Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822283
label
Budget FY 2001 [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822283
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Budget FY 2001 [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822283
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-005-011-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5fae1898dad595e0
ocrText
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path=211099/4
Bill Bradley
for President
Helping Children in Poverty
This proposal is the last in a series of three to help America's
families. The first (on health care) was released on September 28,
1999. The second (on the stress on working families) was
released on October 7, 1999.
HELPING CHILDREN IN POVERTY
A PROPOSAL FROM BILL BRADLEY
Today, 13.5 million American children (18.9 percent or almost one
in five) live in poverty. The percentage of minority children who
live below the poverty line is even higher - 34.4 percent for
Hispanics and 36.7 percent for African Americans.
Bill Bradley's goal is to eliminate child poverty as we know it.
He will commit to lifting 3 million children out of poverty in
his first term, and at least an additional 4 million children in
his second term.
Increases he is proposing in the minimum wage, EITC, and
dependent care tax relief, coupled with improvements in child
support and food stamps, will lift 1 to 1.5 million children and
1 million parents out of poverty. These estimates do not
include large numbers of additional children who would be
lifted out of poverty with Bradley's health care, child care,
and education proposals.
The Bradley Proposal to Help Children in Poverty is based on two
fundamental beliefs:
As the most prosperous nation on earth, America can - and
must - do better when it comes to protecting our children.
If we fail to care for our most defenseless citizens, we fail to
fulfill our responsibility not only as Americans, but, more
importantly, as human beings.
The Bradley Proposal to Help Children in Poverty recognizes that
very large numbers of children who live below the poverty line
come from hard-working families with parents whose wages
simply are not adequate to support them. These parents do not
have enough access to child care, health care, or programs
designed to reduce economic hardship.
Bill Bradley recognizes that a comprehensive proposal to
help children in poverty must address a child's need for
economic security and provide hope for a better future.
To address both components, the Bradley proposal will:
Increase the income of poor families by:
Increasing the minimum wage over two years and indexing
it to the growth of the median wage
Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit
1 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl9path=211099/4
Permitting mothers on welfare to keep their child support
Making the Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable
Increasing subsidies for child care through the Child Care
Development Block Grant
Investing in child care and early education programs for
children age 0-5
Guaranteeing health care for all children
Improving access to existing programs for eligible
low-income families (particularly food stamps)
Provide hope for a better future by:
Enrolling an additional 400,000 children in Head Start
Creating Teach to Reach Partnerships to place 60,000 new
qualified teachers a year in urban and rural school districts
Creating a National Beacon Centers Program to provide
afterschool care and community development centers to
offer a range of academic and social services to 5.6 million
children and adults a year
Matching senior volunteers with children's programs that
need them
Creating Second-Chance Homes for pregnant teens that
offer young mothers a positive and supportive environment
during their pregnancy and their baby's first year
INCREASING THE INCOME OF POOR FAMILIES
The Bradley proposal recognizes that the optimal way to help poor
children is to make sure fewer families live in poverty. To
encourage more work and put more money into the pockets of
people who need it, the Bradley plan will:
1. Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over two
years and index it to the annual increase in the median wage.
Twelve million workers (10 percent of the labor force) earn the
minimum wage - 33 percent of them are working parents; 58
percent are women; and, one million are single mothers. Adjusted
for inflation, a $1 increase in the minimum wage beginning in
mid-2001 will raise real wages 11 percent over their current levels.
The increase will be implemented in equal installments over two
years.
Indexing the minimum wage to the annual increase in the median
wage means that the minimum wage will rise by the same percent
that the median wage rises each year (i.e. if the median wage
rises 3 percent, the minimum wage will also rise 3 percent). This
will ensure that the low-income workers who earn the minimum
wage do not fall further behind most Americans.
2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to:
a. Provide a more adequate reward for work among
families with three or more children and achieve a more
substantial reduction in poverty among children in
these families;
b. Reduce the marriage penalties that some low-income
families face as a consequence of the EITC structure;
and
c. Reduce the portion of each added dollar earned by
working poor families that is taxed away by the
phase-down of the EITC.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is one of America's most effective
anti-poverty programs. Bill Bradley has played a leading role in
expanding and strengthening it four times - in 1984, 1986, 1990
and 1993. The Earned Income Tax Credit lifted an additional 2.6
million children out of poverty in 1998.
2 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path=211099/4
As valuable as the EITC is, it can be and should be improved. The
poverty line is adjusted for family size; this reflects the fact that
families with more children need a somewhat higher level of
income to avoid poverty than families with few or no children. The
EITC should also take recognition of the number of children in a
family.
The current EITC has two tiers - one for families with one child
and another for families with two or more children, but it needs to
be strengthened by adding a third tier for families with three or
more children. The poverty rate among children in families with
three or more children is more than double the poverty rate for
children with smaller families.
In 1997, Congress enacted a child tax credit of $500 per child, and
made the credit partially refundable for a small portion of families
with three or more children. The Bradley proposal would convert
the limited and complex refundable component of the child credit
for families with three or more children into a third tier of the EITC
for families with three or more children. This change would
increase the EITC for these families, reducing poverty among
them and increasing the value of work by them.
In addition, the Bradley proposal reduces the marriage penalty the
EITC can engender among some low-income families. Under the
Bradley proposal, the level of income at which the EITC begins to
phase down would rise by $2,000 for married filers so that it is set
at a higher level than the level of income at which the EITC begins
to phase down for other filers.
Finally, the Bradley proposal would reduce the very high marginal
tax rates that working families modestly below the poverty line can
face when their earnings rise because their EITC, food stamp
benefits, and (if they receive them) child care subsidies all phase
down at the same time, while their payroll taxes (and in some
states, their state income taxes) rise. Many working families below
the poverty line but above the level at which the EITC begins to
phase out are effectively taxed at a rate above (often well above)
50 percent. In other words, more than half of each added dollar
they earn is effectively taxed away as a result of the reduction in
EITC, food stamps and other benefits, and the increase in taxes
withheld from their paychecks. The Bradley proposal would ease
these high marginal tax rates by substantially reducing the rate at
which the EITC phases down for most working families in the
EITC phase-out range whose incomes fall below the poverty line.
For poor families with at least two children, the rate at which the
EITC phases down as earnings rise would be cut about in half.
This change will increase the value of work for these families and
provide incentives for them to increase their earnings, while also
reducing poverty.
3. Improve the child support system so that it serves children
better. Ensure that child support paid by a parent goes to the
child instead of to the state bureaucracy.
A child's economic well-being is the responsibility of both mothers
and fathers. But children who grow up in single-parent families are
five times as likely to live in poverty as those who do not. Clearly
we need to do more to ensure that non-resident fathers help
provide for their children. This means both giving fathers
incentives to support them and removing disincentives to their
doing so.
Bradley recognizes that many non-resident fathers want to help
their children but that the system effectively discourages it. Under
the current system, mothers on welfare are required to turn over
their claim to child support to the state. The state then collects
child support from the father and, in most cases, keeps it to
reimburse itself for the welfare assistance it provides to the
3 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path=2110994
mother. (For example, a mother with one child who receives
$4,500 from the state through welfare and is entitled to $2,000 in
child support takes home only $4,500. The $2,000 is retained by
the state in exchange for welfare assistance.) Under the Bradley
plan, a father's child support will go to the mother and child.
