child
care program;
(B) assistance for the start up costs related to a child
care program;
(C) assistance for the training of child care providers;
(D) scholarships for low-income wage earners;
(E) the provision of services to care for sick children or
to provide care to school aged children;
(F) the entering into of contracts with local resource and
referral or local health departments;
(G) care for children with disabilities; or
(H) assistance for any other activity determined
appropriate by the State.
(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance from
a State under this section, a small business shall prepare
and submit to the State an application at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the State may
require.
(3) Preference.--
(A) In general.--In providing assistance under this
section, a State shall give priority to applicants that
desire to form a consortium to provide child care in
geographic areas within the State where such care is not
generally available or accessible.
(B) Consortium.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
consortium shall be made up of 2 or more entities which may
include businesses, nonprofit agencies or organizations,
local governments, or other appropriate entities.
(4) Limitation.--With respect to grant funds received under
this section, a State may not provide in excess of $100,000
in assistance from such funds to any single applicant.
(e) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section a State shall provide assurances to
the Secretary that, with respect to the costs to be incurred
by an entity receiving assistance in carrying out activities
under this section, the entity will make available (directly
or through donations from public or private entities) non-
Federal contributions to such costs in an amount equal to--
(1) for the first fiscal year in which the entity receives
such assistance, not less than 50 percent of such costs ($1
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant);
(2) for the second fiscal year in which an entity receives
such assistance, not less than 66\2/3\ percent of such costs
($2 for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under
the grant); and
(3) for the third fiscal year in which an entity receives
such assistance, not less than 75 percent of such costs ($3
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant).
(f) Requirements of Providers.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under a grant awarded under this section a child
care provider shall comply with all applicable State and
local licensing and regulatory requirements and all
applicable health and safety standards in effect in the
State.
(g) Administration.--
(1) State responsibility.--A State shall have
responsibility for administering the grant awarded under this
section and for monitoring entities that receive assistance
under such grant.
(2) Audits.--A State shall require each entity receiving
assistance under a grant awarded under this section to
conduct an annual audit with respect to the activities of the
entity. Such audits shall be submitted to the State.
(3) Misuse of funds.--
(A) Repayment.--If the State determines, through an audit
or otherwise, that an entity receiving assistance under a
grant awarded under this section has misused the assistance,
the State shall notify the Secretary of the misuse. The
Secretary, upon such a notification, may seek from such an
entity the repayment of an amount equal to the amount of any
misused assistance plus interest.
[[Page
S119]]
(B) Appeals process.--The Secretary shall by regulation
provide for an appeals process with respect to repayments
under this paragraph.
(h) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) 2-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the Secretary first provides grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine--
(i) the capacity of entities to meet the child care needs
of communities within a State;
(ii) the kinds of partnerships that are being formed with
respect to child care at the local level; and
(iii) who is using the programs funded under this section
and the income levels of such individuals.
(B) Report.--Not later than 28 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(2) 4-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date on
which the Secretary first provides grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the number
of child care facilities funded through entities that
received assistance through a grant made under this section
that remain in operation and the extent to which such
facilities are meeting the child care needs of the
individuals served by such facilities.
(B) Report.--Not later than 52 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(i) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``small
business'' means an employer who employed an average of at
least 2 but not more than 50 employees on business days
during the preceding calendar year.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $60,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2001. With respect to
the total amount appropriated for such period in accordance
with this subsection, not more than $5,000,000 of that amount
may be used for expenditures related to conducting
evaluations required under, and the administration of, this
section.
(k) Termination of Program.--The program established under
subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2002.
SEC. 223. GAO REPORT REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGAL
LIABILITY CONCERNS AND THE AVAILABILITY AND
AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
report to Congress regarding whether and, if so, the extent
to which, concerns regarding potential legal liability
exposure inhibit the availability and affordability of child
care. The report shall include an assessment of whether such
concerns prevent--
(1) employers from establishing on or near-site child care
for their employees;
(2) schools or community centers from allowing their
facilities to be used for on-site child care; and
(3) individuals from providing professional, licensed child
care services in their homes.
Subtitle D--Quality Child Care Through Federal Facilities and Programs
SEC. 231. PROVIDING QUALITY CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Definition.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning given the term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, but does not include the Department of Defense.
(3) Executive facility.--The term ``executive facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by an Executive
agency.
(4) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
Executive agency, a judicial office, or a legislative office.
(5) Judicial facility.--The term ``judicial facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by a judicial
office.
(6) Judicial office.--The term ``judicial office'' means an
entity of the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
(7) Legislative facility.--The term ``legislative
facility'' means a facility that is owned or leased by a
legislative office.
(8) Legislative office.--The term ``legislative office''
means an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal
Government.
(b) Executive Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue regulations
requiring any entity operating a child care center in an
executive facility to comply with applicable State and local
licensing requirements related to the provision of child
care.
(B) Compliance.--The regulations shall require that, not
later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act--
(i) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress
(as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with
the requirements; and
(ii) any contract for the operation of such a child care
center shall include a condition that the child care be
provided in accordance with the requirements.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--The Administrator shall
evaluate the compliance of the entities described in
paragraph (1) with the regulations issued under that
paragraph. The Administrator may conduct the evaluation of
such an entity directly, or through an agreement with another
Federal agency, other than the Federal agency for which the
entity is providing child care. If the Administrator
determines, on the basis of such an evaluation, that the
entity is not in compliance with the regulations, the
Administrator shall notify the Executive agency.
(c) Legislative Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements and
accreditation standards.--The Architect of the Capitol shall
issue regulations for entities operating child care centers
in legislative facilities, which shall be the same as the
regulations issued by the Administrator under subsection
(b)(1), except to the extent that the Architect may
determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the
regulations, that a modification of such regulations would be
more effective for the implementation of the requirements and
standards described in such paragraphs.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--Subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to the Architect of the Capitol, entities operating
child care centers in legislative facilities, and legislative
offices. For purposes of that application, references in
subsection (b)(2) to regulations shall be considered to be
references to regulations issued under this subsection.
(d) Judicial Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements and
accreditation standards.--The Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts shall issue regulations
for entities operating child care centers in judicial
facilities, which shall be the same as the regulations issued
by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1), except to the
extent that the Director may determine, for good cause shown
and stated together with the regulations, that a modification
of such regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the requirements and standards described in
such paragraphs.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--Subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to the Director described in paragraph (1), entities
operating child care centers in judicial facilities, and
judicial offices. For purposes of that application,
references in subsection (b)(2) to regulations shall be
considered to be references to regulations issued under this
subsection.
(e) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if 3 or more child care centers are operated in
facilities owned or leased by a Federal agency, the head of
the Federal agency may carry out the responsibilities
assigned to the Administrator under subsection (b)(2), the
Architect of the Capitol under subsection (c)(2), or the
Director described in subsection (d)(2) under such
subsection, as appropriate.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join my
colleagues in introducing the ``Caring for Children Act,'' which will
ease the financial burden of child care for American families--for
those parents who work, and for those who choose to stay home to raise
their children for a period of time. The sponsors of this legislation
recognize the importance of affordable quality child care to the
successful development of our children.
Our bill would expand the Dependent Care tax credit to make it more
accessible to families who need it, double the authorization for the
Child Care Development Block Grant, and provide grants to small
businesses to create or enhance child care facilities for their
employees. This bill also includes provisions from the proposal I
introduced last year with my colleague, Congressman Jon Fox, ``The
Affordable Child Care Act,'' which provides a tax credit for employers
who provide on-site or site-adjacent child care to their employees in
order to reduce the child care expenses of the employee.
Not all families choose the same option for child care. Many families
rely on relatives, centers operated by churches and other religious
organizations, centers at or near their workplace, or make other
arrangements to provide care for their children while they work. In
light of the diverse needs for child care in America, this bill
represents a good start toward expanding the choices for American
parents. And, any such legislation must recognize that there is a need
to provide some relief to families where one parent stays at home.
The need for affordable and accessible day care is critical given the
increasing numbers of working parents and dual-income families in the
United States. According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1975, 31
percent of married
[[Page
S120]]
mothers with a child younger than age one participated in the labor
force. By 1995, that figure had risen to 59 percent. Almost 64 percent
of married mothers and 53 percent of single mothers with children
younger than age six participated in the labor force in 1995.
The cost of child care for families is also significant. Licensed day
care centers in some urban areas cost as much as $200 per week, and the
disparity in costs and availability of child care between urban and
rural grows greater every day. For families which need or choose to
have both parents work outside the home, the burden of making child
care decisions is great. These figures serve to underscore the need for
action on the part of the Federal government to provide the necessary
assistance to our nation's working families.
As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, I am pleased that this legislation would
build on an existing federal child care program by authorizing an
additional $5 billion over five years to the Child Care Development
Block Grant program, bringing total spending for this program to $2.5
billion annually by FY2002. The CCDBG program which works well in
assisting low-income families acquire child care and helped over 93,000
Pennsylvania families last year. By increasing the authorization, we
can help even more families without creating a new entitlement program.
Our legislation will also require States to create and enforce safety
and health standards in child care facilities, and provide money for
the Department of Health and Human Services to disseminate information
to parents and providers about quality child care, through brochures,
toll-free hotlines, the Internet, and other technological assistance.
The ``Caring for Children Act'' complements my recent efforts to
assist working families in the context of welfare reform and children's
health insurance. When Congress debated welfare reform in 1995 and
1996, I worked to ensure that adequate funds were provided for child
care, a critical component for welfare mothers who would be required to
work to receive new limited welfare benefits. I am pleased that the
welfare reform bill that became law provides $20 billion in child care
funding over a six year period. Similarly, I was pleased to participate
in the bipartisan effort in 1997 to enact legislation to provide $24
billion over the next five years for States to establish or broaden
children's health insurance programs.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical that the
105th Congress not adjourn without enacting legislation to assist
families in their ability to afford safe, quality child care for their
children, either at home with a parent or another arrangement. Our
legislation will provide peace of mind to millions of American families
struggling to balance career and child raising. I urge my colleagues to
join me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its
swift adoption.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, eight years ago, Congress passed and
President Bush signed the landmark Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act. I was proud to have helped lead the effort, and I am proud
of what our states have been able to accomplish since its
implementation.
But, it is also clear that we must do more to
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - January 28, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S114-S179]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1576. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive
application of California State regulations regarding reformulated
gasoline in certain areas within the State; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
THE MTBE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF 1998
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which will amend the Clean Air Act to allow California to operate its
own reformulated gasoline program, which is stricter than the federal
program and meets the air quality requirements set forth in the 1990
Clean Air Act.
What the bill does
The bill provides that if a state's reformulated gasoline rules
achieve equal or greater emissions reductions than federal regulation,
that state's rules will take precedence. This works to exempt
California from overlapping federal oxygenate requirements.
The bill is the Senate version of legislation introduced last year in
the House by Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego) and cosponsored by
46 members of the California Congressional delegation.
The bill applies only to states which have received waivers under
Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, for which California is the
only state currently eligible for such a waiver.
By exempting California from the oxygenate requirement, this
legislation will give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to reduce
or even eliminate the use of gasoline oxygenates, such as methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)--which has been detected in alarming
amounts in California groundwater.
The legislation allows the companies who serve California's gasoline
needs to continue to adopt better methods of producing California
Cleaner Burning gasoline, without being restricted by oxygenate
requirements.
california air quality history
California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal
efforts, and have achieved marked success in reducing toxic emission
levels, resulting in the cleanest air Californians have seen in
decades. This trend will continue with the passage of this bill.
Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline
program, there has been a 300 ton per day decrease in ozone forming
ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent
of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated
gasoline reduces smog forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent.
The state has also has seen a marked decrease in first stage smog
alerts, during which residents with respiratory ailments are encouraged
to stay indoors.
California Environmental Protection Agency Chairman John Dunlop, who
supports this legislation, says:
. . . our program has proven (to have) a significant effect
on California's air quality. Following the introduction of
California's gasoline program in the spring of 1996, monitor
levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10 percent in Northern
California, and by 18 percent in the Los Angeles area.
Benzene levels (have decreased) by more than 50 percent.
Although California has made great progress in decreasing the amount
of toxins in the air, the overlap of federal regulations, on top of the
strict state regulations, does not allow the state much flexibility in
the design and implementation of its reformulated fuels program.
This inflexibility makes it difficult for gasoline producers to
respond effectively to unforeseen problems associated with their
product. Such is the case with the oxygenate MTBE leaking into
California groundwater.
Refiners are bound by federal law to include an oxygenate in their
gasoline, even if they can make gasoline which meets Clean Air Act
emissions requirements without its use.
Thus, the need for the legislation is twofold--to streamline
overlapping federal and state regulations, and to allow gasoline
manufacturers the flexibility to make California Cleaner Burning
Gasoline without oxygenated fuels.
Federal reformulated gasoline requirement history
Federal reformulated gasoline, and the oxygenate requirement included
in it, came as a response to the worsening air quality of many American
cities.
For many years major cities, including San Diego, Sacramento and Los
Angeles, were facing serious pollution problems due to increasing
amounts of smog and ozone in the air.
As the air quality worsened, people around the country began
experiencing more frequent respiratory illnesses, and increased asthma
attacks due to the toxins in the air.
In 1990, Congress recognized the gravity of this national problem and
amended the Clean Air Act to ensure that our nation's most smoggy and
polluted areas were the beneficiaries of tougher motor vehicle emission
control standards.
One of these amendments directed the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a federal reformulated gasoline
program for urban areas with the most serious pollution problems.
The federal reformulated gasoline program mandated that this new
cleaner burning gasoline reduce emissions of benzene, a known human
carcinogen, and other toxins.
The federal program also mandated that this reformulated gasoline
contain 2 percent by weight oxygenate, which functions to make the gas
burn more completely and efficiently.
california reformulated gasoline
By December 1994, the oxygenate requirement went into effect. In
California, this mandate affected three cities in particular, where the
air quality was the worst.
Reformulated gasoline was required to be sold during the winter
season in the greater Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento regions.
This gasoline contained 11 percent MTBE, in order to meet the federal
oxygenate requirement.
While federal Clean Air Act regulations were being promulgated, the
California Air Resources Board developed even tougher and more
stringent environmental standards. However, these standards permitted
more flexibility in how they could be achieved by California's gasoline
manufacturers.
By establishing a State Implementation Plan which restricts eight
different properties that affect emissions of toxic air pollutants and
ozone forming compounds, California's stricter regulations were
approved by the U.S. EPA and are federally enforceable.
Additionally, California regulations contain an innovative predictive
model which is based on the analysis of a large number of vehicle
emission test studies. Refiners have the option of using this model to
produce reformulated gasoline as long as its usage results in
equivalent or greater reductions in emissions than federal regulations.
