Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3 - Early Childhood Education and Development Act

(House)
(Hawkins (D) CA and 124 others)

The Administration supports House passage of the amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 3 to be offered by Representatives Stenholm and Shaw.

The Administration opposes House passage of H.R. 3 as modified by the majority leadership. Were this bill presented to the President for signature, his senior advisors would recommend that it be vetoed.

The Administration has proposed child care legislation and worked in good faith to develop an acceptable compromise — with a view toward enacting a responsible bill this year.

At the same time, however, the Administration is concerned that child care legislation should be fiscally responsible, with sufficient offsets provided in each year to fund all new spending. Accordingly, the Administration strongly objects to the fact that the rule on H.R. 3 did not make in order the Michel amendment, which would have ensured that any House-passed child care legislation be fiscally responsible.

The majority leadership has not yet shared the official cost estimates for their bill. Nevertheless, it is clear that this version of H.R. 3 is an exercise in fiscal irresponsibility. Its estimated cost is $29 billion for FYs 91-95 — almost half of which is not offset by measures included in the bill.

The excessive spending under the majority leadership's bill, moreover, is for initiatives that are seriously flawed substantively, as illustrated below.

Discrimination Against Religiously-based Services. The majority leadership's bill contains a "certificate" provision that it claims will allow parents to choose sectarian care for their children. However, far less choice or access is provided than the rhetoric suggests, or than is provided by the Stenholm-Shaw substitute:

• The modified H.R. 3 certificate provision applies only to child care funded under the new Title XX program. The majority of grant funding in the bill ($7.6 billion) does not allow parents to select religiously-based services for their children. The school-based programs in H.R. 3's Title II constitute the most significant violation of parental choice.

  School-based programs eligible for Title II funding operate in accordance with practices and court decisions applicable to Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, of which Title II is a part. Consequently, child care and early childhood development services could not be provided in religiously-affiliated schools by the staff of those schools — regardless of the needs and preferences of the children and their families.

• The modified H.R. 3 contains intricate provisions on preferences in sectarian child care hiring and admissions under Title XX. Enforcement of these provisions risks unconstitutional church-state entanglement, which will deter religiously-affiliated providers from participation.

Federal Mandates that Limit Parental Choice. The majority leadership's bill subjects child care provided by friends and neighbors to intrustive regulatory standards and paperwork requirements. These standards and requirements apply to a relative who cares for a neighbor's child while caring for a member of the family. As a result, many who now are providing care or would do so in the future would refuse to serve as caregivers. Parents' choice of child care arrangements funded under the bill, thus, would be severely constrained.

The reach of the majority leadership's bill, moreover, extends beyond care subsidized under its provisions. There are two sets of Federal requirements for regulatory standards, to be set by two separate agencies in each State. Between them they cover virtually all types of providers — including neighbors and friends. These requirements will reduce the supply of informal, neighborhood-based care for all parents; bias the care that is available toward institutional centers now used only by a minority of families at any income level; and increase the price of child care nationwide.

Adverse Effects on Head Start. H.R. 3 as modified by the majority leadership does not increase funding to expand Head Start's early childhood development services for poor children. Instead the bill radically alters the current program. It also provides grants to public school systems for early childhood development programs that would compete with Head Start for scarce resources, to the detriment of poor children:

• Title I expands eligibility for Head Start developmental services to nonpoor children when not all poor children are being served. It also contains several strong financial incentives for Head Start programs, now tailored to community needs, to adopt one uniform program model, as well as to focus on child care rather than on the comprehensive, developmental services that are key to Head Start's success.
• Title II authorizes grants for early childhood development programs to public school systems — many of which are not now adequately fulfilling their current missions, particularly with regard to poor and minority children. These Title II programs are targeted to four year olds (the same age group now emphasized by Head Start), but they would be available to these children regardless of their parents' income. This creates the very real risk that where space and staff are in short supply, poor four year olds would remain unserved while children from higher income families receive services.

Grant Proliferation and Excessive Bureaucracy. Five new Federal child care grant programs are created under the majority leadership's bill. In addition, new Federal child care funding is provided through a new subtitle in Title XX (the Social Services Block Grant) that contains significant Federal restrictions and requirements that are totally at odds with the block grant nature of the current program. The resulting fragmentation of funding will hinder coordination of child care at all levels of government. It also will consume scarce resources for bureaucratic and administrative functions rather than for providing care for children.

The majority leadership's bill is an improvement over H.R. 3 as reported by the Education and Labor Committee in one respect: it includes an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit that is consistent in concept with the President's child care principles. However, the cost of the bill and its serious flaws make the majority leadership's H.R. 3 totally unacceptable.

Stenholm-Shaw Substitute

The Administration supports House passage of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Representatives Stenholm and Shaw. The substitute's child care provisions are fundamentally consistent with the President's principles, although the Administration is concerned about its cost and other aspects of the proposal. The child care provisions afford meaningful parental choice, do not discriminate against religiously-based child care, target assistance to those most in need, and do not contain Federal mandates that would reduce the supply of child care and increase its cost. The substitute, therefore, is far preferable to the majority leadership's H.R. 3.