4. Make the Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable.
Unless parents have relatives who live nearby they need child
care for their children when they are at work. Often this child care
can be prohibitively expensive for families who live below the
poverty line. The Bradley proposal will make child care more
available and affordable. The first step is to make the Dependent
Care Tax Credit refundable.
The Dependent Care Tax Credit is a non-refundable credit for
expenses incurred in caring for children under 14 or a disabled
dependent/spouse. The credit is capped at $1,440 a year for a
family with two children, regardless of income. Because the credit
is non-refundable, however, it is not available to poor families that
have no tax liability. This includes a family of four with an income
up to $18,000. This, in effect, means the Dependent Care Tax
Credit is not available to those who need it the most - low-income
working parents who require child care for their children while they
work.
The Bradley Proposal to Help Children in Poverty will make the
Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable so that low-income
families will benefit from the same tax credit now available only to
higher-income families. This will help 1.9 million low-income
families - 1.2 million of whom don't currently receive any tax credit
and 700,000 of whom will receive a larger credit. The average
credit for these 1.9 million families will be $474.
5. Increase funding for the Child Care Development Block
Grant program.
The Child Care Development Block Grant program is the main
source of child care assistance for poor families. It provides block
grants to states to subsidize child care expenses for children
under age 13 whose parents work or are in school. Services are
provided on a sliding scale based on need.
In 1999, the Child Care Development Block Grant program
provides assistance to 1.4 million low-income children, just one in
seven who are eligible for subsidies. In many states, the waiting
list for child care assistance is very long. The Bradley Proposal to
Help Children in Poverty will increase access to child care for
low-income families by increasing funding for the Child Care
Development Block Grant program from $3.3 billion per year to
$4.3 billion per year. This additional funding will increase the
number of low-income children who receive child care by 420,000
(30%). It will also increase the number of poor parents who work
by removing one of their major roadblocks. Because studies have
shown that a considerable portion of current child care fails to
meet basic quality standards, 10% of the new funding must be
used for quality improvements such as teacher training, child care
center renovations, and recruiting qualified child care providers.
6. Invest in child care and early education for children age
0-5.
Bill Bradley understands that quality care and education at an
early age are an essential part of a child's development. Research
has demonstrated that the first years of a person's life are critical
in terms of cognitive, emotional and social development. For this
reason, Bradley will create an Early Care and Education
Partnership program to ensure that America's youngest citizens
are nurtured and cared for in a manner that maximizes their
4 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path=211099/4
development. The program, first proposed on October 7, 1999 as
part of Bradley's Proposal to Help Working Families, will be
funded at $2 billion per year. The program will supplement the
above programs with initiatives such as activities for infants and
toddlers or preschools. Because the needs of each community
differ, the Early Care and Education program will be based on
public-private partnerships that put decision making in the hands
of leaders in the communities where funding will be spent.
More information on the Proposal to Help Working Families,
including the "Early Care and Education" initiative, may be found
on the Bill Bradley for President website (www.billbradley.com).
Note: the Bradley initiatives for child care mentioned above
complement each other and work as a comprehensive package.
They do not allow low-income families to "double dip." For
example, if a family receives a subsidy under the Child Care
Development Block Grant program, it may not claim that subsidy
as part of the Dependent Care Tax Credit. The credit, however,
may be claimed for expenses that are not covered by the subsidy.
7. Guarantee health care for children.
The Bradley Proposal to Help Children in Poverty recognizes that
a primary concern of low-income parents is the health of their
children. The Health Care Proposal From Bill Bradley (released on
September 28, 1999) addresses this concern and guarantees
health coverage for every child in America. Low-income parents
who are unable to purchase insurance will receive a full subsidy
from the government.
More information on the Health Care Proposal from Bill Bradley,
including how it helps low-income adults, may be found on the Bill
Bradley for President website (www.billbradley.com).
8. Improving access to existing programs for eligible
low-income families.
The Bradley Proposal to Help Children in Poverty recognizes that
many low-income families that are eligible for benefit programs
such as food stamps, Medicaid and child care do not participate in
them either because they are difficult to access or the
application/renewal process requires a potential recipient to miss
work (forcing a choice between potentially losing a job or receiving
essential benefits).
To support low-income families that work and ensure they
participate in benefit programs designed to help them, the Bradley
proposal will better coordinate the application/renewal process
and enable potential recipients to complete it at accessible
locations during non-work hours. Streamlining this process will
support work among welfare recipients, lift more children out of
poverty, and reduce inefficiency and bureaucracy.
The Bradley proposal will also give states the flexibility to apply
the same standards used by TANF or Medicaid in determining the
maximum value of a car that a welfare recipient may own without
losing food stamps. The value of the car has barely been adjusted
at all since 1977. This makes it difficult for a welfare recipient to
own a car -- which is often required to get to work -- without
jeopardizing his or her food stamp benefits.
PROVIDING HOPE FOR A BETTER FUTURE
The Bradley Proposal to Help Children in Poverty recognizes that
a child's education is one of the critical determinants of his or her
success. Education can be the ticket out of poverty. To improve
education opportunities for poor children, the Bradley proposal
will:
5 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl/path=211099/4
1. Increase funding for Head Start and Early Head Start.
Head Start provides part-day child development to almost 850,000
poor children age 3-5. Its four main components are early
education, health services, parent involvement, and social
services.
Does this
Head Start (which includes 40,000 children age 0-3 in Early Head
replace need
Start) is currently funded at $4.7 billion per year. The Bradley
Proposal to Help Children in Poverty will increase this funding by
for CCDBG?
$1 billion in year one, $2 billion in year two, $3 billion in year three
and $4 billion in year four (for total funding of $8.7 billion). At the
end of this period, almost every eligible child who wants to enroll
in Head Start will be able to do SO.
2. Create Teach to Reach Partnerships to train 60,000 new
teachers every year for urban and rural schools.
The country will need 200,000 new teachers each year for the
next ten years. Nowhere are teachers more needed than in
low-income urban and rural schools. To confront this urgent
reality, Bill Bradley proposes to create Teach to Reach
Partnerships to train 60,000 high quality teachers each year for
low-income urban and rural schools, and to improve the
effectiveness of teachers currently in high-need schools.
There are four components to the program -- all designed to
ensure high quality teaching in disadvantaged schools. The
program encourages the development of partnerships between
universities and high-need elementary and secondary schools in
their area. Collaboration between schools and universities will
maximize the educational possibilities for all participants.
First, to attract new teachers, the program would offer up to 4
years of loan forgiveness for 50,000 students each year - up to
$5,000 per year for 4 years - for a 4 year commitment to teach in
an elementary or secondary school of high need. The student
must attend a university that is part of a recognized consortium,
and must commit to teaching after graduation in a low-income
urban or rural school. Students would receive rigorous training
during college, including practical training in a participating public
school, and would have to be certified before they teach. Under
the Bradley proposal, certification would be based on a
demonstration of competency to teach, not simply acquiring the
necessary classes and credit hours.