California EPA states that the predictive model ``shows that a
different formulation will achieve equivalent or better air quality
benefits.''
While the amendments to the Clean Air Act have helped reduce
emissions throughout the United States, they imposed limitations on the
level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to California.
The overlapping applicability of both the federal and state
reformulated gasoline rules has actually prohibited gasoline
manufacturers from responding as effectively as possible to unforeseen
problems with their product. This bill addresses exactly this type of
situation.
This legislation rewards California for its unique and effective
approach in solving its own air quality problems by permitting it an
exemption from federal oxygenate requirements as long as tough
environmental standards are enforced.
[[Page
S115]]
mtbe contamination of california groundwater
This legislation will allow refiners to address the problems that
have occurred with the use of MTBE as it has leaked into groundwater
supplies.
Such problems were certainly not anticipated during the drafting of
these amendments, and therefore only exemplifies the need for a
California exemption to this requirement.
MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through
soil and gravel, therefore posing a more rapid threat to aquifers than
the other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily
traced, but very difficult and expensive to clean up.
Higher quantities of MTBE in drinking water has a smell similar to
turpentine and a taste like paint thinner.
Although we do not have all of the data we need to determine the
potential damage of MTBE to our water and our health, we do know that
it is increasingly a problem for California:
MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of
cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles and San
Francisco;
MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs
including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in
the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara;
The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which
lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of
shallow gas tanks beneath the surface;
MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100
feet from City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe;
In Glennvile, California, Near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been
detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion--
dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of
35 parts per billion; and
250 underground fuel tank sites have leaked MTBE in Santa Clara
County not far from water wells used by the residents of San Jose.
In the face of mounting evidence of extensive MTBE contamination in
California groundwater, several gasoline manufacturers, including
Chevron and Tosco (Union 76), have made it clear they would like to
have the flexibility to use only the amount and type of oxygenate
necessary to continue to meet the environmental specifications of clean
burning gasoline.
Many manufacturers believe that it is possible to meet California's
more stringent clean air standards using reduced amounts of, or in some
cases, no oxygenate in their gasolines.
In a recent letter to me, Chevron chairman Ken Derr
expressed
his belief that while he believes MTBE is safe if handled properly, his
company is exploring other options. He says:
(Chevron has) taken another look at the extensive body of
data that relates to fuel composition to vehicle emissions
and have concluded that it may be possible to make more
gasoline without MTBE and still meet California's cleaner
burning gasoline standards.
If California refiners can meet the stricter state clean air standard
while reducing or eliminating the use of a chemical that is
contaminating California water, it makes good sense to give them the
flexibility they need to solve the problem.
By amending the Clear Air Act to waive the requirement for oxygenates
in California, which already has in place its own stricter standards,
this legislation does not detract in any way from the gains in emission
reductions mandated in the Clear Air Act. It will simply allow for
companies like Chevron to meet Clean Air Act requirements, while
maximizing the advantages of increased flexibility in order to respond
more efficiently and effectively to any unforseen problems encountered
in the production of California cleaner burning gasoline.
If exempting California from the oxygenate requirement meant
weakening the Clear Air Act in any way, I would be the first person to
stand up and lead the battle against such an effort.
This bill does not weaken the Clear Air Act, but instead is a step in
the right direction, towards sound environmental policy.
This narrowly-targeted legislation simply makes sense. With this
bill, California is once again taking the initiative to lead the way in
ensuring the protection of the air we breathe, and the water we drink.
By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to utilize
good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals
set forth by the Clear Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean
water.
In short, when we pass this legislation, we will take another step
forward in ensuring that protecting our air qualify does not come at
the expense of safeguarding our water.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1576
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GASOLINE RULES.
Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``If any such State that has received a waiver under section
209(b)(1) promulgates reformulated gasoline rules for any
covered area of the State (as defined in subsection (k)(10)),
the rules shall apply in the area in lieu of the requirements
of subsection (k) if the State rules will achieve equivalent
or greater emission reductions than would result from the
application of the requirements of subsection (k) in the case
of the aggregate mass of emissions of toxic air pollutants
and in the case of the aggregate mass of emissions of ozone-
forming compounds.''.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Specter and Ms. Collins):
S. 1577. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
additional tax relief to families to increase the affordability of
child care, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE CARING FOR CHILDREN ACT
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Caring
for Children Act, legislation to help all families with their child
care needs.
I want to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to put this
bill together. Senator Hatch, who was a leader in the development of
the child care block grant, and is always a stalwart supporter of
children. Senator Snowe, who has worked on this issue for many years.
Senator Roberts, who has taken an active interest in this issue.
Senator Specter, who made an enormous contribution to the development
of this bill. And Senator Susan Collins, who we are very fortunate to
have on our child care proposal.
Last night, in his State of the Union Address to the nation,
President Clinton issued a challenge to Congress to develop child care
legislation in a bipartisan manner with the Administration. Well, that
is exactly what we are doing today.
Our proposal is straightforward and far-reaching. It makes the
current child care credit more equitable for lower and middle income
families. And, for the first time, makes the credit available to
families where one parent stays at home to care for the children. That
is a critical step and an important change for families across America.
Raising children in today's world is a true challenge. In many
families, both parents must work in order to support the family. Often,
the child care expenses consume all or most of one parent's income. How
often do we hear the refrain, particularly from women, that after they
pay for day care, there is little or nothing left of their wages.
Another common complaint is from parents who desperately want to stay
home and raise their children themselves--especially in those very
critical, early years of childhood--but who simply cannot afford to
forego that second income.
The legislation we are introducing today responds to both of these
concerns. We believe that parents should make their own decisions about
who is going to care for their children. The government and the tax
code should not be promoting one choice over another.
By making more of the existing child care tax credit available to
lower and middle income families, and making it available also to
families where one parent stays at home, we are sending the message
that the choice is yours, and we support your choice.
Our bill makes several changes to the existing dependent care tax
credit.
[[Page
S116]]
First, the maximum credit percentage is increased from 30 percent to 50
percent to provide more benefits to those most in need. Second, the
income level at which the maximum credit begins to be reduced is moved
from $10,000 to $30,000, so that more lower-income families will
qualify for the maximum amount of assistance. Third, we propose to
completely phase out the credit for wealthier families. Finally,
families where one spouse stays at home to care for the children will
be eligible for a credit similar to the one they would receive if both
parents were working outside the home and the child was in daycare.
We also acknowledge that we cannot solve the entire child care
problem through the tax code alone. Many low-income families do not
have taxable income, and therefore cannot benefit from a tax credit.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides critical
funding to help these lower-income families--and I have been a strong
supporter of the program. Recognizing the critical role CCDBG plays in
subsidizing daycare for low-income families in the states, our proposal
doubles the block grant over a five-year period.
Of course, the problem with child care is not limited to just
affordability. Many parents cannot find an available child care slot.
Our proposal addresses this issue of accessibility by providing a tax
credit to businesses to build or renovate on or near-site child care
centers for their employees.
Finally, there is the issue of quality daycare. Parents cannot be
productive in the workplace if they are constantly worrying about the
health and safety of their children in daycare. We have all read the
horrifying stories in the newspapers about daycare facilities that are
unsafe or unsanitary, about the poor record of enforcement of standards
in many states.
while we acknowledge that the federal government should not be
setting standards for daycare providers, we do believe the states
should set at least minimum health and safety standards and enforce
them rigorously. Our legislation beefs up this enforcement by rewarding
states with a good enforcement record and penalizing those with poor
records.
I am very proud of this legislation, and proud that this group was
able to come together and produce this initiative. Child care is a
problem that must be solved, and we are committed to doing that. I look
forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Congress
to find workable, affordable solutions for all families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1577
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Caring for
Children Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--TAX RELIEF TO INCREASE CHILD CARE AFFORDABILITY
Sec. 101. Expansion of dependent care tax credit.
Sec. 102. Promotion of dependent care assistance programs.
Sec. 103. Allowance of credit for employer expenses for child care
assistance.
TITLE II--ENCOURAGING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Subtitle A--Dissemination of Information About Quality Child Care
Sec. 201. Collection and dissemination of information.
Sec. 202. Grants for the development of a child care training
infrastructure.
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Increased Enforcement of State Health and Safety Standards
Sec. 211. Enforcement of State health and safety standards.
Subtitle C--Removal of Barriers to Increasing the Supply of Quality
Child Care
Sec. 221. Increased authorization of appropriations for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act.
Sec. 222. Small business child care grant program.
Sec. 223. GAO report regarding the relationship between legal liability
concerns and the availability and affordability of child
care.
Subtitle D--Quality Child Care Through Federal Facilities and Programs
Sec. 231. Providing quality child care in Federal facilities.
TITLE I--TAX RELIEF TO INCREASE CHILD CARE AFFORDABILITY
SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.
(a) Percentage of Employment-Related Expenses Determined by
Taxpayer Status.--Section 21(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining applicable percentage) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `applicable percentage' means 50
percent reduced (but not below zero) by 1 percentage point
for each $1,500, or fraction thereof, by which the
taxpayers's adjusted gross income for the taxable year
exceeds $30,000.''.
(b) Minimum Credit Allowed for Stay-at-Home Parents.--
Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to special rules) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer
with one or more qualifying individuals described in
subsection (b)(1)(A) under the age of 4 at any time during
the taxable year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have
employment-related expenses with respect to such qualifying
individuals in an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) the amount of employment-related expenses incurred
for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year
(determined under this section without regard to this
paragraph), or
``(B) $150 for each month in such taxable year during which
such qualifying individual is under the age of 4.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
SEC. 102. PROMOTION OF DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Promotion of Dependent Care Assistance Programs.--The
Secretary of Labor shall establish a program to promote
awareness of the use of dependent care assistance programs
(as described in section 129(d) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986) by employers.
(b) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the program under paragraph
(1) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002.
SEC. 103. ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER EXPENSES FOR CHILD
CARE ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 45D. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILD CARE CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the
employer-provided child care credit determined under this
section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent
of the qualified child care expenditures of the taxpayer for
such taxable year.
``(b) Dollar Limitation.--The credit allowable under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
$100,000.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified child care expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care
expenditure' means any amount paid or incurred--
``(i) to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, or expand
property--
``(I) which is to be used as part of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer,
``(II) with respect to which a deduction for depreciation
(or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
``(III) which does not constitute part of the principal
residence (within the meaning of section 1034) of the
taxpayer or any employee of the taxpayer,
``(ii) for the operating costs of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer, including costs related to the
training of employees,
``(iii) under a contract with a qualified child care
facility to provide child care services to employees of the
taxpayer, or
``(iv) under a contract to provide child care resource and
referral services to employees of the taxpayer.
``(2) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The
term `qualified child care expenditure' shall not include any
amount to the extent such amount is funded by any grant,
contract, or otherwise by another person (or any governmental
entity).
``(3) Qualified child care facility.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care facility'
means a facility--
``(i) the principal use of which is to provide child care
assistance, and
``(ii) which meets the requirements of all applicable laws
and regulations of the State or local government in which it
is located, including, but not limited to, the licensing of
the facility as a child care facility.
Clause (i) shall not apply to a facility which is the
principal residence (within the meaning of section 1034) of
the operator of the facility.
``(B) Special rules with respect to a taxpayer.--A facility
shall not be treated as a qualified child care facility with
respect to a taxpayer unless--
[[Page
S117]]
``(i) enrollment in the facility is open to employees of
the taxpayer during the taxable year,
``(ii) the facility is not the principal trade or business
of the taxpayer unless at least 30 percent of the enrollees
of such facility are dependents of employees of the taxpayer,
and
``(iii) the use of such facility (or the eligibility to use
such facility) does not discriminate in favor of employees of
the taxpayer who are highly compensated employees (within the
meaning of section 414(q)).
``(d) Recapture of Acquisition and Construction Credit.--
``(1) In general.--If, as of the close of any taxable year,
there is a recapture event with respect to any qualified
child care facility of the taxpayer, then the tax of the
taxpayer under this chapter for such taxable year shall be
increased by an amount equal to the product of--
``(A) the applicable recapture percentage, and
``(B) the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed under
section 38 for all prior taxable years which would have
resulted if the qualified child care expenditures of the
taxpayer described in subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to
such facility had been zero.
``(2) Applicable recapture percentage.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable recapture percentage shall be determined from the
following table:
The applicable
recapture
``If the recapture evpercentage is:
Years 1-3....................................................100
Year 4........................................................85
Year 5........................................................70
Year 6........................................................55
Year 7........................................................40
Year 8........................................................25
Years 9 and 10................................................10
Years 11 and thereafter........................................0.
``(B) Years.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), year 1
shall begin on the first day of the taxable year in which the
qualified child care facility is placed in service by the
taxpayer.
``(3) Recapture event defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `recapture event' means--
``(A) Cessation of operation.--The cessation of the
operation of the facility as a qualified child care facility.
``(B) Change in ownership.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
disposition of a taxpayer's interest in a qualified child
care facility with respect to which the credit described in
subsection (a) was allowable.
``(ii) Agreement to assume recapture liability.--Clause (i)
shall not apply if the person acquiring such interest in the
facility agrees in writing to assume the recapture liability
of the person disposing of such interest in effect
immediately before such disposition. In the event of such an
assumption, the person acquiring the interest in the facility
shall be treated as the taxpayer for purposes of assessing
any recapture liability (computed as if there had been no
change in ownership).
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit
under subpart A, B, or D of this part.
``(C) No recapture by reason of casualty loss.--The
increase in tax under this subsection shall not apply to a
cessation of operation of the facility as a qualified child
care facility by reason of a casualty loss to the extent such
loss is restored by reconstruction or replacement within a
reasonable period established by the Secretary.
``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Aggregation rules.--All persons which are treated as
a single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52
shall be treated as a single taxpayer.
``(2) Pass-thru in the case of estates and trusts.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the
rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
``(3) Allocation in the case of partnerships.--In the case
of partnerships, the credit shall be allocated among partners
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(f) No Double Benefit.--
``(1) Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle--
``(A) In general.--If a credit is determined under this
section with respect to any property by reason of
expenditures described in subsection (c)(1)(A), the basis of
such property shall be reduced by the amount of the credit so
determined.
``(B) Certain dispositions.--If during any taxable year
there is a recapture amount determined with respect to any
property the basis of which was reduced under subparagraph
(A), the basis of such property (immediately before the event
resulting in such recapture) shall be increased by an amount
equal to such recapture amount. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `recapture amount' means any increase in
tax (or adjustment in carrybacks or carryovers) determined
under subsection (d).
``(2) Other deductions and credits.--No deduction or credit
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter
with respect to the amount of the credit determined under
this section.
``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2003.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) by striking out ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
(B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph
(12), and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the employer-provided child care credit determined
under section 45D.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45D. Employer-provided child care credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
TITLE II--ENCOURAGING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Subtitle A--Dissemination of Information About Quality Child Care
SEC. 201. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.
(a) Collection and Dissemination of Information.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, directly or
through a contract awarded on a competitive basis to a
qualified entity, collect and disseminate--
(1) information concerning health and safety in various
child care settings that would assist--
(A) the provision of safe and healthful environments by
child care providers; and
(B) the evaluation of child care providers by parents; and
(2) relevant findings in the field of early childhood
learning and development.
(b) Information and Findings To Be Generally Available.--
(1) Secretarial responsibility.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall make the information and findings
described in subsection (a) generally available to States,
units of local governments, private nonprofit child care
organizations (including resource and referral agencies),
employers, child care providers, and parents.
(2) Definition of generally available.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term ``generally available'' means that
the information and findings shall be distributed through
resources that are used by, and available to, the public,
including such resources as brochures, Internet web sites,
toll-free telephone information lines, and public and private
resource and referral organizations.
SEC. 202. GRANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD CARE TRAINING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall award grants to eligible entities to
develop distance learning child care training technology
infrastructures and to develop model technology-based
training courses for child care providers and child care
workers. The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible,
ensure that grants for the development of distance learning
child care training technology infrastructures are awarded in
those regions of the United States with the fewest training
opportunities for child care providers.
(b) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under subsection (a), an entity shall--
(1) develop the technological and logistical aspects of the
infrastructure described in this section and have the
capability of implementing and maintaining the
infrastructure;
(2) to the maximum extent possible, develop partnerships
with secondary schools, institutions of higher education,
State and local government agencies, and private child care
organizations for the purpose of sharing equipment, technical
assistance, and other technological resources, including--
(A) sites from which individuals may access the training;
(B) conversion of standard child care training courses to
programs for distance learning; and
(C) ongoing networking among program participants; and
(3) develop a mechanism for participants to--
(A) evaluate the effectiveness of the infrastructure,
including the availability and affordability of the
infrastructure, and the training offered the infrastructure;
and
(B) make recommendations for improvements to the
infrastructure.
(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may require, and that includes--
(1) a description of the partnership organizations through
which the distance learning programs will be disseminated and
made available;
(2) the capacity of the infrastructure in terms of the
number and type of distance learning programs that will be
made available;
(3) the expected number of individuals to participate in
the distance learning programs; and
[[Page
S118]]
(4) such additional information as the Secretary may
require.
(d) Limitation On Fees.--No entity receiving a grant under
this section may collect fees from an individual for
participation in a distance learning child care training
program funded in whole or in part by this section that
exceed the pro rata share of the amount expended by the
entity to provide materials for the training program and to
develop, implement, and maintain the infrastructure (minus
the amount of the grant awarded by this section).
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as requiring a child care provider to subscribe to
or complete a distance learning child care training program
made available by this section.
SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2003.
Subtitle B--Increased Enforcement of State Health and Safety Standards
SEC. 211. ENFORCEMENT OF STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
(a) Identification of State Inspection Rate.--
(1) In general.--Section 658E(c)(2)(G) of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(2)(G)) is amended by striking the period and inserting
``, and provide the percentage of completed child care
provider inspections that were required under State law for
each of the 2 preceding fiscal years.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies to State plans under the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) on and after
September 1, 1998.
(b) Increased or Decreased Allotments.--Section 658O(b) of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 9858m(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``, subject to paragraph (5),'' after
``shall''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Increased or decreased allotment based on state
inspection rate.--
``(A) Increased allotment for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001, the allotment determined for a
State under paragraph (1) for each such fiscal year shall be
increased by an amount equal to 10 percent of such allotment
for the fiscal year involved with respect to any State--
``(I) that certifies to the Secretary that the State has
not reduced the scope of any State child care health or
safety standards or requirements that were in effect in
calendar year 1996; and
``(II) that, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, had
a percentage of completed child care provider inspections (as
required to be reported under section 658E(c)(2)(G)), that
equaled or exceeded the target inspection and enforcement
percentage specified under clause (ii) for the fiscal year
for which the allotment is to be paid.
``(ii) Target inspection and enforcement percentage.--For
purposes of clause (i)(II), the target inspection and
enforcement percentage is--
``(I) for fiscal year 1999, 75 percent;
``(II) for fiscal year 2000, 80 percent; and
``(III) for fiscal year 2001, 100 percent.
``(iii) Pro rata reductions if insufficient
appropriations.--The Secretary shall make pro rata reductions
in the percentage increase otherwise required under clause
(i) for a State allotment for a fiscal year as necessary so
that the aggregate of all the allotments made under this
section do not exceed the amount appropriated for that fiscal
year under section 658B.
``(B) Decreased allotment for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.--
``(i) In general.--The allotment determined for a State
under paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001
shall be decreased by an amount equal to 10 percent of such
allotment for the fiscal year involved with respect to any
State that, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, had a
percentage of completed child care provider inspections (as
required to be reported under section 658E(c)(2)(G)) that was
below the minimum inspection and enforcement percentage
specified under clause (ii) for the fiscal year for which the
allotment is to be paid.
``(ii) Minimum inspection and enforcement percentage.--For
purposes of clause (i), the minimum inspection and
enforcement percentage is--
``(I) for fiscal year 2000, 50 percent; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2001, 75 percent.
``(iii) Requirement to expend State funds to replace
reduction.--If the allotment determined for a State for a
fiscal year is reduced by reason of clause (i), the State
shall, during the immediately succeeding fiscal year, expend
additional State funds under the State plan funded under this
subchapter by an amount equal to the amount of such
reduction.''.
Subtitle C--Removal of Barriers to Increasing the Supply of Quality
Child Care
SEC. 221. INCREASED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT.
Section 658B of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 658B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subchapter--
``(1) for each of fiscal years 1996 through 1998,
$1,000,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 1999, $1,500,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2000, $1,750,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,000,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2002, $2,250,000,000; and
``(2) for fiscal year 2003, $2,500,000,000.''.
SEC. 222. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish a program to award grants to States to assist
States in providing funds to encourage the establishment and
operation of employer operated child care programs.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including an assurance that the funds required under
subsection (e) will be provided.
(c) Amount of Grant.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of a grant to a State under this section based on the
population of the State as compared to the population of all
States.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use amounts provided under a
grant awarded under this section to provide assistance to
small businesses located in the State to enable the small
businesses to establish and operate child care programs. Such
assistance may include--
(A) technical assistance in the establishment of a child
care program;
(B) assistance for the start up costs related to a child
care program;
(C) assistance for the training of child care providers;
(D) scholarships for low-income wage earners;
(E) the provision of services to care for sick children or
to provide care to school aged children;
(F) the entering into of contracts with local resource and
referral or local health departments;
(G) care for children with disabilities; or
(H) assistance for any other activity determined
appropriate by the State.
(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance from
a State under this section, a small business shall prepare
and submit to the State an application at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the State may
require.
(3) Preference.--
(A) In general.--In providing assistance under this
section, a State shall give priority to applicants that
desire to form a consortium to provide child care in
geographic areas within the State where such care is not
generally available or accessible.
(B) Consortium.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
consortium shall be made up of 2 or more entities which may
include businesses, nonprofit agencies or organizations,
local governments, or other appropriate entities.
(4) Limitation.--With respect to grant funds received under
this section, a State may not provide in excess of $100,000
in assistance from such funds to any single applicant.
(e) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section a State shall provide assurances to
the Secretary that, with respect to the costs to be incurred
by an entity receiving assistance in carrying out activities
under this section, the entity will make available (directly
or through donations from public or private entities) non-
Federal contributions to such costs in an amount equal to--
(1) for the first fiscal year in which the entity receives
such assistance, not less than 50 percent of such costs ($1
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant);
(2) for the second fiscal year in which an entity receives
such assistance, not less than 66\2/3\ percent of such costs
($2 for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under
the grant); and
(3) for the third fiscal year in which an entity receives
such assistance, not less than 75 percent of such costs ($3
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant).
(f) Requirements of Providers.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under a grant awarded under this section a child
care provider shall comply with all applicable State and
local licensing and regulatory requirements and all
applicable health and safety standards in effect in the
State.
(g) Administration.--
(1) State responsibility.--A State shall have
responsibility for administering the grant awarded under this
section and for monitoring entities that receive assistance
under such grant.
(2) Audits.--A State shall require each entity receiving
assistance under a grant awarded under this section to
conduct an annual audit with respect to the activities of the
entity. Such audits shall be submitted to the State.
(3) Misuse of funds.--
(A) Repayment.--If the State determines, through an audit
or otherwise, that an entity receiving assistance under a
grant awarded under this section has misused the assistance,
the State shall notify the Secretary of the misuse. The
Secretary, upon such a notification, may seek from such an
entity the repayment of an amount equal to the amount of any
misused assistance plus interest.
[[Page
S119]]
(B) Appeals process.--The Secretary shall by regulation
provide for an appeals process with respect to repayments
under this paragraph.
(h) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) 2-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the Secretary first provides grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine--
(i) the capacity of entities to meet the child care needs
of communities within a State;
(ii) the kinds of partnerships that are being formed with
respect to child care at the local level; and
(iii) who is using the programs funded under this section
and the income levels of such individuals.
(B) Report.--Not later than 28 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(2) 4-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date on
which the Secretary first provides grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the number
of child care facilities funded through entities that
received assistance through a grant made under this section
that remain in operation and the extent to which such
facilities are meeting the child care needs of the
individuals served by such facilities.
(B) Report.--Not later than 52 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(i) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``small
business'' means an employer who employed an average of at
least 2 but not more than 50 employees on business days
during the preceding calendar year.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $60,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2001. With respect to
the total amount appropriated for such period in accordance
with this subsection, not more than $5,000,000 of that amount
may be used for expenditures related to conducting
evaluations required under, and the administration of, this
section.
(k) Termination of Program.--The program established under
subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2002.
SEC. 223. GAO REPORT REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGAL
LIABILITY CONCERNS AND THE AVAILABILITY AND
AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
report to Congress regarding whether and, if so, the extent
to which, concerns regarding potential legal liability
exposure inhibit the availability and affordability of child
care. The report shall include an assessment of whether such
concerns prevent--
(1) employers from establishing on or near-site child care
for their employees;
(2) schools or community centers from allowing their
facilities to be used for on-site child care; and
(3) individuals from providing professional, licensed child
care services in their homes.
Subtitle D--Quality Child Care Through Federal Facilities and Programs
SEC. 231. PROVIDING QUALITY CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Definition.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning given the term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, but does not include the Department of Defense.
(3) Executive facility.--The term ``executive facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by an Executive
agency.
(4) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
Executive agency, a judicial office, or a legislative office.
(5) Judicial facility.--The term ``judicial facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by a judicial
office.
(6) Judicial office.--The term ``judicial office'' means an
entity of the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
(7) Legislative facility.--The term ``legislative
facility'' means a facility that is owned or leased by a
legislative office.
(8) Legislative office.--The term ``legislative office''
means an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal
Government.
(b) Executive Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue regulations
requiring any entity operating a child care center in an
executive facility to comply with applicable State and local
licensing requirements related to the provision of child
care.
(B) Compliance.--The regulations shall require that, not
later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act--
(i) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress
(as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with
the requirements; and
(ii) any contract for the operation of such a child care
center shall include a condition that the child care be
provided in accordance with the requirements.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--The Administrator shall
evaluate the compliance of the entities described in
paragraph (1) with the regulations issued under that
paragraph. The Administrator may conduct the evaluation of
such an entity directly, or through an agreement with another
Federal agency, other than the Federal agency for which the
entity is providing child care. If the Administrator
determines, on the basis of such an evaluation, that the
entity is not in compliance with the regulations, the
Administrator shall notify the Executive agency.
(c) Legislative Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements and
accreditation standards.--The Architect of the Capitol shall
issue regulations for entities operating child care centers
in legislative facilities, which shall be the same as the
regulations issued by the Administrator under subsection
(b)(1), except to the extent that the Architect may
determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the
regulations, that a modification of such regulations would be
more effective for the implementation of the requirements and
standards described in such paragraphs.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--Subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to the Architect of the Capitol, entities operating
child care centers in legislative facilities, and legislative
offices. For purposes of that application, references in
subsection (b)(2) to regulations shall be considered to be
references to regulations issued under this subsection.
(d) Judicial Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements and
accreditation standards.--The Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts shall issue regulations
for entities operating child care centers in judicial
facilities, which shall be the same as the regulations issued
by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1), except to the
extent that the Director may determine, for good cause shown
and stated together with the regulations, that a modification
of such regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the requirements and standards described in
such paragraphs.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--Subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to the Director described in paragraph (1), entities
operating child care centers in judicial facilities, and
judicial offices. For purposes of that application,
references in subsection (b)(2) to regulations shall be
considered to be references to regulations issued under this
subsection.
(e) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if 3 or more child care centers are operated in
facilities owned or leased by a Federal agency, the head of
the Federal agency may carry out the responsibilities
assigned to the Administrator under subsection (b)(2), the
Architect of the Capitol under subsection (c)(2), or the
Director described in subsection (d)(2) under such
subsection, as appropriate.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join my
colleagues in introducing the ``Caring for Children Act,'' which will
ease the financial burden of child care for American families--for
those parents who work, and for those who choose to stay home to raise
their children for a period of time. The sponsors of this legislation
recognize the importance of affordable quality child care to the
successful development of our children.
Our bill would expand the Dependent Care tax credit to make it more
accessible to families who need it, double the authorization for the
Child Care Development Block Grant, and provide grants to small
businesses to create or enhance child care facilities for their
employees. This bill also includes provisions from the proposal I
introduced last year with my colleague, Congressman Jon Fox, ``The
Affordable Child Care Act,'' which provides a tax credit for employers
who provide on-site or site-adjacent child care to their employees in
order to reduce the child care expenses of the employee.
Not all families choose the same option for child care. Many families
rely on relatives, centers operated by churches and other religious
organizations, centers at or near their workplace, or make other
arrangements to provide care for their children while they work. In
light of the diverse needs for child care in America, this bill
represents a good start toward expanding the choices for American
parents. And, any such legislation must recognize that there is a need
to provide some relief to families where one parent stays at home.
The need for affordable and accessible day care is critical given the
increasing numbers of working parents and dual-income families in the
United States. According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1975, 31
percent of married
[[Page
S120]]
mothers with a child younger than age one participated in the labor
force. By 1995, that figure had risen to 59 percent. Almost 64 percent
of married mothers and 53 percent of single mothers with children
younger than age six participated in the labor force in 1995.