Second, the Bradley proposal would establish 10,000 scholarships
per year for high school graduates who show academic promise
and are willing to commit to teaching for 5 years in an area of high
educational need. As above, the student must attend a consortium
university and then teach in a low-income public school. The
student also must commit to teaching in critical-shortage subject
areas: science, math, technology and foreign languages.
Scholarships will be targetted to students who will bring economic,
racial and cultural diversity to the nation's teaching force. In
exchange, students will receive 4 year scholarships of up to
$7,500 per year or $30,000 over 4 years.
Third, the Bradley proposal would create a "Teachers Teaching
Teachers" program to offer existing teachers lifelong learning
opportunities. This program would allow public school teachers to
stay current in their subject and update their skills and knowledge
throughout their teaching careers. Under the program, consortia
university and local schools could apply for federal funds to
conduct university-led professional development programs for
teachers. University professors would lead seminars or site-based
activities which would foster collegial exchange, mutual learning,
mentoring relationships and pride in the profession of teaching.
6 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path=211099/4
Finally, there are literally thousands of people who have valuable
skills and knowledge who are interested in teaching as a second
career. The current certification process often discourages highly
competent people from entering the profession. The challenge we
face is to create greater flexibility in the certification process
without sacrificing rigor.
The Bradley proposal would encourage consortia universities to
devise certification programs that are competency-based for
second-career teachers. Second-career teachers who receive
alternative certification from a consortia university in the consortia
would be eligible to receive the same $5000 per year loan
forgiveness. In exchange for the loan forgiveness, the
second-career teacher would be required to teach in an urban or
rural school for each year of loan forgiveness.
The overall budget for the Teach to Reach Partnerships would be
$1.3 billion.
The Bradley proposal further recognizes that a child's needs do
not end when school ends. Most youth violence occurs between
3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., after school but before the parents return
from work. This is when working parents feel most helpless. In
addition to the education and child care initiatives specified above,
the Bradley proposal will expand and invest in after school
programs for children. Specifically, it will:
3. Create a National Beacon Centers Program to provide
community centers for school-aged children and their
parents.
Increasingly, both parents are required to work to make ends meet
for their families. Single parents struggle even more to provide for
their children. This trend has left millions of our nation's children
unsupervised after school until their parents return home from
work. These hours are at best a lost opportunity to develop skills,
interests and assets. At worst, they are hours that invite violence,
teen pregnancies and other aberrant behavior.
The Bradley proposal seeks to address this problem by creating a
national program of community centers modeled on the Beacons
program in New York City. The Beacons are recognized as one of
the best examples of community schools in the country. They are
located in schools, run by a designated non-profit, and open 7
days a week until 11 or 12 p.m. They offer a wide range of
services, including: homework help, arts and recreation,
mentoring, career counseling for students or parents, literacy
classes, health information and neighborhood involvement
activities. They are much broader than just afterschool programs:
they are open late in the evening, on weekends and in the
summer. They are one-stop shopping centers for families facing
the new realities of the new economy.
The National Beacons program builds on Bradley's 1994
Community Schools Program. It is yet another example of
Bradley's belief that unleashing the positive power of civil society
is key to successfully addressing needs that exist in individual
communities.
Bradley will provide $1 billion in grants to non-profits who want to
start Beacon-like Centers. The non-profit may run a Beacon out of
any community organization: schools, YMCAs, Boys and Girls
Clubs, settlement houses, faith-based organizations and others.
They will be coordinated by a lead local community-based
organization, advised by a community council that includes
principals, teachers, parents, young people, local police and other
residents to ensure that the programs are tailored to fit the needs
of the community. While Beacons serve as the primary model for
7 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?pah=21099/4
this program, there are multiple models of community schools that
could meet the goals of this program and qualify for funds.
Non-profits can apply for grants between $250,000-$500,000. At a
total funding level of $1 billion, the Beacon Program could fund
2,000 or more centers and serve 5.6 million children and their
families. Priority for grants would be given to low-income urban
and rural areas.
4. Create a Senior Volunteers Program that matches senior
citizen volunteers with school and community-based
programs that need them.
The program, first proposed on October 7, 1999 as part of
Bradley's proposal to help working families, will be funded at $300
million in its first year. As the number of senior volunteers rises to
a maximum of 500,000, the cost will increase to $1.2 billion.
Seniors could work in Beacon Centers.
More information on the Proposal to Help Working Families,
including the Senior Volunteers Program, may be found on the Bill
Bradley for President website.
5. Establish Second-Chance Homes for teen mothers.
Being a teen mother is a difficult and often disorienting
experience. The primary goal of the Bradley Second-Chance
Homes would be to reduce additional teen pregnancies by
providing disadvantaged young mothers a supportive and
nurturing environment during their pregnancy and their baby's first
year. Second Chance Homes can be the road to hope for women
whose future might otherwise look bleak.
The Homes would offer young mothers parenting skills, job
counseling, and offer educational and housing referrals. They may
also link up teen mothers with other supportive services in the
community.
The program would provide $300 million in federal funds to the
states, which will disperse the funds and provide a 25% match.
The overall $375 million would fund approximately 550 group
homes and more than 10,000 women.
ANNUAL COST
Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit
$4 billion
Making the Dependent Care Tax Credit
$740 million 1
refundable
Enrolling an additional 400,000 children in Head
$1 billion 2
Start
Increasing funding for Child Care Development
$1 billion 3
Block Grants
Child Support
$700 million
Food Stamps
$500 million 4
Teach to Reach
$1.3 billion
Beacon Centers
$300 million 5
Second-Chance Homes
$300 million
Total Annual Cost
$9.84 BILLION
Footnotes for Annual Cost
8 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Helping Children in Poverty
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path=211099/4
(1) $3.7 billion over five years.
(2) New funding in addition to current funding ($4.7 billion). This
will increase by an additional $1 billion each year, for a total of
$8.7 billion by year four. This will enroll nearly all children who
want to participate.
(3) New funding in addition to current funding ($3.3 billion).
(4) First year costs. As participation in food stamp program by
currently eligible families increases, costs will rise over four years
to $1.7 billion (assuming 500,000 more families participating).
(5) Year one estimate. Estimated cost for full funding for 2,000 or
more centers per year is $1 billion.
IMPACT OF INDIVIDUAL POLICIES
In the past month, Bradley has announced proposals that will:
Raise the minimum wage for 12 million workers (an
additional $2,000 for someone working full-time year round
at the current minimum wage).
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for 10 million
working families.
Enroll an additional 400,000 children in Head Start
(currently 835,000 enrolled).
Provide an additional 420,000 child care subsidies for low
income families (a 30% increase over the current 1.4
million).
Give 1.9 million low-income families tax relief on their child
care expenses (additional credit of $475).
Provide Beacon community centers for 5 million people that
are open 7 days a week, 12 months a year.
Enlist 500,000 senior volunteers to provide mentoring for
children in and out of schools.