The cost of child care for families is also significant. Licensed day
care centers in some urban areas cost as much as $200 per week, and the
disparity in costs and availability of child care between urban and
rural grows greater every day. For families which need or choose to
have both parents work outside the home, the burden of making child
care decisions is great. These figures serve to underscore the need for
action on the part of the Federal government to provide the necessary
assistance to our nation's working families.
As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, I am pleased that this legislation would
build on an existing federal child care program by authorizing an
additional $5 billion over five years to the Child Care Development
Block Grant program, bringing total spending for this program to $2.5
billion annually by FY2002. The CCDBG program which works well in
assisting low-income families acquire child care and helped over 93,000
Pennsylvania families last year. By increasing the authorization, we
can help even more families without creating a new entitlement program.
Our legislation will also require States to create and enforce safety
and health standards in child care facilities, and provide money for
the Department of Health and Human Services to disseminate information
to parents and providers about quality child care, through brochures,
toll-free hotlines, the Internet, and other technological assistance.
The ``Caring for Children Act'' complements my recent efforts to
assist working families in the context of welfare reform and children's
health insurance. When Congress debated welfare reform in 1995 and
1996, I worked to ensure that adequate funds were provided for child
care, a critical component for welfare mothers who would be required to
work to receive new limited welfare benefits. I am pleased that the
welfare reform bill that became law provides $20 billion in child care
funding over a six year period. Similarly, I was pleased to participate
in the bipartisan effort in 1997 to enact legislation to provide $24
billion over the next five years for States to establish or broaden
children's health insurance programs.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical that the
105th Congress not adjourn without enacting legislation to assist
families in their ability to afford safe, quality child care for their
children, either at home with a parent or another arrangement. Our
legislation will provide peace of mind to millions of American families
struggling to balance career and child raising. I urge my colleagues to
join me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its
swift adoption.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, eight years ago, Congress passed and
President Bush signed the landmark Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act. I was proud to have helped lead the effort, and I am proud
of what our states have been able to accomplish since its
implementation.
But, it is also clear that we must do more to help families. In my
home state
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - January 28, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S114-S179]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1576. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive
application of California State regulations regarding reformulated
gasoline in certain areas within the State; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
THE MTBE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF 1998
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which will amend the Clean Air Act to allow California to operate its
own reformulated gasoline program, which is stricter than the federal
program and meets the air quality requirements set forth in the 1990
Clean Air Act.
What the bill does
The bill provides that if a state's reformulated gasoline rules
achieve equal or greater emissions reductions than federal regulation,
that state's rules will take precedence. This works to exempt
California from overlapping federal oxygenate requirements.
The bill is the Senate version of legislation introduced last year in
the House by Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego) and cosponsored by
46 members of the California Congressional delegation.
The bill applies only to states which have received waivers under
Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, for which California is the
only state currently eligible for such a waiver.
By exempting California from the oxygenate requirement, this
legislation will give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to reduce
or even eliminate the use of gasoline oxygenates, such as methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)--which has been detected in alarming
amounts in California groundwater.
The legislation allows the companies who serve California's gasoline
needs to continue to adopt better methods of producing California
Cleaner Burning gasoline, without being restricted by oxygenate
requirements.
california air quality history
California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal
efforts, and have achieved marked success in reducing toxic emission
levels, resulting in the cleanest air Californians have seen in
decades. This trend will continue with the passage of this bill.
Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline
program, there has been a 300 ton per day decrease in ozone forming
ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent
of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated
gasoline reduces smog forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent.
The state has also has seen a marked decrease in first stage smog
alerts, during which residents with respiratory ailments are encouraged
to stay indoors.
California Environmental Protection Agency Chairman John Dunlop, who
supports this legislation, says:
. . . our program has proven (to have) a significant effect
on California's air quality. Following the introduction of
California's gasoline program in the spring of 1996, monitor
levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10 percent in Northern
California, and by 18 percent in the Los Angeles area.
Benzene levels (have decreased) by more than 50 percent.
Although California has made great progress in decreasing the amount
of toxins in the air, the overlap of federal regulations, on top of the
strict state regulations, does not allow the state much flexibility in
the design and implementation of its reformulated fuels program.
This inflexibility makes it difficult for gasoline producers to
respond effectively to unforeseen problems associated with their
product. Such is the case with the oxygenate MTBE leaking into
California groundwater.
Refiners are bound by federal law to include an oxygenate in their
gasoline, even if they can make gasoline which meets Clean Air Act
emissions requirements without its use.
Thus, the need for the legislation is twofold--to streamline
overlapping federal and state regulations, and to allow gasoline
manufacturers the flexibility to make California Cleaner Burning
Gasoline without oxygenated fuels.
Federal reformulated gasoline requirement history
Federal reformulated gasoline, and the oxygenate requirement included
in it, came as a response to the worsening air quality of many American
cities.
For many years major cities, including San Diego, Sacramento and Los
Angeles, were facing serious pollution problems due to increasing
amounts of smog and ozone in the air.
As the air quality worsened, people around the country began
experiencing more frequent respiratory illnesses, and increased asthma
attacks due to the toxins in the air.
In 1990, Congress recognized the gravity of this national problem and
amended the Clean Air Act to ensure that our nation's most smoggy and
polluted areas were the beneficiaries of tougher motor vehicle emission
control standards.
One of these amendments directed the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a federal reformulated gasoline
program for urban areas with the most serious pollution problems.
The federal reformulated gasoline program mandated that this new
cleaner burning gasoline reduce emissions of benzene, a known human
carcinogen, and other toxins.
The federal program also mandated that this reformulated gasoline
contain 2 percent by weight oxygenate, which functions to make the gas
burn more completely and efficiently.
california reformulated gasoline
By December 1994, the oxygenate requirement went into effect. In
California, this mandate affected three cities in particular, where the
air quality was the worst.
Reformulated gasoline was required to be sold during the winter
season in the greater Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento regions.
This gasoline contained 11 percent MTBE, in order to meet the federal
oxygenate requirement.
While federal Clean Air Act regulations were being promulgated, the
California Air Resources Board developed even tougher and more
stringent environmental standards. However, these standards permitted
more flexibility in how they could be achieved by California's gasoline
manufacturers.
By establishing a State Implementation Plan which restricts eight
different properties that affect emissions of toxic air pollutants and
ozone forming compounds, California's stricter regulations were
approved by the U.S. EPA and are federally enforceable.
Additionally, California regulations contain an innovative predictive
model which is based on the analysis of a large number of vehicle
emission test studies. Refiners have the option of using this model to
produce reformulated gasoline as long as its usage results in
equivalent or greater reductions in emissions than federal regulations.
California EPA states that the predictive model ``shows that a
different formulation will achieve equivalent or better air quality
benefits.''
While the amendments to the Clean Air Act have helped reduce
emissions throughout the United States, they imposed limitations on the
level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to California.
The overlapping applicability of both the federal and state
reformulated gasoline rules has actually prohibited gasoline
manufacturers from responding as effectively as possible to unforeseen
problems with their product. This bill addresses exactly this type of
situation.
This legislation rewards California for its unique and effective
approach in solving its own air quality problems by permitting it an
exemption from federal oxygenate requirements as long as tough
environmental standards are enforced.
[[Page
S115]]
mtbe contamination of california groundwater
This legislation will allow refiners to address the problems that
have occurred with the use of MTBE as it has leaked into groundwater
supplies.
Such problems were certainly not anticipated during the drafting of
these amendments, and therefore only exemplifies the need for a
California exemption to this requirement.
MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through
soil and gravel, therefore posing a more rapid threat to aquifers than
the other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily
traced, but very difficult and expensive to clean up.
Higher quantities of MTBE in drinking water has a smell similar to
turpentine and a taste like paint thinner.
Although we do not have all of the data we need to determine the
potential damage of MTBE to our water and our health, we do know that
it is increasingly a problem for California:
MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of
cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles and San
Francisco;
MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs
including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in
the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara;
The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which
lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of
shallow gas tanks beneath the surface;
MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100
feet from City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe;
In Glennvile, California, Near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been
detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion--
dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of
35 parts per billion; and
250 underground fuel tank sites have leaked MTBE in Santa Clara
County not far from water wells used by the residents of San Jose.
In the face of mounting evidence of extensive MTBE contamination in
California groundwater, several gasoline manufacturers, including
Chevron and Tosco (Union 76), have made it clear they would like to
have the flexibility to use only the amount and type of oxygenate
necessary to continue to meet the environmental specifications of clean
burning gasoline.
Many manufacturers believe that it is possible to meet California's
more stringent clean air standards using reduced amounts of, or in some
cases, no oxygenate in their gasolines.
In a recent letter to me, Chevron chairman Ken Derr
expressed
his belief that while he believes MTBE is safe if handled properly, his
company is exploring other options. He says:
(Chevron has) taken another look at the extensive body of
data that relates to fuel composition to vehicle emissions
and have concluded that it may be possible to make more
gasoline without MTBE and still meet California's cleaner
burning gasoline standards.
If California refiners can meet the stricter state clean air standard
while reducing or eliminating the use of a chemical that is
contaminating California water, it makes good sense to give them the
flexibility they need to solve the problem.
By amending the Clear Air Act to waive the requirement for oxygenates
in California, which already has in place its own stricter standards,
this legislation does not detract in any way from the gains in emission
reductions mandated in the Clear Air Act. It will simply allow for
companies like Chevron to meet Clean Air Act requirements, while
maximizing the advantages of increased flexibility in order to respond
more efficiently and effectively to any unforseen problems encountered
in the production of California cleaner burning gasoline.
If exempting California from the oxygenate requirement meant
weakening the Clear Air Act in any way, I would be the first person to
stand up and lead the battle against such an effort.
This bill does not weaken the Clear Air Act, but instead is a step in
the right direction, towards sound environmental policy.
This narrowly-targeted legislation simply makes sense. With this
bill, California is once again taking the initiative to lead the way in
ensuring the protection of the air we breathe, and the water we drink.
By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to utilize
good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals
set forth by the Clear Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean
water.
In short, when we pass this legislation, we will take another step
forward in ensuring that protecting our air qualify does not come at
the expense of safeguarding our water.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1576
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GASOLINE RULES.
Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``If any such State that has received a waiver under section
209(b)(1) promulgates reformulated gasoline rules for any
covered area of the State (as defined in subsection (k)(10)),
the rules shall apply in the area in lieu of the requirements
of subsection (k) if the State rules will achieve equivalent
or greater emission reductions than would result from the
application of the requirements of subsection (k) in the case
of the aggregate mass of emissions of toxic air pollutants
and in the case of the aggregate mass of emissions of ozone-
forming compounds.''.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Specter and Ms. Collins):
S. 1577. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
additional tax relief to families to increase the affordability of
child care, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE CARING FOR CHILDREN ACT
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Caring
for Children Act, legislation to help all families with their child
care needs.
I want to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to put this
bill together. Senator Hatch, who was a leader in the development of
the child care block grant, and is always a stalwart supporter of
children. Senator Snowe, who has worked on this issue for many years.
Senator Roberts, who has taken an active interest in this issue.
Senator Specter, who made an enormous contribution to the development
of this bill. And Senator Susan Collins, who we are very fortunate to
have on our child care proposal.
Last night, in his State of the Union Address to the nation,
President Clinton issued a challenge to Congress to develop child care
legislation in a bipartisan manner with the Administration. Well, that
is exactly what we are doing today.
Our proposal is straightforward and far-reaching. It makes the
current child care credit more equitable for lower and middle income
families. And, for the first time, makes the credit available to
families where one parent stays at home to care for the children. That
is a critical step and an important change for families across America.
Raising children in today's world is a true challenge. In many
families, both parents must work in order to support the family. Often,
the child care expenses consume all or most of one parent's income. How
often do we hear the refrain, particularly from women, that after they
pay for day care, there is little or nothing left of their wages.
Another common complaint is from parents who desperately want to stay
home and raise their children themselves--especially in those very
critical, early years of childhood--but who simply cannot afford to
forego that second income.
The legislation we are introducing today responds to both of these
concerns. We believe that parents should make their own decisions about
who is going to care for their children. The government and the tax
code should not be promoting one choice over another.
By making more of the existing child care tax credit available to
lower and middle income families, and making it available also to
families where one parent stays at home, we are sending the message
that the choice is yours, and we support your choice.
Our bill makes several changes to the existing dependent care tax
credit.
[[Page
S116]]
First, the maximum credit percentage is increased from 30 percent to 50
percent to provide more benefits to those most in need. Second, the
income level at which the maximum credit begins to be reduced is moved
from $10,000 to $30,000, so that more lower-income families will
qualify for the maximum amount of assistance. Third, we propose to
completely phase out the credit for wealthier families. Finally,
families where one spouse stays at home to care for the children will
be eligible for a credit similar to the one they would receive if both
parents were working outside the home and the child was in daycare.
We also acknowledge that we cannot solve the entire child care
problem through the tax code alone. Many low-income families do not
have taxable income, and therefore cannot benefit from a tax credit.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides critical
funding to help these lower-income families--and I have been a strong
supporter of the program. Recognizing the critical role CCDBG plays in
subsidizing daycare for low-income families in the states, our proposal
doubles the block grant over a five-year period.
Of course, the problem with child care is not limited to just
affordability. Many parents cannot find an available child care slot.
Our proposal addresses this issue of accessibility by providing a tax
credit to businesses to build or renovate on or near-site child care
centers for their employees.
Finally, there is the issue of quality daycare. Parents cannot be
productive in the workplace if they are constantly worrying about the
health and safety of their children in daycare. We have all read the
horrifying stories in the newspapers about daycare facilities that are
unsafe or unsanitary, about the poor record of enforcement of standards
in many states.
while we acknowledge that the federal government should not be
setting standards for daycare providers, we do believe the states
should set at least minimum health and safety standards and enforce
them rigorously. Our legislation beefs up this enforcement by rewarding
states with a good enforcement record and penalizing those with poor
records.
I am very proud of this legislation, and proud that this group was
able to come together and produce this initiative. Child care is a
problem that must be solved, and we are committed to doing that. I look
forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Congress
to find workable, affordable solutions for all families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1577
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Caring for
Children Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--TAX RELIEF TO INCREASE CHILD CARE AFFORDABILITY
Sec. 101. Expansion of dependent care tax credit.
Sec. 102. Promotion of dependent care assistance programs.
Sec. 103. Allowance of credit for employer expenses for child care
assistance.
TITLE II--ENCOURAGING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Subtitle A--Dissemination of Information About Quality Child Care
Sec. 201. Collection and dissemination of information.
Sec. 202. Grants for the development of a child care training
infrastructure.
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Increased Enforcement of State Health and Safety Standards
Sec. 211. Enforcement of State health and safety standards.
Subtitle C--Removal of Barriers to Increasing the Supply of Quality
Child Care
Sec. 221. Increased authorization of appropriations for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act.
Sec. 222. Small business child care grant program.
Sec. 223. GAO report regarding the relationship between legal liability
concerns and the availability and affordability of child
care.
Subtitle D--Quality Child Care Through Federal Facilities and Programs
Sec. 231. Providing quality child care in Federal facilities.
TITLE I--TAX RELIEF TO INCREASE CHILD CARE AFFORDABILITY
SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.
(a) Percentage of Employment-Related Expenses Determined by
Taxpayer Status.--Section 21(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining applicable percentage) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `applicable percentage' means 50
percent reduced (but not below zero) by 1 percentage point
for each $1,500, or fraction thereof, by which the
taxpayers's adjusted gross income for the taxable year
exceeds $30,000.''.
(b) Minimum Credit Allowed for Stay-at-Home Parents.--
Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to special rules) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer
with one or more qualifying individuals described in
subsection (b)(1)(A) under the age of 4 at any time during
the taxable year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have
employment-related expenses with respect to such qualifying
individuals in an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) the amount of employment-related expenses incurred
for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year
(determined under this section without regard to this
paragraph), or
``(B) $150 for each month in such taxable year during which
such qualifying individual is under the age of 4.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
SEC. 102. PROMOTION OF DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Promotion of Dependent Care Assistance Programs.--The
Secretary of Labor shall establish a program to promote
awareness of the use of dependent care assistance programs
(as described in section 129(d) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986) by employers.
(b) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the program under paragraph
(1) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002.
SEC. 103. ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER EXPENSES FOR CHILD
CARE ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 45D. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILD CARE CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the
employer-provided child care credit determined under this
section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent
of the qualified child care expenditures of the taxpayer for
such taxable year.
``(b) Dollar Limitation.--The credit allowable under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
$100,000.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified child care expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care
expenditure' means any amount paid or incurred--
``(i) to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, or expand
property--
``(I) which is to be used as part of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer,
``(II) with respect to which a deduction for depreciation
(or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
``(III) which does not constitute part of the principal
residence (within the meaning of section 1034) of the
taxpayer or any employee of the taxpayer,
``(ii) for the operating costs of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer, including costs related to the
training of employees,
``(iii) under a contract with a qualified child care
facility to provide child care services to employees of the
taxpayer, or
``(iv) under a contract to provide child care resource and
referral services to employees of the taxpayer.
``(2) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The
term `qualified child care expenditure' shall not include any
amount to the extent such amount is funded by any grant,
contract, or otherwise by another person (or any governmental
entity).
``(3) Qualified child care facility.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care facility'
means a facility--
``(i) the principal use of which is to provide child care
assistance, and
``(ii) which meets the requirements of all applicable laws
and regulations of the State or local government in which it
is located, including, but not limited to, the licensing of
the facility as a child care facility.
Clause (i) shall not apply to a facility which is the
principal residence (within the meaning of section 1034) of
the operator of the facility.
``(B) Special rules with respect to a taxpayer.--A facility
shall not be treated as a qualified child care facility with
respect to a taxpayer unless--
[[Page
S117]]
``(i) enrollment in the facility is open to employees of
the taxpayer during the taxable year,
``(ii) the facility is not the principal trade or business
of the taxpayer unless at least 30 percent of the enrollees
of such facility are dependents of employees of the taxpayer,
and
``(iii) the use of such facility (or the eligibility to use
such facility) does not discriminate in favor of employees of
the taxpayer who are highly compensated employees (within the
meaning of section 414(q)).
``(d) Recapture of Acquisition and Construction Credit.--
``(1) In general.--If, as of the close of any taxable year,
there is a recapture event with respect to any qualified
child care facility of the taxpayer, then the tax of the
taxpayer under this chapter for such taxable year shall be
increased by an amount equal to the product of--
``(A) the applicable recapture percentage, and
``(B) the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed under
section 38 for all prior taxable years which would have
resulted if the qualified child care expenditures of the
taxpayer described in subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to
such facility had been zero.
``(2) Applicable recapture percentage.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable recapture percentage shall be determined from the
following table:
The applicable
recapture
``If the recapture evpercentage is:
Years 1-3....................................................100
Year 4........................................................85
Year 5........................................................70
Year 6........................................................55
Year 7........................................................40
Year 8........................................................25
Years 9 and 10................................................10
Years 11 and thereafter........................................0.
``(B) Years.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), year 1
shall begin on the first day of the taxable year in which the
qualified child care facility is placed in service by the
taxpayer.
``(3) Recapture event defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `recapture event' means--
``(A) Cessation of operation.--The cessation of the
operation of the facility as a qualified child care facility.
``(B) Change in ownership.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
disposition of a taxpayer's interest in a qualified child
care facility with respect to which the credit described in
subsection (a) was allowable.
``(ii) Agreement to assume recapture liability.--Clause (i)
shall not apply if the person acquiring such interest in the
facility agrees in writing to assume the recapture liability
of the person disposing of such interest in effect
immediately before such disposition. In the event of such an
assumption, the person acquiring the interest in the facility
shall be treated as the taxpayer for purposes of assessing
any recapture liability (computed as if there had been no
change in ownership).
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit
under subpart A, B, or D of this part.
``(C) No recapture by reason of casualty loss.--The
increase in tax under this subsection shall not apply to a
cessation of operation of the facility as a qualified child
care facility by reason of a casualty loss to the extent such
loss is restored by reconstruction or replacement within a
reasonable period established by the Secretary.
``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Aggregation rules.--All persons which are treated as
a single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52
shall be treated as a single taxpayer.
``(2) Pass-thru in the case of estates and trusts.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the
rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
``(3) Allocation in the case of partnerships.--In the case
of partnerships, the credit shall be allocated among partners
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(f) No Double Benefit.--
``(1) Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle--
``(A) In general.--If a credit is determined under this
section with respect to any property by reason of
expenditures described in subsection (c)(1)(A), the basis of
such property shall be reduced by the amount of the credit so
determined.
``(B) Certain dispositions.--If during any taxable year
there is a recapture amount determined with respect to any
property the basis of which was reduced under subparagraph
(A), the basis of such property (immediately before the event
resulting in such recapture) shall be increased by an amount
equal to such recapture amount. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `recapture amount' means any increase in
tax (or adjustment in carrybacks or carryovers) determined
under subsection (d).
``(2) Other deductions and credits.--No deduction or credit
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter
with respect to the amount of the credit determined under
this section.
``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2003.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) by striking out ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
(B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph
(12), and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the employer-provided child care credit determined
under section 45D.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45D. Employer-provided child care credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
TITLE II--ENCOURAGING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Subtitle A--Dissemination of Information About Quality Child Care
SEC. 201. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.
(a) Collection and Dissemination of Information.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, directly or
through a contract awarded on a competitive basis to a
qualified entity, collect and disseminate--
(1) information concerning health and safety in various
child care settings that would assist--
(A) the provision of safe and healthful environments by
child care providers; and
(B) the evaluation of child care providers by parents; and
(2) relevant findings in the field of early childhood
learning and development.
(b) Information and Findings To Be Generally Available.--
(1) Secretarial responsibility.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall make the information and findings
described in subsection (a) generally available to States,
units of local governments, private nonprofit child care
organizations (including resource and referral agencies),
employers, child care providers, and parents.
(2) Definition of generally available.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term ``generally available'' means that
the information and findings shall be distributed through
resources that are used by, and available to, the public,
including such resources as brochures, Internet web sites,
toll-free telephone information lines, and public and private
resource and referral organizations.
SEC. 202. GRANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD CARE TRAINING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall award grants to eligible entities to
develop distance learning child care training technology
infrastructures and to develop model technology-based
training courses for child care providers and child care
workers. The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible,
ensure that grants for the development of distance learning
child care training technology infrastructures are awarded in
those regions of the United States with the fewest training
opportunities for child care providers.
(b) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under subsection (a), an entity shall--
(1) develop the technological and logistical aspects of the
infrastructure described in this section and have the
capability of implementing and maintaining the
infrastructure;
(2) to the maximum extent possible, develop partnerships
with secondary schools, institutions of higher education,
State and local government agencies, and private child care
organizations for the purpose of sharing equipment, technical
assistance, and other technological resources, including--
(A) sites from which individuals may access the training;
(B) conversion of standard child care training courses to
programs for distance learning; and
(C) ongoing networking among program participants; and
(3) develop a mechanism for participants to--
(A) evaluate the effectiveness of the infrastructure,
including the availability and affordability of the
infrastructure, and the training offered the infrastructure;
and
(B) make recommendations for improvements to the
infrastructure.
(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may require, and that includes--
(1) a description of the partnership organizations through
which the distance learning programs will be disseminated and
made available;
(2) the capacity of the infrastructure in terms of the
number and type of distance learning programs that will be
made available;
(3) the expected number of individuals to participate in
the distance learning programs; and
[[Page
S118]]
(4) such additional information as the Secretary may
require.
(d) Limitation On Fees.--No entity receiving a grant under
this section may collect fees from an individual for
participation in a distance learning child care training
program funded in whole or in part by this section that
exceed the pro rata share of the amount expended by the
entity to provide materials for the training program and to
develop, implement, and maintain the infrastructure (minus
the amount of the grant awarded by this section).
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as requiring a child care provider to subscribe to
or complete a distance learning child care training program
made available by this section.
SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2003.
Subtitle B--Increased Enforcement of State Health and Safety Standards
SEC. 211. ENFORCEMENT OF STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
(a) Identification of State Inspection Rate.--
(1) In general.--Section 658E(c)(2)(G) of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(2)(G)) is amended by striking the period and inserting
``, and provide the percentage of completed child care
provider inspections that were required under State law for
each of the 2 preceding fiscal years.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies to State plans under the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) on and after
September 1, 1998.
(b) Increased or Decreased Allotments.--Section 658O(b) of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 9858m(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``, subject to paragraph (5),'' after
``shall''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Increased or decreased allotment based on state
inspection rate.--
``(A) Increased allotment for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001, the allotment determined for a
State under paragraph (1) for each such fiscal year shall be
increased by an amount equal to 10 percent of such allotment
for the fiscal year involved with respect to any State--
``(I) that certifies to the Secretary that the State has
not reduced the scope of any State child care health or
safety standards or requirements that were in effect in
calendar year 1996; and
``(II) that, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, had
a percentage of completed child care provider inspections (as
required to be reported under section 658E(c)(2)(G)), that
equaled or exceeded the target inspection and enforcement
percentage specified under clause (ii) for the fiscal year
for which the allotment is to be paid.
``(ii) Target inspection and enforcement percentage.--For
purposes of clause (i)(II), the target inspection and
enforcement percentage is--
``(I) for fiscal year 1999, 75 percent;
``(II) for fiscal year 2000, 80 percent; and
``(III) for fiscal year 2001, 100 percent.
``(iii) Pro rata reductions if insufficient
appropriations.--The Secretary shall make pro rata reductions
in the percentage increase otherwise required under clause
(i) for a State allotment for a fiscal year as necessary so
that the aggregate of all the allotments made under this
section do not exceed the amount appropriated for that fiscal
year under section 658B.
``(B) Decreased allotment for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.--
``(i) In general.--The allotment determined for a State
under paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001
shall be decreased by an amount equal to 10 percent of such
allotment for the fiscal year involved with respect to any
State that, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, had a
percentage of completed child care provider inspections (as
required to be reported under section 658E(c)(2)(G)) that was
below the minimum inspection and enforcement percentage
specified under clause (ii) for the fiscal year for which the
allotment is to be paid.
``(ii) Minimum inspection and enforcement percentage.--For
purposes of clause (i), the minimum inspection and
enforcement percentage is--
``(I) for fiscal year 2000, 50 percent; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2001, 75 percent.
``(iii) Requirement to expend State funds to replace
reduction.--If the allotment determined for a State for a
fiscal year is reduced by reason of clause (i), the State
shall, during the immediately succeeding fiscal year, expend
additional State funds under the State plan funded under this
subchapter by an amount equal to the amount of such
reduction.''.
Subtitle C--Removal of Barriers to Increasing the Supply of Quality
Child Care
SEC. 221. INCREASED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT.
Section 658B of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 658B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subchapter--
``(1) for each of fiscal years 1996 through 1998,
$1,000,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 1999, $1,500,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2000, $1,750,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,000,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2002, $2,250,000,000; and
``(2) for fiscal year 2003, $2,500,000,000.''.
SEC. 222. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish a program to award grants to States to assist
States in providing funds to encourage the establishment and
operation of employer operated child care programs.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including an assurance that the funds required under
subsection (e) will be provided.
(c) Amount of Grant.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of a grant to a State under this section based on the
population of the State as compared to the population of all
States.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use amounts provided under a
grant awarded under this section to provide assistance to
small businesses located in the State to enable the small
businesses to establish and operate child care programs. Such
assistance may include--
(A) technical assistance in the establishment of a child
care program;
(B) assistance for the start up costs related to a child
care program;
(C) assistance for the training of child care providers;
(D) scholarships for low-income wage earners;
(E) the provision of services to care for sick children or
to provide care to school aged children;
(F) the entering into of contracts with local resource and
referral or local health departments;
(G) care for children with disabilities; or
(H) assistance for any other activity determined
appropriate by the State.
(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance from
a State under this section, a small business shall prepare
and submit to the State an application at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the State may
require.
(3) Preference.--
(A) In general.--In providing assistance under this
section, a State shall give priority to applicants that
desire to form a consortium to provide child care in
geographic areas within the State where such care is not
generally available or accessible.
(B) Consortium.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
consortium shall be made up of 2 or more entities which may
include businesses, nonprofit agencies or organizations,
local governments, or other appropriate entities.
(4) Limitation.--With respect to grant funds received under
this section, a State may not provide in excess of $100,000
in assistance from such funds to any single applicant.
(e) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section a State shall provide assurances to
the Secretary that, with respect to the costs to be incurred
by an entity receiving assistance in carrying out activities
under this section, the entity will make available (directly
or through donations from public or private entities) non-
Federal contributions to such costs in an amount equal to--
(1) for the first fiscal year in which the entity receives
such assistance, not less than 50 percent of such costs ($1
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant);
(2) for the second fiscal year in which an entity receives
such assistance, not less than 66\2/3\ percent of such costs
($2 for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under
the grant); and
(3) for the third fiscal year in which an entity receives
such assistance, not less than 75 percent of such costs ($3
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant).
(f) Requirements of Providers.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under a grant awarded under this section a child
care provider shall comply with all applicable State and
local licensing and regulatory requirements and all
applicable health and safety standards in effect in the
State.
(g) Administration.--
(1) State responsibility.--A State shall have
responsibility for administering the grant awarded under this
section and for monitoring entities that receive assistance
under such grant.