Put 60,000 qualified new teachers in urban and rural
high-need schools every year.
Mandate health care coverage for the 11 million American
children who are currently uninsured.
Paid for and authorized by:
Bill Bradley for President, Inc.
395 Pleasant Valley Way
West Orange, NJ 07052
973-731-2100
888-643-9799
This is the only official web site of the Bill Bradley for President Committee. While
other web sites might advocate Bill Bradley's election or the defeat of other
candidates, and while they might contain links to this site or republish information or
materials that we have made available to the general public, they are not authorized
by the Bill Bradley for President Committee, nor have they been coordinated in any
way with the Bill Bradley for President campaign.
9 of 9
12/9/1999 12:59 PM
Proposal to Help Working Families
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path=071099/
Bill
for Bradley
Proposal to Help Working Families
This proposal is the second in a series of three to
help working families. The first (on health care) was
released on September 28, 1999. The third (on
children in poverty) will be released on October 21,
1999.
Helping Working Families Today and Tomorrow
Bill Bradley's Proposal to Help Working Families recognizes the
stress most working parents experience in their daily lives and
provides them with some of the tools they need to meet their
biggest challenges.
The Bradley Proposal to Help Working Families is based on the
recognition that the two most important commitments Americans
have are to their families and their jobs. These commitments often
compete against each other, forcing parents to choose between
working longer hours to provide more for their families, or
spending more time with their families but providing them with
less.
The proposal recognizes that all working parents, at a minimum,
want the following:
To ensure that when they are at work, their children are
well cared for.
To spend enough time with their children to raise them as
they see best and to have the flexibility to be with them at
important moments in their life.
To ensure the health of their families, particularly their
children.
To know that amidst the increasing stress of daily life, it is
possible not just to survive, but to build a better life - to
advance.
The proposal is based on two core philosophies:
1. Parents play the primary role in raising their children.
The government and the private sector cannot - and should
not - replace parents, but they should make it easier for
parents to fulfill their duties by removing the roadblocks in
their way.
2. The needs of working families differ.
Most working families have the same basic needs, but a
"one-size-fits-all" solution mandated by the federal
government doesn't work. Initiatives to help working
families must be developed at the state and community
1 of 6
12/9/1999 1:01 PM
Proposal to Help Working Families
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.p?path-071099/
level, where they can be specifically tailored to the people
they are designed to help. The federal government's role
should be to serve as a catalyst and make sure no child
gets left behind.
Based on the above, the Bradley Proposal to Help Working
Families will:
Create an Early Care and Education partnership program.
Create a Senior Volunteer program.
Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Address the health care concerns of working families.
Invest in community colleges.
These initiatives are public-private partnerships, primarily
developed and implemented on the state and local level. A more
detailed explanation of each is provided below:
Child Care and Education
The Bradley Proposal to Help Working Families recognizes that
one of the primary struggles working parents, particularly mothers,
face is how to ensure their children receive safe, quality and
nurturing pre-school care while they are at work. The Bradley
proposal recognizes that quality care and education at an early
age are an essential part of a child's development. Research has
demonstrated that the first years of a person's life are critical in
terms of cognitive, emotional and social development.
To help ensure that children receive the tools they need to
develop to their full potential, the Bradley Proposal to Help
Working Families will:
Create - for the first time - a federal Early Care and Education
(ECE) Partnership Program.
The ECE program builds upon North Carolina's successful "Smart
Start" initiative, and will ensure that America's youngest citizens
(age 0-5) are nurtured and cared for in a manner that maximizes
their development. The ECE program will be based on
public-private partnerships that put decision making in the hands
of leaders in the communities where funding will be spent. The
federal government can - and should - assist local communities,
but it should not micro-manage.
Specifically, the ECE partnership program will:
Provide $2 billion per year to states for early care and
education activities. Funding will be provided by the federal
government in the form of generous 5:1 matching grants.
States must provide the seed funding (preferably
contributed by the private sector) to trigger matching funds.
Each state will create a public-private partnership to
determine broad early-care-and-education goals specific to
that state. The partnership will include, among others,
educators, parents, child care providers, relevant
government agencies, and representatives from the
business, non-profit and faith communities.
Individual counties within each state will create similar local
public-private partnerships to determine
early-care-and-education initiatives tailored to their specific
counties and the communities within them. These initiatives
2 of 6
12/9/1999 1:01 PM
Proposal to Help Working Families
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path=071099/1
may include programs that focus on school readiness,
infants and toddlers, family support, parenting, children with
disabilities, and children whose primary language is not
English.
After confirming that the initiatives selected by the county
promote state goals, the state partnership will distribute the
funding to the county partnerships. The state partnership
will be responsible for ensuring the accountability of county
partnerships. The private sector will be encouraged to
support county initiatives through additional funding or
in-kind contributions.
40% of funding must be used to enhance the quality of
existing programs and/or improve infrastructure. The
remaining 60% of funding must be used to provide direct
services and programs.
Create the Senior Volunteers Program
The Senior Volunteers Program, which builds upon the successful
"Experience Corps," recognizes that America's greatest
generation has a valuable role to play in cultivating its youngest
generation. Research has shown that one of the best predictors of
a child's success is regular contact with a caring adult. To ensure
that more children have contact with senior citizens who can
mentor them, expand their educational opportunities, and build
their self-esteem, the Bradley proposal will: 1) remove the
roadblocks to seniors who wish to volunteer; and, 2) provide seed
money for fledgling programs that match senior volunteers with
child care/development efforts. These programs will cover grades
K-12.
Specifically, the Bradley proposal will:
Make tax-free stipends of up to $200 per month available to
seniors who volunteer at least 15 hours per week in an
approved program for children in grades K-12. Stipends will
be used to offset transportation and other expenses.
Provide "volunteer coordinators" to help communities better
match senior citizen volunteers with programs for children.
The government will also direct the Volunteers In Service to
America (VISTA) program to give special attention to
finding volunteer coordinators for schools and community
organizations that work directly with children during
after-school hours.
Helping Parents Spend Enough Time with Children
and Giving Them the Flexibility to Be There at
Important Moments
Family and Medical Leave Act
The Bradley Proposal to Help Working Families recognizes that
many working mothers are unable to leave work for a short period
of time to attend events that may not qualify as emergencies, but
are nevertheless central to their lives and the lives of their children
or elderly relatives. Such events, which are common to our daily
life, include taking a child to the doctor, attending parent-teacher
conferences, or taking a parent to a nursing home.
Under the Bradley Proposal to Help Working Families, parents will
have the flexibility to attend these events - events which bind us
as families. The Bradley proposal will extend the Family and
Medical Leave Act to include firms with 25 or more employees.
The current FMLA applies only to companies with 50 or more
workers. This extension will cover an additional 10 million workers.
3 of 6
12/9/1999 1:01 PM
Proposal to Help Working Families
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path-071099/1
The Bradley proposal will also expand the FMLA to provide an
additional 24 hours (3 days X 8 hours) of unpaid leave. No more
than four hours may be used in a single month. Unlike the current
FMLA, workers will be able to use this time in short increments
that they determine to attend events important in their family life.