(2) Audits.--A State shall require each entity receiving
assistance under a grant awarded under this section to
conduct an annual audit with respect to the activities of the
entity. Such audits shall be submitted to the State.
(3) Misuse of funds.--
(A) Repayment.--If the State determines, through an audit
or otherwise, that an entity receiving assistance under a
grant awarded under this section has misused the assistance,
the State shall notify the Secretary of the misuse. The
Secretary, upon such a notification, may seek from such an
entity the repayment of an amount equal to the amount of any
misused assistance plus interest.
[[Page
S119]]
(B) Appeals process.--The Secretary shall by regulation
provide for an appeals process with respect to repayments
under this paragraph.
(h) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) 2-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the Secretary first provides grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine--
(i) the capacity of entities to meet the child care needs
of communities within a State;
(ii) the kinds of partnerships that are being formed with
respect to child care at the local level; and
(iii) who is using the programs funded under this section
and the income levels of such individuals.
(B) Report.--Not later than 28 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(2) 4-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date on
which the Secretary first provides grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the number
of child care facilities funded through entities that
received assistance through a grant made under this section
that remain in operation and the extent to which such
facilities are meeting the child care needs of the
individuals served by such facilities.
(B) Report.--Not later than 52 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(i) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``small
business'' means an employer who employed an average of at
least 2 but not more than 50 employees on business days
during the preceding calendar year.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $60,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2001. With respect to
the total amount appropriated for such period in accordance
with this subsection, not more than $5,000,000 of that amount
may be used for expenditures related to conducting
evaluations required under, and the administration of, this
section.
(k) Termination of Program.--The program established under
subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2002.
SEC. 223. GAO REPORT REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGAL
LIABILITY CONCERNS AND THE AVAILABILITY AND
AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
report to Congress regarding whether and, if so, the extent
to which, concerns regarding potential legal liability
exposure inhibit the availability and affordability of child
care. The report shall include an assessment of whether such
concerns prevent--
(1) employers from establishing on or near-site child care
for their employees;
(2) schools or community centers from allowing their
facilities to be used for on-site child care; and
(3) individuals from providing professional, licensed child
care services in their homes.
Subtitle D--Quality Child Care Through Federal Facilities and Programs
SEC. 231. PROVIDING QUALITY CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Definition.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning given the term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, but does not include the Department of Defense.
(3) Executive facility.--The term ``executive facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by an Executive
agency.
(4) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
Executive agency, a judicial office, or a legislative office.
(5) Judicial facility.--The term ``judicial facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by a judicial
office.
(6) Judicial office.--The term ``judicial office'' means an
entity of the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
(7) Legislative facility.--The term ``legislative
facility'' means a facility that is owned or leased by a
legislative office.
(8) Legislative office.--The term ``legislative office''
means an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal
Government.
(b) Executive Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue regulations
requiring any entity operating a child care center in an
executive facility to comply with applicable State and local
licensing requirements related to the provision of child
care.
(B) Compliance.--The regulations shall require that, not
later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act--
(i) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress
(as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with
the requirements; and
(ii) any contract for the operation of such a child care
center shall include a condition that the child care be
provided in accordance with the requirements.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--The Administrator shall
evaluate the compliance of the entities described in
paragraph (1) with the regulations issued under that
paragraph. The Administrator may conduct the evaluation of
such an entity directly, or through an agreement with another
Federal agency, other than the Federal agency for which the
entity is providing child care. If the Administrator
determines, on the basis of such an evaluation, that the
entity is not in compliance with the regulations, the
Administrator shall notify the Executive agency.
(c) Legislative Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements and
accreditation standards.--The Architect of the Capitol shall
issue regulations for entities operating child care centers
in legislative facilities, which shall be the same as the
regulations issued by the Administrator under subsection
(b)(1), except to the extent that the Architect may
determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the
regulations, that a modification of such regulations would be
more effective for the implementation of the requirements and
standards described in such paragraphs.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--Subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to the Architect of the Capitol, entities operating
child care centers in legislative facilities, and legislative
offices. For purposes of that application, references in
subsection (b)(2) to regulations shall be considered to be
references to regulations issued under this subsection.
(d) Judicial Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements and
accreditation standards.--The Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts shall issue regulations
for entities operating child care centers in judicial
facilities, which shall be the same as the regulations issued
by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1), except to the
extent that the Director may determine, for good cause shown
and stated together with the regulations, that a modification
of such regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the requirements and standards described in
such paragraphs.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--Subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to the Director described in paragraph (1), entities
operating child care centers in judicial facilities, and
judicial offices. For purposes of that application,
references in subsection (b)(2) to regulations shall be
considered to be references to regulations issued under this
subsection.
(e) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if 3 or more child care centers are operated in
facilities owned or leased by a Federal agency, the head of
the Federal agency may carry out the responsibilities
assigned to the Administrator under subsection (b)(2), the
Architect of the Capitol under subsection (c)(2), or the
Director described in subsection (d)(2) under such
subsection, as appropriate.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join my
colleagues in introducing the ``Caring for Children Act,'' which will
ease the financial burden of child care for American families--for
those parents who work, and for those who choose to stay home to raise
their children for a period of time. The sponsors of this legislation
recognize the importance of affordable quality child care to the
successful development of our children.
Our bill would expand the Dependent Care tax credit to make it more
accessible to families who need it, double the authorization for the
Child Care Development Block Grant, and provide grants to small
businesses to create or enhance child care facilities for their
employees. This bill also includes provisions from the proposal I
introduced last year with my colleague, Congressman Jon Fox, ``The
Affordable Child Care Act,'' which provides a tax credit for employers
who provide on-site or site-adjacent child care to their employees in
order to reduce the child care expenses of the employee.
Not all families choose the same option for child care. Many families
rely on relatives, centers operated by churches and other religious
organizations, centers at or near their workplace, or make other
arrangements to provide care for their children while they work. In
light of the diverse needs for child care in America, this bill
represents a good start toward expanding the choices for American
parents. And, any such legislation must recognize that there is a need
to provide some relief to families where one parent stays at home.
The need for affordable and accessible day care is critical given the
increasing numbers of working parents and dual-income families in the
United States. According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1975, 31
percent of married
[[Page
S120]]
mothers with a child younger than age one participated in the labor
force. By 1995, that figure had risen to 59 percent. Almost 64 percent
of married mothers and 53 percent of single mothers with children
younger than age six participated in the labor force in 1995.
The cost of child care for families is also significant. Licensed day
care centers in some urban areas cost as much as $200 per week, and the
disparity in costs and availability of child care between urban and
rural grows greater every day. For families which need or choose to
have both parents work outside the home, the burden of making child
care decisions is great. These figures serve to underscore the need for
action on the part of the Federal government to provide the necessary
assistance to our nation's working families.
As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, I am pleased that this legislation would
build on an existing federal child care program by authorizing an
additional $5 billion over five years to the Child Care Development
Block Grant program, bringing total spending for this program to $2.5
billion annually by FY2002. The CCDBG program which works well in
assisting low-income families acquire child care and helped over 93,000
Pennsylvania families last year. By increasing the authorization, we
can help even more families without creating a new entitlement program.
Our legislation will also require States to create and enforce safety
and health standards in child care facilities, and provide money for
the Department of Health and Human Services to disseminate information
to parents and providers about quality child care, through brochures,
toll-free hotlines, the Internet, and other technological assistance.
The ``Caring for Children Act'' complements my recent efforts to
assist working families in the context of welfare reform and children's
health insurance. When Congress debated welfare reform in 1995 and
1996, I worked to ensure that adequate funds were provided for child
care, a critical component for welfare mothers who would be required to
work to receive new limited welfare benefits. I am pleased that the
welfare reform bill that became law provides $20 billion in child care
funding over a six year period. Similarly, I was pleased to participate
in the bipartisan effort in 1997 to enact legislation to provide $24
billion over the next five years for States to establish or broaden
children's health insurance programs.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical that the
105th Congress not adjourn without enacting legislation to assist
families in their ability to afford safe, quality child care for their
children, either at home with a parent or another arrangement. Our
legislation will provide peace of mind to millions of American families
struggling to balance career and child raising. I urge my colleagues to
join me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its
swift adoption.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, eight years ago, Congress passed and
President Bush signed the landmark Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act. I was proud to have helped lead the effort, and I am proud
of what our states have been able to accomplish since its
implementation.
But, it is also clear that we must do more to
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - January 28, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S114-S179]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1576. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive
application of California State regulations regarding reformulated
gasoline in certain areas within the State; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
THE MTBE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF 1998
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which will amend the Clean Air Act to allow California to operate its
own reformulated gasoline program, which is stricter than the federal
program and meets the air quality requirements set forth in the 1990
Clean Air Act.
What the bill does
The bill provides that if a state's reformulated gasoline rules
achieve equal or greater emissions reductions than federal regulation,
that state's rules will take precedence. This works to exempt
California from overlapping federal oxygenate requirements.
The bill is the Senate version of legislation introduced last year in
the House by Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego) and cosponsored by
46 members of the California Congressional delegation.
The bill applies only to states which have received waivers under
Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, for which California is the
only state currently eligible for such a waiver.
By exempting California from the oxygenate requirement, this
legislation will give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to reduce
or even eliminate the use of gasoline oxygenates, such as methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)--which has been detected in alarming
amounts in California groundwater.
The legislation allows the companies who serve California's gasoline
needs to continue to adopt better methods of producing California
Cleaner Burning gasoline, without being restricted by oxygenate
requirements.
california air quality history
California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal
efforts, and have achieved marked success in reducing toxic emission
levels, resulting in the cleanest air Californians have seen in
decades. This trend will continue with the passage of this bill.
Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline
program, there has been a 300 ton per day decrease in ozone forming
ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent
of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated
gasoline reduces smog forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent.
The state has also has seen a marked decrease in first stage smog
alerts, during which residents with respiratory ailments are encouraged
to stay indoors.
California Environmental Protection Agency Chairman John Dunlop, who
supports this legislation, says:
. . . our program has proven (to have) a significant effect
on California's air quality. Following the introduction of
California's gasoline program in the spring of 1996, monitor
levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10 percent in Northern
California, and by 18 percent in the Los Angeles area.
Benzene levels (have decreased) by more than 50 percent.
Although California has made great progress in decreasing the amount
of toxins in the air, the overlap of federal regulations, on top of the
strict state regulations, does not allow the state much flexibility in
the design and implementation of its reformulated fuels program.
This inflexibility makes it difficult for gasoline producers to
respond effectively to unforeseen problems associated with their
product. Such is the case with the oxygenate MTBE leaking into
California groundwater.
Refiners are bound by federal law to include an oxygenate in their
gasoline, even if they can make gasoline which meets Clean Air Act
emissions requirements without its use.
Thus, the need for the legislation is twofold--to streamline
overlapping federal and state regulations, and to allow gasoline
manufacturers the flexibility to make California Cleaner Burning
Gasoline without oxygenated fuels.
Federal reformulated gasoline requirement history
Federal reformulated gasoline, and the oxygenate requirement included
in it, came as a response to the worsening air quality of many American
cities.
For many years major cities, including San Diego, Sacramento and Los
Angeles, were facing serious pollution problems due to increasing
amounts of smog and ozone in the air.
As the air quality worsened, people around the country began
experiencing more frequent respiratory illnesses, and increased asthma
attacks due to the toxins in the air.
In 1990, Congress recognized the gravity of this national problem and
amended the Clean Air Act to ensure that our nation's most smoggy and
polluted areas were the beneficiaries of tougher motor vehicle emission
control standards.
One of these amendments directed the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a federal reformulated gasoline
program for urban areas with the most serious pollution problems.
The federal reformulated gasoline program mandated that this new
cleaner burning gasoline reduce emissions of benzene, a known human
carcinogen, and other toxins.
The federal program also mandated that this reformulated gasoline
contain 2 percent by weight oxygenate, which functions to make the gas
burn more completely and efficiently.
california reformulated gasoline
By December 1994, the oxygenate requirement went into effect. In
California, this mandate affected three cities in particular, where the
air quality was the worst.
Reformulated gasoline was required to be sold during the winter
season in the greater Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento regions.
This gasoline contained 11 percent MTBE, in order to meet the federal
oxygenate requirement.
While federal Clean Air Act regulations were being promulgated, the
California Air Resources Board developed even tougher and more
stringent environmental standards. However, these standards permitted
more flexibility in how they could be achieved by California's gasoline
manufacturers.
By establishing a State Implementation Plan which restricts eight
different properties that affect emissions of toxic air pollutants and
ozone forming compounds, California's stricter regulations were
approved by the U.S. EPA and are federally enforceable.
Additionally, California regulations contain an innovative predictive
model which is based on the analysis of a large number of vehicle
emission test studies. Refiners have the option of using this model to
produce reformulated gasoline as long as its usage results in
equivalent or greater reductions in emissions than federal regulations.
California EPA states that the predictive model ``shows that a
different formulation will achieve equivalent or better air quality
benefits.''
While the amendments to the Clean Air Act have helped reduce
emissions throughout the United States, they imposed limitations on the
level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to California.
The overlapping applicability of both the federal and state
reformulated gasoline rules has actually prohibited gasoline
manufacturers from responding as effectively as possible to unforeseen
problems with their product. This bill addresses exactly this type of
situation.
This legislation rewards California for its unique and effective
approach in solving its own air quality problems by permitting it an
exemption from federal oxygenate requirements as long as tough
environmental standards are enforced.
[[Page
S115]]
mtbe contamination of california groundwater
This legislation will allow refiners to address the problems that
have occurred with the use of MTBE as it has leaked into groundwater
supplies.
Such problems were certainly not anticipated during the drafting of
these amendments, and therefore only exemplifies the need for a
California exemption to this requirement.
MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through
soil and gravel, therefore posing a more rapid threat to aquifers than
the other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily
traced, but very difficult and expensive to clean up.
Higher quantities of MTBE in drinking water has a smell similar to
turpentine and a taste like paint thinner.
Although we do not have all of the data we need to determine the
potential damage of MTBE to our water and our health, we do know that
it is increasingly a problem for California:
MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of
cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles and San
Francisco;
MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs
including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in
the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara;
The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which
lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of
shallow gas tanks beneath the surface;
MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100
feet from City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe;
In Glennvile, California, Near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been
detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion--
dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of
35 parts per billion; and
250 underground fuel tank sites have leaked MTBE in Santa Clara
County not far from water wells used by the residents of San Jose.
In the face of mounting evidence of extensive MTBE contamination in
California groundwater, several gasoline manufacturers, including
Chevron and Tosco (Union 76), have made it clear they would like to
have the flexibility to use only the amount and type of oxygenate
necessary to continue to meet the environmental specifications of clean
burning gasoline.
Many manufacturers believe that it is possible to meet California's
more stringent clean air standards using reduced amounts of, or in some
cases, no oxygenate in their gasolines.
In a recent letter to me, Chevron chairman Ken Derr
expressed
his belief that while he believes MTBE is safe if handled properly, his
company is exploring other options. He says:
(Chevron has) taken another look at the extensive body of
data that relates to fuel composition to vehicle emissions
and have concluded that it may be possible to make more
gasoline without MTBE and still meet California's cleaner
burning gasoline standards.
If California refiners can meet the stricter state clean air standard
while reducing or eliminating the use of a chemical that is
contaminating California water, it makes good sense to give them the
flexibility they need to solve the problem.
By amending the Clear Air Act to waive the requirement for oxygenates
in California, which already has in place its own stricter standards,
this legislation does not detract in any way from the gains in emission
reductions mandated in the Clear Air Act. It will simply allow for
companies like Chevron to meet Clean Air Act requirements, while
maximizing the advantages of increased flexibility in order to respond
more efficiently and effectively to any unforseen problems encountered
in the production of California cleaner burning gasoline.
If exempting California from the oxygenate requirement meant
weakening the Clear Air Act in any way, I would be the first person to
stand up and lead the battle against such an effort.
This bill does not weaken the Clear Air Act, but instead is a step in
the right direction, towards sound environmental policy.
This narrowly-targeted legislation simply makes sense. With this
bill, California is once again taking the initiative to lead the way in
ensuring the protection of the air we breathe, and the water we drink.
By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to utilize
good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals
set forth by the Clear Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean
water.
In short, when we pass this legislation, we will take another step
forward in ensuring that protecting our air qualify does not come at
the expense of safeguarding our water.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1576
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GASOLINE RULES.
Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``If any such State that has received a waiver under section
209(b)(1) promulgates reformulated gasoline rules for any
covered area of the State (as defined in subsection (k)(10)),
the rules shall apply in the area in lieu of the requirements
of subsection (k) if the State rules will achieve equivalent
or greater emission reductions than would result from the
application of the requirements of subsection (k) in the case
of the aggregate mass of emissions of toxic air pollutants
and in the case of the aggregate mass of emissions of ozone-
forming compounds.''.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Specter and Ms. Collins):
S. 1577. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
additional tax relief to families to increase the affordability of
child care, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE CARING FOR CHILDREN ACT
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Caring
for Children Act, legislation to help all families with their child
care needs.
I want to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to put this
bill together. Senator Hatch, who was a leader in the development of
the child care block grant, and is always a stalwart supporter of
children. Senator Snowe, who has worked on this issue for many years.
Senator Roberts, who has taken an active interest in this issue.
Senator Specter, who made an enormous contribution to the development
of this bill. And Senator Susan Collins, who we are very fortunate to
have on our child care proposal.
Last night, in his State of the Union Address to the nation,
President Clinton issued a challenge to Congress to develop child care
legislation in a bipartisan manner with the Administration. Well, that
is exactly what we are doing today.
Our proposal is straightforward and far-reaching. It makes the
current child care credit more equitable for lower and middle income
families. And, for the first time, makes the credit available to
families where one parent stays at home to care for the children. That
is a critical step and an important change for families across America.
Raising children in today's world is a true challenge. In many
families, both parents must work in order to support the family. Often,
the child care expenses consume all or most of one parent's income. How
often do we hear the refrain, particularly from women, that after they
pay for day care, there is little or nothing left of their wages.
Another common complaint is from parents who desperately want to stay
home and raise their children themselves--especially in those very
critical, early years of childhood--but who simply cannot afford to
forego that second income.
The legislation we are introducing today responds to both of these
concerns. We believe that parents should make their own decisions about
who is going to care for their children. The government and the tax
code should not be promoting one choice over another.
By making more of the existing child care tax credit available to
lower and middle income families, and making it available also to
families where one parent stays at home, we are sending the message
that the choice is yours, and we support your choice.
Our bill makes several changes to the existing dependent care tax
credit.
[[Page
S116]]
First, the maximum credit percentage is increased from 30 percent to 50
percent to provide more benefits to those most in need. Second, the
income level at which the maximum credit begins to be reduced is moved
from $10,000 to $30,000, so that more lower-income families will
qualify for the maximum amount of assistance. Third, we propose to
completely phase out the credit for wealthier families. Finally,
families where one spouse stays at home to care for the children will
be eligible for a credit similar to the one they would receive if both
parents were working outside the home and the child was in daycare.
We also acknowledge that we cannot solve the entire child care
problem through the tax code alone. Many low-income families do not
have taxable income, and therefore cannot benefit from a tax credit.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides critical
funding to help these lower-income families--and I have been a strong
supporter of the program. Recognizing the critical role CCDBG plays in
subsidizing daycare for low-income families in the states, our proposal
doubles the block grant over a five-year period.
Of course, the problem with child care is not limited to just
affordability. Many parents cannot find an available child care slot.
Our proposal addresses this issue of accessibility by providing a tax
credit to businesses to build or renovate on or near-site child care
centers for their employees.
Finally, there is the issue of quality daycare. Parents cannot be
productive in the workplace if they are constantly worrying about the
health and safety of their children in daycare. We have all read the
horrifying stories in the newspapers about daycare facilities that are
unsafe or unsanitary, about the poor record of enforcement of standards
in many states.
while we acknowledge that the federal government should not be
setting standards for daycare providers, we do believe the states
should set at least minimum health and safety standards and enforce
them rigorously. Our legislation beefs up this enforcement by rewarding
states with a good enforcement record and penalizing those with poor
records.
I am very proud of this legislation, and proud that this group was
able to come together and produce this initiative. Child care is a
problem that must be solved, and we are committed to doing that. I look
forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Congress
to find workable, affordable solutions for all families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1577
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Caring for
Children Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--TAX RELIEF TO INCREASE CHILD CARE AFFORDABILITY
Sec. 101. Expansion of dependent care tax credit.
Sec. 102. Promotion of dependent care assistance programs.
Sec. 103. Allowance of credit for employer expenses for child care
assistance.
TITLE II--ENCOURAGING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Subtitle A--Dissemination of Information About Quality Child Care
Sec. 201. Collection and dissemination of information.
Sec. 202. Grants for the development of a child care training
infrastructure.
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Increased Enforcement of State Health and Safety Standards
Sec. 211. Enforcement of State health and safety standards.
Subtitle C--Removal of Barriers to Increasing the Supply of Quality
Child Care
Sec. 221. Increased authorization of appropriations for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act.
Sec. 222. Small business child care grant program.
Sec. 223. GAO report regarding the relationship between legal liability
concerns and the availability and affordability of child
care.
Subtitle D--Quality Child Care Through Federal Facilities and Programs
Sec. 231. Providing quality child care in Federal facilities.
TITLE I--TAX RELIEF TO INCREASE CHILD CARE AFFORDABILITY
SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.
(a) Percentage of Employment-Related Expenses Determined by
Taxpayer Status.--Section 21(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining applicable percentage) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `applicable percentage' means 50
percent reduced (but not below zero) by 1 percentage point
for each $1,500, or fraction thereof, by which the
taxpayers's adjusted gross income for the taxable year
exceeds $30,000.''.
(b) Minimum Credit Allowed for Stay-at-Home Parents.--
Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to special rules) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer
with one or more qualifying individuals described in
subsection (b)(1)(A) under the age of 4 at any time during
the taxable year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have
employment-related expenses with respect to such qualifying
individuals in an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) the amount of employment-related expenses incurred
for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year
(determined under this section without regard to this
paragraph), or
``(B) $150 for each month in such taxable year during which
such qualifying individual is under the age of 4.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
SEC. 102. PROMOTION OF DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Promotion of Dependent Care Assistance Programs.--The
Secretary of Labor shall establish a program to promote
awareness of the use of dependent care assistance programs
(as described in section 129(d) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986) by employers.
(b) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the program under paragraph
(1) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002.
SEC. 103. ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER EXPENSES FOR CHILD
CARE ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 45D. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILD CARE CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the
employer-provided child care credit determined under this
section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent
of the qualified child care expenditures of the taxpayer for
such taxable year.
``(b) Dollar Limitation.--The credit allowable under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
$100,000.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified child care expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care
expenditure' means any amount paid or incurred--
``(i) to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, or expand
property--
``(I) which is to be used as part of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer,
``(II) with respect to which a deduction for depreciation
(or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
``(III) which does not constitute part of the principal
residence (within the meaning of section 1034) of the
taxpayer or any employee of the taxpayer,
``(ii) for the operating costs of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer, including costs related to the
training of employees,
``(iii) under a contract with a qualified child care
facility to provide child care services to employees of the
taxpayer, or
``(iv) under a contract to provide child care resource and
referral services to employees of the taxpayer.
``(2) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The
term `qualified child care expenditure' shall not include any
amount to the extent such amount is funded by any grant,
contract, or otherwise by another person (or any governmental
entity).
``(3) Qualified child care facility.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care facility'
means a facility--
``(i) the principal use of which is to provide child care
assistance, and
``(ii) which meets the requirements of all applicable laws
and regulations of the State or local government in which it
is located, including, but not limited to, the licensing of
the facility as a child care facility.
Clause (i) shall not apply to a facility which is the
principal residence (within the meaning of section 1034) of
the operator of the facility.
``(B) Special rules with respect to a taxpayer.--A facility
shall not be treated as a qualified child care facility with
respect to a taxpayer unless--
[[Page
S117]]
``(i) enrollment in the facility is open to employees of
the taxpayer during the taxable year,
``(ii) the facility is not the principal trade or business
of the taxpayer unless at least 30 percent of the enrollees
of such facility are dependents of employees of the taxpayer,
and
``(iii) the use of such facility (or the eligibility to use
such facility) does not discriminate in favor of employees of
the taxpayer who are highly compensated employees (within the
meaning of section 414(q)).
``(d) Recapture of Acquisition and Construction Credit.--
``(1) In general.--If, as of the close of any taxable year,
there is a recapture event with respect to any qualified
child care facility of the taxpayer, then the tax of the
taxpayer under this chapter for such taxable year shall be
increased by an amount equal to the product of--
``(A) the applicable recapture percentage, and
``(B) the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed under
section 38 for all prior taxable years which would have
resulted if the qualified child care expenditures of the
taxpayer described in subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to
such facility had been zero.
``(2) Applicable recapture percentage.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable recapture percentage shall be determined from the
following table:
The applicable
recapture
``If the recapture evpercentage is:
Years 1-3....................................................100
Year 4........................................................85
Year 5........................................................70
Year 6........................................................55
Year 7........................................................40
Year 8........................................................25
Years 9 and 10................................................10
Years 11 and thereafter........................................0.
``(B) Years.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), year 1
shall begin on the first day of the taxable year in which the
qualified child care facility is placed in service by the
taxpayer.
``(3) Recapture event defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `recapture event' means--
``(A) Cessation of operation.--The cessation of the
operation of the facility as a qualified child care facility.
``(B) Change in ownership.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
disposition of a taxpayer's interest in a qualified child
care facility with respect to which the credit described in
subsection (a) was allowable.
``(ii) Agreement to assume recapture liability.--Clause (i)
shall not apply if the person acquiring such interest in the
facility agrees in writing to assume the recapture liability
of the person disposing of such interest in effect
immediately before such disposition. In the event of such an
assumption, the person acquiring the interest in the facility
shall be treated as the taxpayer for purposes of assessing
any recapture liability (computed as if there had been no
change in ownership).
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit
under subpart A, B, or D of this part.
``(C) No recapture by reason of casualty loss.--The
increase in tax under this subsection shall not apply to a
cessation of operation of the facility as a qualified child
care facility by reason of a casualty loss to the extent such
loss is restored by reconstruction or replacement within a
reasonable period established by the Secretary.
``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Aggregation rules.--All persons which are treated as
a single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52
shall be treated as a single taxpayer.
``(2) Pass-thru in the case of estates and trusts.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the
rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
``(3) Allocation in the case of partnerships.--In the case
of partnerships, the credit shall be allocated among partners
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(f) No Double Benefit.--
``(1) Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle--
``(A) In general.--If a credit is determined under this
section with respect to any property by reason of
expenditures described in subsection (c)(1)(A), the basis of
such property shall be reduced by the amount of the credit so
determined.
``(B) Certain dispositions.--If during any taxable year
there is a recapture amount determined with respect to any
property the basis of which was reduced under subparagraph
(A), the basis of such property (immediately before the event
resulting in such recapture) shall be increased by an amount
equal to such recapture amount. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `recapture amount' means any increase in
tax (or adjustment in carrybacks or carryovers) determined
under subsection (d).
``(2) Other deductions and credits.--No deduction or credit
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter
with respect to the amount of the credit determined under
this section.
``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2003.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) by striking out ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
(B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph
(12), and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the employer-provided child care credit determined
under section 45D.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45D. Employer-provided child care credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
TITLE II--ENCOURAGING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Subtitle A--Dissemination of Information About Quality Child Care
SEC. 201. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.
(a) Collection and Dissemination of Information.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, directly or
through a contract awarded on a competitive basis to a
qualified entity, collect and disseminate--
(1) information concerning health and safety in various
child care settings that would assist--
(A) the provision of safe and healthful environments by
child care providers; and
(B) the evaluation of child care providers by parents; and
(2) relevant findings in the field of early childhood
learning and development.
(b) Information and Findings To Be Generally Available.--
(1) Secretarial responsibility.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall make the information and findings
described in subsection (a) generally available to States,
units of local governments, private nonprofit child care
organizations (including resource and referral agencies),
employers, child care providers, and parents.
(2) Definition of generally available.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term ``generally available'' means that
the information and findings shall be distributed through
resources that are used by, and available to, the public,
including such resources as brochures, Internet web sites,
toll-free telephone information lines, and public and private
resource and referral organizations.
SEC. 202. GRANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD CARE TRAINING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall award grants to eligible entities to
develop distance learning child care training technology
infrastructures and to develop model technology-based
training courses for child care providers and child care
workers. The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible,
ensure that grants for the development of distance learning
child care training technology infrastructures are awarded in
those regions of the United States with the fewest training
opportunities for child care providers.
(b) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under subsection (a), an entity shall--
(1) develop the technological and logistical aspects of the
infrastructure described in this section and have the
capability of implementing and maintaining the
infrastructure;
(2) to the maximum extent possible, develop partnerships
with secondary schools, institutions of higher education,
State and local government agencies, and private child care
organizations for the purpose of sharing equipment, technical
assistance, and other technological resources, including--
(A) sites from which individuals may access the training;
(B) conversion of standard child care training courses to
programs for distance learning; and
(C) ongoing networking among program participants; and
(3) develop a mechanism for participants to--
(A) evaluate the effectiveness of the infrastructure,
including the availability and affordability of the
infrastructure, and the training offered the infrastructure;
and
(B) make recommendations for improvements to the
infrastructure.