The Bradley proposal will retain all other provisions of the current
FMLA.
Forced Overtime
The Bradley Proposal to Help Working Families recognizes that in
today's fast-paced world, it is increasingly difficult to coordinate
the schedules of working parents and their elderly relatives or
children. In major cities, for example, over-crowding in schools
has resulted in staggered school hours, creating a situation in
which some children attend class in the late afternoon and others
in the early morning. Parents have to juggle competing demands
of work and family life to adjust to these changes, most of which
are beyond their control. Even when schedules remain
unchanged, balancing the rising demands of work and family is
difficult. Working mothers know that no matter what demands they
face at work, the child care center where their child is enrolled
closes at a certain hour, no exceptions.
Bill Bradley recognizes that overtime work is sometimes
unavoidable and that it often helps families generate much needed
extra income. He also recognizes, however, that too frequently
employees feel powerless to refuse a last minute request to work
extra hours even when it forces a mother to miss her daughter's
doctor appointment or makes her son wait alone for an hour after
basketball practice. To address this concern, the Bradley proposal
will encourage employers to be flexible on the issue of forced
overtime work. Businesses must have the manpower they need to
excel, but families must also have the time they need to be
families. Recognizing both of these realities, Bill Bradley, as
President, will direct his Cabinet officials to work with employees
in their departments to establish "fair time" policies for overtime
work, including advance notice and worker choice. He will also
encourage private-sector employers and employees to work
together to do the same.
Health Care
The Bradley Proposal to Help Working Families recognizes that
health care is a primary concern for working parents, many of
whom are responsible for the health not only of their children, but,
increasingly, their aging parents. Parents are further concerned
about their ability to purchase and maintain insurance for
themselves, particularly if they are part-time workers who don't
receive insurance or full-time workers who lose or change their
job.
The Health Care Proposal From Bill Bradley (released on
September 28, 1999) addresses the health care concerns of
working parents, specifically their concerns about access,
affordability, quality and choice. The proposal, a recap of which
follows below, is part of the package of Bill Bradley's broader
initiatives to help working families.
The Health Care Proposal from Bill Bradley will:
Guarantee health coverage for every child in America.
(Parents who are unable to purchase insurance for their
children will receive a full or partial subsidy from the
government.)
Preserve the Medicare guarantee and expand it with two
optional programs: 1) a catastrophic and chronic drug
benefit program; and, 2) a program that provides the elderly
4 of 6
12/9/1999 1:01 PM
Proposal to Help Working Families
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/articlepl?path=071099/l
with the professional support they need to remain
independent. (The latter will significantly relieve the burden
on working family members who double-up as caregivers.)
Guarantee access to and portability of insurance for all
Americans by allowing them to participate in a federally
approved program of private plans that will be available to
them whether they lose or change their job. (Adults who
cannot afford to the cost of premiums will receive a full or
partial subsidy from the government.)
Maintain all current health plans and systems, including
employer-provided insurance, for those who are happy with
their current coverage.
More information on the "Health Care Proposal from Bill Bradley"
may be found on the Bill Bradley for President here
Building a Better Future
The Bradley Proposal to Help Working Families recognizes that
working families in America have two sets of concerns -
overcoming the stress in their lives today and building a better
future for tomorrow. Increasingly, they feel the latter is impossible
and that the most they can hope for is to work harder and harder
just to stay even.
The Bradley proposal acknowledges that any comprehensive
package of initiatives to help America's working families must
address the present and the future: it must help working parents
overcome their struggles today and achieve their dreams - the
American Dream - tomorrow.
Lifelong Learning
The technological revolution has changed the way Americans live
and work. To ensure that all Americans have the skills they need
in this new, knowledge-based environment, the Bradley proposal
will provide high school graduates and working adults with the
tools they need to be sufficient in their current job and, if desired,
to advance to a new, better one. Individual workers and the
American economy will benefit from this initiative.
To improve access to lifelong education and give working parents
a chance not just to stay even, but build a better future, the
Bradley Proposal to Help Working Families will invest in
community colleges. These colleges, long underappreciated, have
served as learning centers for older, working Americans and
career training programs for high school graduates. Today, there
are over 1,000 community colleges in the country.
Specifically, the Bradley proposal will provide $2 billion over
five years for community colleges. Funding will be disbursed
in the form of competitive grants designed to:
Build strong partnerships with the local private sector, local
high schools and universities.
This will provide a comprehensive approach that allows
students to enter a community college from high school and
exit to a four-year institution or a job in the private sector
which demands the skills and training they have received.
Improve the technology infrastructure of community
colleges.
This will allow community colleges to provide students with
the technological and other skills they need to remain
5 of 6
12/9/1999 1:01 PM
Proposal. Help Working Families
wysiwyg://main.2/http://www.billbradley.com/bin/article.pl?path-071099/1
qualified for their current job and to advance to a better
one. (Community colleges must form technology-related
partnerships with local businesses to qualify for these
funds.)
Remove the barriers to access, including providing
appropriate child care for students who need it and
ensuring that class schedules are arranged in a manner
that allows working adults with full- or part-time jobs to
attend.
Health Care
See Bill Bradley health care
proposal for detailed cost
Child Care
$2 billion (ECE program)
$200 million (Sr. Vol.
Ensuring that when parents
Program)
are at work, their children are
well cared for
Investing In The Future
$400 million (Community
College)
Lifelong Learning/ Building a
Better Tomorrow
TOTAL
$2.6 billion per year
Paid or and authorized by
Bill Bradley for President, Inc.
395 Pleasant Valley Way
West Orange, NJ 07052
973-731-2100
888-643-9799
This is the only official web site of the Bill Bradley for President Committee. While
other web sites might advocate Bill Bradley's election or the defeat of other
candidates, and while they might contain links to this site or republish information or
materials that we have made available to the general public, they are not authorized
by the Bill Bradley for President Committee, nor have they been coordinated in any
way with the Bill Bradley for President campaign.
6 of 6
12/9/1999 1:01 PM
DEC. -03' 99 (FRI) 18:04
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 002/013
CENTER ON BUDGET
AND POLICY PRIORITIES
To:
Jack Lew
Sylvia Mathews
Nicole,
From:
Bob Greenstein
This is from
MV
CC:
Barbara Chow
- -ERIC
Subject: Poverty Initiatives and the Next Budget
Date:
December 3, 1999
Last week the NEC suggested I prepare a memo with ideas for initiatives to include in the
final Clinton budget. 1 recognize that the list that follows is considerably longer than what you
will have room for in the budget. This is a slightly revised version (after more thinking) of what I
sent to Gene.
1.
EITC
The time is propitious to propose a final set of Clinton EITC improvements. As you
know, the vetoed Republican tax bill included an EITC increase (in the form of EITC marriage-
penalty relief).
The 1993 EITC expansion has been one of the signature achievements of the Clinton
Administration. This legacy can be enlarged upon by enhancing the EITC's effectiveness at
reducing poverty among families with three or more children, simplifying the EITC/child tax
credit relationship, and reducing for families close to the poverty line the high marginal rates to
which the EITC contributes (something George W. Bush's proposal fails to do). There are three
specific areas where important EITC improvements could be made.