(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may require, and that includes--
(1) a description of the partnership organizations through
which the distance learning programs will be disseminated and
made available;
(2) the capacity of the infrastructure in terms of the
number and type of distance learning programs that will be
made available;
(3) the expected number of individuals to participate in
the distance learning programs; and
[[Page
S118]]
(4) such additional information as the Secretary may
require.
(d) Limitation On Fees.--No entity receiving a grant under
this section may collect fees from an individual for
participation in a distance learning child care training
program funded in whole or in part by this section that
exceed the pro rata share of the amount expended by the
entity to provide materials for the training program and to
develop, implement, and maintain the infrastructure (minus
the amount of the grant awarded by this section).
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as requiring a child care provider to subscribe to
or complete a distance learning child care training program
made available by this section.
SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2003.
Subtitle B--Increased Enforcement of State Health and Safety Standards
SEC. 211. ENFORCEMENT OF STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
(a) Identification of State Inspection Rate.--
(1) In general.--Section 658E(c)(2)(G) of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(2)(G)) is amended by striking the period and inserting
``, and provide the percentage of completed child care
provider inspections that were required under State law for
each of the 2 preceding fiscal years.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies to State plans under the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) on and after
September 1, 1998.
(b) Increased or Decreased Allotments.--Section 658O(b) of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 9858m(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``, subject to paragraph (5),'' after
``shall''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Increased or decreased allotment based on state
inspection rate.--
``(A) Increased allotment for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001, the allotment determined for a
State under paragraph (1) for each such fiscal year shall be
increased by an amount equal to 10 percent of such allotment
for the fiscal year involved with respect to any State--
``(I) that certifies to the Secretary that the State has
not reduced the scope of any State child care health or
safety standards or requirements that were in effect in
calendar year 1996; and
``(II) that, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, had
a percentage of completed child care provider inspections (as
required to be reported under section 658E(c)(2)(G)), that
equaled or exceeded the target inspection and enforcement
percentage specified under clause (ii) for the fiscal year
for which the allotment is to be paid.
``(ii) Target inspection and enforcement percentage.--For
purposes of clause (i)(II), the target inspection and
enforcement percentage is--
``(I) for fiscal year 1999, 75 percent;
``(II) for fiscal year 2000, 80 percent; and
``(III) for fiscal year 2001, 100 percent.
``(iii) Pro rata reductions if insufficient
appropriations.--The Secretary shall make pro rata reductions
in the percentage increase otherwise required under clause
(i) for a State allotment for a fiscal year as necessary so
that the aggregate of all the allotments made under this
section do not exceed the amount appropriated for that fiscal
year under section 658B.
``(B) Decreased allotment for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.--
``(i) In general.--The allotment determined for a State
under paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001
shall be decreased by an amount equal to 10 percent of such
allotment for the fiscal year involved with respect to any
State that, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, had a
percentage of completed child care provider inspections (as
required to be reported under section 658E(c)(2)(G)) that was
below the minimum inspection and enforcement percentage
specified under clause (ii) for the fiscal year for which the
allotment is to be paid.
``(ii) Minimum inspection and enforcement percentage.--For
purposes of clause (i), the minimum inspection and
enforcement percentage is--
``(I) for fiscal year 2000, 50 percent; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2001, 75 percent.
``(iii) Requirement to expend State funds to replace
reduction.--If the allotment determined for a State for a
fiscal year is reduced by reason of clause (i), the State
shall, during the immediately succeeding fiscal year, expend
additional State funds under the State plan funded under this
subchapter by an amount equal to the amount of such
reduction.''.
Subtitle C--Removal of Barriers to Increasing the Supply of Quality
Child Care
SEC. 221. INCREASED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT.
Section 658B of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 658B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subchapter--
``(1) for each of fiscal years 1996 through 1998,
$1,000,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 1999, $1,500,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2000, $1,750,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,000,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2002, $2,250,000,000; and
``(2) for fiscal year 2003, $2,500,000,000.''.
SEC. 222. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish a program to award grants to States to assist
States in providing funds to encourage the establishment and
operation of employer operated child care programs.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including an assurance that the funds required under
subsection (e) will be provided.
(c) Amount of Grant.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of a grant to a State under this section based on the
population of the State as compared to the population of all
States.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use amounts provided under a
grant awarded under this section to provide assistance to
small businesses located in the State to enable the small
businesses to establish and operate child care programs. Such
assistance may include--
(A) technical assistance in the establishment of a child
care program;
(B) assistance for the start up costs related to a child
care program;
(C) assistance for the training of child care providers;
(D) scholarships for low-income wage earners;
(E) the provision of services to care for sick children or
to provide care to school aged children;
(F) the entering into of contracts with local resource and
referral or local health departments;
(G) care for children with disabilities; or
(H) assistance for any other activity determined
appropriate by the State.
(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance from
a State under this section, a small business shall prepare
and submit to the State an application at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the State may
require.
(3) Preference.--
(A) In general.--In providing assistance under this
section, a State shall give priority to applicants that
desire to form a consortium to provide child care in
geographic areas within the State where such care is not
generally available or accessible.
(B) Consortium.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
consortium shall be made up of 2 or more entities which may
include businesses, nonprofit agencies or organizations,
local governments, or other appropriate entities.
(4) Limitation.--With respect to grant funds received under
this section, a State may not provide in excess of $100,000
in assistance from such funds to any single applicant.
(e) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section a State shall provide assurances to
the Secretary that, with respect to the costs to be incurred
by an entity receiving assistance in carrying out activities
under this section, the entity will make available (directly
or through donations from public or private entities) non-
Federal contributions to such costs in an amount equal to--
(1) for the first fiscal year in which the entity receives
such assistance, not less than 50 percent of such costs ($1
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant);
(2) for the second fiscal year in which an entity receives
such assistance, not less than 66\2/3\ percent of such costs
($2 for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under
the grant); and
(3) for the third fiscal year in which an entity receives
such assistance, not less than 75 percent of such costs ($3
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant).
(f) Requirements of Providers.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under a grant awarded under this section a child
care provider shall comply with all applicable State and
local licensing and regulatory requirements and all
applicable health and safety standards in effect in the
State.
(g) Administration.--
(1) State responsibility.--A State shall have
responsibility for administering the grant awarded under this
section and for monitoring entities that receive assistance
under such grant.
(2) Audits.--A State shall require each entity receiving
assistance under a grant awarded under this section to
conduct an annual audit with respect to the activities of the
entity. Such audits shall be submitted to the State.
(3) Misuse of funds.--
(A) Repayment.--If the State determines, through an audit
or otherwise, that an entity receiving assistance under a
grant awarded under this section has misused the assistance,
the State shall notify the Secretary of the misuse. The
Secretary, upon such a notification, may seek from such an
entity the repayment of an amount equal to the amount of any
misused assistance plus interest.
[[Page
S119]]
(B) Appeals process.--The Secretary shall by regulation
provide for an appeals process with respect to repayments
under this paragraph.
(h) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) 2-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the Secretary first provides grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine--
(i) the capacity of entities to meet the child care needs
of communities within a State;
(ii) the kinds of partnerships that are being formed with
respect to child care at the local level; and
(iii) who is using the programs funded under this section
and the income levels of such individuals.
(B) Report.--Not later than 28 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(2) 4-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date on
which the Secretary first provides grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the number
of child care facilities funded through entities that
received assistance through a grant made under this section
that remain in operation and the extent to which such
facilities are meeting the child care needs of the
individuals served by such facilities.
(B) Report.--Not later than 52 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(i) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``small
business'' means an employer who employed an average of at
least 2 but not more than 50 employees on business days
during the preceding calendar year.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $60,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2001. With respect to
the total amount appropriated for such period in accordance
with this subsection, not more than $5,000,000 of that amount
may be used for expenditures related to conducting
evaluations required under, and the administration of, this
section.
(k) Termination of Program.--The program established under
subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2002.
SEC. 223. GAO REPORT REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGAL
LIABILITY CONCERNS AND THE AVAILABILITY AND
AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
report to Congress regarding whether and, if so, the extent
to which, concerns regarding potential legal liability
exposure inhibit the availability and affordability of child
care. The report shall include an assessment of whether such
concerns prevent--
(1) employers from establishing on or near-site child care
for their employees;
(2) schools or community centers from allowing their
facilities to be used for on-site child care; and
(3) individuals from providing professional, licensed child
care services in their homes.
Subtitle D--Quality Child Care Through Federal Facilities and Programs
SEC. 231. PROVIDING QUALITY CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Definition.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning given the term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, but does not include the Department of Defense.
(3) Executive facility.--The term ``executive facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by an Executive
agency.
(4) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
Executive agency, a judicial office, or a legislative office.
(5) Judicial facility.--The term ``judicial facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by a judicial
office.
(6) Judicial office.--The term ``judicial office'' means an
entity of the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
(7) Legislative facility.--The term ``legislative
facility'' means a facility that is owned or leased by a
legislative office.
(8) Legislative office.--The term ``legislative office''
means an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal
Government.
(b) Executive Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue regulations
requiring any entity operating a child care center in an
executive facility to comply with applicable State and local
licensing requirements related to the provision of child
care.
(B) Compliance.--The regulations shall require that, not
later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act--
(i) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress
(as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with
the requirements; and
(ii) any contract for the operation of such a child care
center shall include a condition that the child care be
provided in accordance with the requirements.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--The Administrator shall
evaluate the compliance of the entities described in
paragraph (1) with the regulations issued under that
paragraph. The Administrator may conduct the evaluation of
such an entity directly, or through an agreement with another
Federal agency, other than the Federal agency for which the
entity is providing child care. If the Administrator
determines, on the basis of such an evaluation, that the
entity is not in compliance with the regulations, the
Administrator shall notify the Executive agency.
(c) Legislative Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements and
accreditation standards.--The Architect of the Capitol shall
issue regulations for entities operating child care centers
in legislative facilities, which shall be the same as the
regulations issued by the Administrator under subsection
(b)(1), except to the extent that the Architect may
determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the
regulations, that a modification of such regulations would be
more effective for the implementation of the requirements and
standards described in such paragraphs.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--Subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to the Architect of the Capitol, entities operating
child care centers in legislative facilities, and legislative
offices. For purposes of that application, references in
subsection (b)(2) to regulations shall be considered to be
references to regulations issued under this subsection.
(d) Judicial Branch Standards and Enforcement.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements and
accreditation standards.--The Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts shall issue regulations
for entities operating child care centers in judicial
facilities, which shall be the same as the regulations issued
by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1), except to the
extent that the Director may determine, for good cause shown
and stated together with the regulations, that a modification
of such regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the requirements and standards described in
such paragraphs.
(2) Evaluation and enforcement.--Subsection (b)(2) shall
apply to the Director described in paragraph (1), entities
operating child care centers in judicial facilities, and
judicial offices. For purposes of that application,
references in subsection (b)(2) to regulations shall be
considered to be references to regulations issued under this
subsection.
(e) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if 3 or more child care centers are operated in
facilities owned or leased by a Federal agency, the head of
the Federal agency may carry out the responsibilities
assigned to the Administrator under subsection (b)(2), the
Architect of the Capitol under subsection (c)(2), or the
Director described in subsection (d)(2) under such
subsection, as appropriate.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join my
colleagues in introducing the ``Caring for Children Act,'' which will
ease the financial burden of child care for American families--for
those parents who work, and for those who choose to stay home to raise
their children for a period of time. The sponsors of this legislation
recognize the importance of affordable quality child care to the
successful development of our children.
Our bill would expand the Dependent Care tax credit to make it more
accessible to families who need it, double the authorization for the
Child Care Development Block Grant, and provide grants to small
businesses to create or enhance child care facilities for their
employees. This bill also includes provisions from the proposal I
introduced last year with my colleague, Congressman Jon Fox, ``The
Affordable Child Care Act,'' which provides a tax credit for employers
who provide on-site or site-adjacent child care to their employees in
order to reduce the child care expenses of the employee.
Not all families choose the same option for child care. Many families
rely on relatives, centers operated by churches and other religious
organizations, centers at or near their workplace, or make other
arrangements to provide care for their children while they work. In
light of the diverse needs for child care in America, this bill
represents a good start toward expanding the choices for American
parents. And, any such legislation must recognize that there is a need
to provide some relief to families where one parent stays at home.
The need for affordable and accessible day care is critical given the
increasing numbers of working parents and dual-income families in the
United States. According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1975, 31
percent of married
[[Page
S120]]
mothers with a child younger than age one participated in the labor
force. By 1995, that figure had risen to 59 percent. Almost 64 percent
of married mothers and 53 percent of single mothers with children
younger than age six participated in the labor force in 1995.
The cost of child care for families is also significant. Licensed day
care centers in some urban areas cost as much as $200 per week, and the
disparity in costs and availability of child care between urban and
rural grows greater every day. For families which need or choose to
have both parents work outside the home, the burden of making child
care decisions is great. These figures serve to underscore the need for
action on the part of the Federal government to provide the necessary
assistance to our nation's working families.
As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, I am pleased that this legislation would
build on an existing federal child care program by authorizing an
additional $5 billion over five years to the Child Care Development
Block Grant program, bringing total spending for this program to $2.5
billion annually by FY2002. The CCDBG program which works well in
assisting low-income families acquire child care and helped over 93,000
Pennsylvania families last year. By increasing the authorization, we
can help even more families without creating a new entitlement program.
Our legislation will also require States to create and enforce safety
and health standards in child care facilities, and provide money for
the Department of Health and Human Services to disseminate information
to parents and providers about quality child care, through brochures,
toll-free hotlines, the Internet, and other technological assistance.
The ``Caring for Children Act'' complements my recent efforts to
assist working families in the context of welfare reform and children's
health insurance. When Congress debated welfare reform in 1995 and
1996, I worked to ensure that adequate funds were provided for child
care, a critical component for welfare mothers who would be required to
work to receive new limited welfare benefits. I am pleased that the
welfare reform bill that became law provides $20 billion in child care
funding over a six year period. Similarly, I was pleased to participate
in the bipartisan effort in 1997 to enact legislation to provide $24
billion over the next five years for States to establish or broaden
children's health insurance programs.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical that the
105th Congress not adjourn without enacting legislation to assist
families in their ability to afford safe, quality child care for their
children, either at home with a parent or another arrangement. Our
legislation will provide peace of mind to millions of American families
struggling to balance career and child raising. I urge my colleagues to
join me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its
swift adoption.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, eight years ago, Congress passed and
President Bush signed the landmark Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act. I was proud to have helped lead the effort, and I am proud
of what our states have been able to accomplish since its
implementation.
But, it is also clear that we must do more to help families. In my
home state
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