A third tier: I would strongly recommend adding a third EITC benefit tier - i.e., a
benefit tier for families with three or more children. The poverty rate in 1997 was
12% for children in families with one child, 14% for children in families with two
children, and over 25% for children in families with three or more children.
Moreover, the poverty line and welfare benefits are adjusted for the number of
children in a family, while wages are not, As more and more families move from
welfare to low-wage work, we need more of an EITC boost for larger families.
Bradley's child poverty plan includes a proposal for a third benefit tier. But Al
Gore who was here first — the 1991 Gore-Downey bill featured this proposal.
And it was the Clinton Administration that established the precedent in law for this
approach when it secured inclusion in the 1997 budget deal of a refundable
820 First Street, NE, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20002
F:\bob\Momes\ Law Marre apd
Tel: 202-408-1080 Fax: 202-408-1056 [email protected] http://www.cbpp.org HN0026
DEC. -03' 99 (FRI) 18:04
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 003/013
component of the child tax credit for families with three or more children whose
payroll taxes exceeded their EITC.
This refundable child credit approach was an excellent foot-in-the-door. But it
does not kick in until family income reaches about $25,000 and it is complicated.
I'd suggest establishing a third EITC tier in a way that reduces the proposal's cost
(and simplifies the tax code) by converting the refundable component of the $500
child credit into a new EITC benefit tier for families with three or more children.
This approach also should make this initiative somewhat more palatable to
Republicans, as it would convert one refundable credit component for larger
families into another refundable credit for such families; that should be more
acceptable to Republicans than adding a third EITC tier on top of the refundable
component of the child credit. A third EITC benefit tier would be simpler and
much better targeted than the refundable element of the child credit.
If the idea is adopted of converting the refundable component of the child credit
into a third EITC benefit tier, I think this can be done for under $1 billion a year.
There would be some very large families with incomes around $30,000 that would
be worse off, because the refundable component of the child credit they would lose
would exceed the EITC benefits they would gain. But this is a price well worth
paying to establish a third EITC tier.
Incidentally, one state has pioneered this approach and has established a state
EITC with a third tier - Wisconsin under Governor Tommy Thompson. (I'd also
note that a third EITC tier is a high priority for Hispanic groups like the National
Council of La Raza. The proportion of poor families that work is higher among
Hispanics than among non-Hispanic whites or blacks. In addition, Hispanic
families have a larger average number of children than non-Hispanic families do.)
EITC marginal tax rate relief: Combined marginal tax rates can be extraordinarily
high on working families whose EITC, food stamp, and other benefits (such as
child care) all phase down at the same time. These families can encounter marginal
tax rates in the 50% to 100% range, George W. Bush has emphasized this
problem and claimed incorrectly that his tax plan responds to it.
The final Clinton budget could contain a proposal here. Such a proposal would
demonstrate that progress can be made in addressing this problem without having
to pass a $1 trillion 10-year tax cut and that the Administration's budget, unlike
the Bush plan, is actually responding to this problem. Perhaps the best way to do
this would be to lower the EITC phase-down rates for families in the part of the
EITC phase-down range in which substantial numbers of families lose EITC and
food stamp benefits at the same time and then to raise the EITC phase-down rates
back up to current levels in the part of the phase-down range in which families no
longer are eligible for food stamps or are very unlikely to be receiving them.
2
DEC. -03' 99 (FRI) 18:05
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 004/013
EITC marriage-penalty relief: EITC marriage-penalty relief also can be provided.
The vetoed tax bill and the House and Senate Democratic tax bills contained such
a feature. But such a proposal probably does not make sense politically unless the
budget also proposes middle-class marriage penalty tax relief, which would be
costly and (in my view) is not a priority.
2.
A related proposal to "make work pay"
Achieving the goal that President Clinton set for the nation - that if a parent works full
time, the parent and his or her children should not live in poverty - entails that a family have a
combination of full-time minimum wage earnings, the EITC, and food stamps. If a family of four
or more fails to receive food stamps, it will be several thousand dollars below the poverty line, In
fact, the food stamp benefit for which a family of four with full-time minimum wage earnings
qualifies is nearly equal to the EITC benefit for which such a family qualifies.
Food stamp participation, however, is quite low among working poor families, a problem
to which you have been devoting increasing attention. I think the Administration should include
several proposals in the budget to help address this problem. The first two steps outlined below
would be welcomed and endorsed by the governors on a bipartisan basis.
The first and principal such step is to give states the option of conforming the food stamp
limit on the value of a vehicle that a household may own to the vehicle limit that the state has
established in its TANF or Medicaid programs (so long as the TANF or Medicaid limit used is not
more restrictive than the food stamp vehicle limit). The food stamp limit was originally set in
1977 to bar participation by families with luxury cars. Some 22 years later, however, the food
stamp vehicle limit disqualifies families with very modest cars, because the limit is essentially the
same in nominal terms as when it was first established in 1977. (It was established in 1977 as a
$4,500 limit on the market value of a vehicle; today. the federal food stamp vehicle limit is $4,650
in market value.) During this 22-year period over which the food stamp limit has remained
essentially unchanged, the CPI for used cars has nearly tripled. For the vehicle limit to have the
same effect today as it had in 1977, the limit would need to be nearly $13,000.
When the food stamp vehicle limit was established in 1977, it was higher than the vehicle
limits that most states used in their AFDC programs, reflecting the importance of food stamps to
working poor families, many of which own modest cars that they must use to commute to their
jobs, Today, by contrast, nearly every state has a more liberal vehicle limit in its TANF program
than the federal food stamp limit.
Moreover, because the federal food stamp vehicle limit is not indexed to inflation, a larger
share of working poor families become ineligible for food stamps each year. The 1993
reconciliation act contained a Clinton proposal to address this problem, but the welfare law
repealed that provision.
This problem is taking on increasing importance. Recent research by Sandra and Sheldon
Danziger in which they examined barriers to employment among welfare mothers in Flint,
3
DEC. -03' 99 (FR1) 18:05
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 005/013
Michigan found the two top barriers to employment to be lack of a high school diploma and lack
of access to a car. With a greater share of low-skilled jobs now in outlying suburbs and exurbs,
lack of a car makes it more difficult for many low-skilled inner-city residents to hold jobs.
Over the past 12-18 months, states with governors of both parties have been increasingly
vocal in attacking the food stamp vehicle limit as being anti-work and counter to welfare reform.
Some Republican state officials use the food stamp vehicle limit as an example of why we should
block-grant food stamps when the welfare law comes up for reauthorization in 2002, Fixing this
problem would help make work pay, strengthen and reinforce welfare reform, and show we can
address such problems without replacing the food stamp program with a block grant.
Furthermore, some bipartisan support for this proposal is developing on the Hill. The
proposal is a central feature of a hunger relief bill that Senators Specter, Kennedy, Jeffords and
Leahy introduced a few weeks ago in the Senute and Rep. James Walsh and some bipartisan co-
sponsors introduced in the House. In addition, I believe Senator Lugar would be favorable to this
proposal. CBO cost estimates show this proposal costing $1.3 billion over five years; the cost
would be lower if a related regulatory change is made.
The second proposal to improve food stamp use among working poor families is a modest
proposal to allow states to conform the treatment of several forms of income in the food stamp
program to the treatment used in Medicaid. This would enable states to use a single definition of
income in Medicaid and food stamps, which in turn should facilitate the development of
simplified, joint Medicaid/food stamp applications for working poor families with children. This
should help states boost participation by working poor families in both programs. 1 believe OMB
attempted to secure inclusion of this proposal in the ticket-to-work bill. It costs only $18 million
over five years, which makes it a bargain.
A final food stamp proposal that deserves consideration, a version of which is in the
Specter-Kennedy/Walsh hunger bill, is a provision to adjust the cap on the food stamp shelter
deduction for low-income households that do not contain an elderly or disabled member. The
vast array of these households are families with children.
Eliminating that cap was the top food stamp priority of Leon Panetta and the Clinton
Administration in 1993 and was part of the 1993 reconciliation law. The 1996 welfare law,
however, repealed the 1993 provision. This was one of the features of the welfare law that
President Clinton criticized most strongly in signing it, and in 1997, the Administration sought
unsuccessfully to reverse this provision. The new bipartisan hunger bill on the Hill seeks not to
eliminate the cap on the shelter deduction but takes a more moderate approach, raising the
deduction cap a modest amount and indexing it.
Indexing the cap is particularly important. If the cap is frozen in perpetuity without any
indexing mechanism, a growing number of poor families with children will hit the cap each year
and have a more difficult time paying the rent and feeding their children adequately at the same
time. I'd recommend restoring indexation. This will be increasingly significant over time.
4
DEC. 03' 99 (FRI) 18:06
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 006/013
Those who would be helped by such a provision such are primarily working poor families.
This provision would cost $150 million over five years.
3.
Health Insurance
I hope the budget proposes some significant new steps to expand health insurance
coverage. There is a renewed focus in the country on the issue of the uninsured. Moreover,
Republicans are proposing unwise tax cuts for the purchase of health insurance, and the
Administration and Democrats need an alternative. This may be an opportunity to make
important progress here.
One of the biggest problems in this area is the large number of children in working poor
families who are eligible for Medicaid but unenrolled. We'd recommend the following:
The CHIP program provides an enhanced matching rate to states to cover children
primarily between about 133 percent and 200 percent of the poverty line. We'd
urge you to propose an enhanced matching rate to states to enroll more of the
eligible children who are below these income levels. This could be done by taking
the CHIP matching rate for each state and applying it to increases in the state's
child Medicaid enrollment above the state's enrollment level in a base year.
(Adjustments would be made so the enhanced match did not apply to older
children aging in to Medicaid eligibility under the final stages of the 1990 mandate
to cover children below the poverty line who were born after September 30,
1983.) This would give states more incentive to reach and enroll more working
poor children.
This might be accomplished simply by allowing states to use CHIP funds for this
purpose. I'm not sure whether it would be best to augment CHIP funding or this
simply should be made an allowable use of CHIP funds. (Note: Since children on
welfare already are on Medicaid, and welfare rolls are continuing to fall, providing
enhanced matching funds for increases in Medicaid child enrollment would result in
providing these funds primarily to increase Medicaid coverage among children in
working poor families.)
We even more strongly recommend that the Administration propose an initiative for states
to extend coverage to more low-income adults. The best approach would be a new Medicaid
option to cover all individuals up to the poverty line. That would be a terrific advance.
Another important advance would be an initiative to cover more low-income working
parents. Census data show that nearly half of all working poor parents are uninsured throughout
the year, Covering these parents would encourage work and help ensure that work is more
Those aided would largely be families with children that do not live in public or subsidized housing and have
cash incomes between 50 percent and 100 percent of the poverty line. These are principally working families: in
most states, families on welfare have cash incomes below 50 percent of the poverty line.
5
DEC. -03' 99 (FRI) 18:06
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 007/013
remunerative than welfure. It also should improve child health insurance coverage; research
indicates that children are more likely to be insured where the whole family can secure coverage.
Under this approach, the Administration would propose a CHIP-like block grant for
parents with incomes up to a certain level. The block grant would have an enhanced federal
matching rate like that which CHIP provides. States would have broad flexibility over use of
these funds, but there would be two basic rules the states would have to follow:
In using block grant funds to cover low-income working parents, states would
have to cover parents through the same program as their children. In other words,
if a family's income was such that its children were Medicaid-eligible, and the state
used block grant funds to extend coverage to the parents, it would make the
parents eligible for Medicaid. Similarly, if a family's income made its children
eligible for a separate state insurance program rather than Medicaid and the state
elected to use its block grant funds to provide coverage to parents at that income
level, the state would make these parents eligible for the same state insurance
program as their children.
States would have to cover poorer parents before less-poor parents. A state
couldn't use block grant funds to extend coverage to parents above the poverty
line until it had used block grant funds to cover the parents below the poverty line.
Other Health Insurance Issues
We also recommend that the Administration again include in the budget its proposal to
expand the scope of the Medicaid "presumptive eligibility" option for children. Under the
Administration's proposal, a state could use schools and other entities the state deems appropriate
as presumptive eligibility providers. This fits very well with the Administration's increased
emphasis on using schools to reach and enroll children in health insurance. This proposal was in
the FY 1999 budget; it also was in the 1999 McCain tobacco bill. I'm told it fell through the
cracks when the FY 2000 budget was put together.
In addition, I assume you will include in the budget a provision lifting the sunset on
Transitional Medicaid Assistance for families that have just worked their way off welfare. TMA,
which has been in federal law since 1988, sunsets on September 30, 2001. The Administration
should propose to make it permanent, This can be coupled with two small but important
proposals to make TMA more effective that were included in your FY 2000 budget,
I'd urge that another Medicaid-related proposal that OMB sought to attach to the "ticket-
to-work" legislation also be included in the budget. The proposal in question is a Lugar bill to
enable state and local Medicaid and CHIP agencies to make greater use, for Medicaid and CHIP
outreach and enrollment purposes, of the lists that schools compile of children who are certified
for free and reduced-price school lunches. This costs only about $50 million over five years.
Last, but not least, is the issue of expanding health care coverage for low-income legal
immigrants. I assume the Administration will re-propose giving states the option to make legal
6
DEC. 03' 99 (FRI) 18:06
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 008/013
immigrant children who have entered the country after August 22, 1996 eligible for Medicaid and
state child insurance programs funded under CHIP.
We, and the principal groups that work on immigrant issues, have suggested one
additional expansion related to health care coverage for legal immigrants. This year's Clinton
budget proposed 10 make legal immigrants who enter the country after August 22, 1996 - and
who become disabled after entry - eligible for SSI after they have been in the United States for
five years; under that proposal, most such immigrants would become eligible for Medicaid at the
same time. We assume this proposal will be in the FY 2001 budget. Our suggestion is to
accompany this with a proposal giving states the option of extending Medicaid coverage during
their first five years in the country to legal immigrants who have entered after August 22, 1996
and have become disabled after coming here.
4.
A refundable tax credit for child care or higher-education costs
Consideration could be given to making either the Dependent Care Tax Credit or the
Hope credit into a refundable credit. When the Administration considered such steps a few years
ago in formulating the 1998 budget, I thought a proposal to make these credits refundable would
be a political mistake. But I think the political climate has eased now and the Administration
could consider making one, but not both, of these credits refundable.
When the 1998 budget was being developed, the White House, Treasury, and we
were all concerned that Republicans would strongly oppose creation of another
refundable tax credit and fight such a credit by waiving the banner of EITC fraud
and abuse. We believed the likely result would be that the Administration would
not get the refundable credit and that the EITC would be further weakened
politically.
But the atmosphere seems to have changed. The EITC appears stronger now
politically for at least two reasons. First, in the last two years, new research has
demonstrated that the EITC has induced large increases in employment among
single female parents. As a result, a number of Congressional Republicans now
see the EITC as integral to the success of welfare reform. Second, in 1995-1996,
Republicans believed their own rhetoric that the EITC was the most out-of-control
entitlement in the budget, because its cost had risen exponentially over the
previous decade. When we all responded that this growth was the result of the
1986, 1990, and 1993 EITC expansions and that the explosive cost growth would
end when the 1993 expansion finished phasing in, many Republicans refused to
believe it. Of course, the rapid cost growth did end when the expansions phased
in. and EITC costs are now "well behaved." This has removed a significant source
of EITC criticism.
In addition, while only a few years ago Republicans vehemently opposed any more
refundable credits and argued that such credits are inherently fraud-ridden. today
key Republicans such as Dick Armey and a cadre of influential conservatives are
7
DEC. -03' 99 (FRI) 18:07
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 009/013
promoting the creation of a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health
insurance. This approach presents an array of problems as a way to expand health
care coverage, but its emergence makes it harder for Republicans to argue that
refundable credits are inherently fraud-ridden and that a refundable credit for child
care or higher education costs is a terrible idea on those grounds.
We have not done work on the relative merits of making the HOPE credit refundable
versus making the DCTC refundable, so I hesitate to rank them. But I'd suggest consideration of
making one of these credits refundable.
5.
Promoting Mobility Through Housing Vouchers
A growing body of research is finding positive outcomes from housing vouchers that
enable poor families to move to areas with better job opportunities and/or schools and less crime.
You did a fabulous job in securing 60,000 new vouchers in this year's HUD-VA bill. I hope the
new budget includes either 100,000 more incremental vouchers (the same incremental level as was
proposed in this year's budget), or 140,000 vouchers, the full level authorized under the 1998
housing bill.
6.
Unemployment Insurance
Unemployment insurance reforms are badly needed. And there is a possibility for UI
changes next year. The states want changes in UI administrative costs, and the Ways and Means
Committee Republicans have told us they plan to push this next year. Employers want elimination
of the 0.2 percent federal FUTA surtax. If such changes are made, reforms in the UI benefit
structure ought to be secured in return. To do so, the Administration should have a UI reform
package in the budget.
As Janet Norwood, the former BLS commissioner and former chair of the
Congressionally-chartered UI advisory commission in the mid-1990s, has stated, the current UI
system essentially discriminates against low-income workers. Only about one in three
unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance benefits. Among low-income workers, the
percentage is much lower.
The problem is most severe among low-income women with children. The UI system
does not reflect current labor-market realities and is not very family friendly. It does not account
for the part-time and intermittent employment patterns common among many low-skilled workers
in today's employment market, particularly those who must juggle work and child-rearing
responsibilities. In the mid-1990s, only one in six single mothers who worked in jobs paying
$5.15 an hour or less (in 1997 dollars) and then became unemployed received unemployment
insurance.
Last fall, the Labor Department advanced a package of relatively modest but solid UI
reforms. My understanding is that there was significant White House interest in these proposals,
8
DEC. -03' 99 (FRI) 18:07
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 010/013
but that most of the proposals did not make it into the FY 2000 budget due to lack of an offset of
about $1 billion over five years.
This budget is the last chance for the Clinton Administration to propose needed UI
changes. If such changes do not become law, the Clinton legacy may look harsher when the next
recession hits; at that time, a sizeable fraction of mothers who have been working at low-paid jobs
but are then laid off will not be able to get either UI (because of the deficiencies in the UI
program) or cash welfare assistance (for such reasons as having exhausted their time on welfare
under the welfare time limits). Welfare reform has made UI reform more urgent.
There also is another reason why this is a good time to pursue UI reform. Since the
economic outlook is so sunny, 5-year and 10-year cost estimates for UI improvements will be
very low. If we wait to seek these reforms until the economy weakens, the price tag will be much
larger.
There is substantial agreement among people working in the field about some of the types
of changes that are needed. Many of these changes were recommended by the UI advisory
commission a few years ago.
Financial incentives are needed for states to adopt an "alternative" base period for
determining UI eligibility. Unemployed workers are eligible for UI benefits only if
they earned sufficient wages during the "base year;" in most states, the base year is
defined as the first four of the five completed quarters preceding the time a worker
has become unemployed. This definition of base period ignores up to six months
of the worker's most recent work history. Research indicates that use of this base
period is a major barrier to UI receipt among low-wage workers, who tend to
enter and leave the labor force more frequently than higher-wage workers. Low-
wage workers are much better served if states adopt an alternative base period that
bases eligibility for benefits on work during the four completed quarters preceding
the time the worker became unemployed. A number of states (I think about eight
or ten) have successfully adopted this more up-to-date base period.
Most of the states established their UI systems at a time when the data and
technology needed to process claims quickly were not available and it was
necessary to use a base period that did not account for the most recent quarter of
work. The technology has improved since then. More timely reporting is now
available.
A mandate requiring states to use the more recent base period would be the best
approach from a policy standpoint but may not be feasible politically. If not, then
financial incentives are needed for states to adopt the alternative base period.
When past efforts have been undertaken to persuade states to adopt this base
period, the administrative costs entailed have been a principal source of state
concern and opposition. Federal legislation is needed under which the Labor
Department would pay for, or share in, the costs of start-up and ongoing
administration of the alternative base period; these costs principally involve
9
DEC. -03' 99 (FRI) 18:07
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 011/013
additional staff-time to collect more up-to-date information about claimants.
Funds also should be provided for DOL to provide technical assistance to states
about the most efficient means to implement the alternative base period; this might
include the development and distribution of software that enables employers to
comply more readily with more timely reporting rules.
Improving access to UI benefits for part-time workers also is important. A large
number of workers are limited to part-time work due to changes in the labor
market or family responsibilities.
One problem faced by individuals who must limit their employment to part-time
hours are the UI rules that most states use under which UI benefits are denied to
individuals who seek only part-time work. These restrictions have an adverse
impact on many women who must balance work and family obligations and
attempt to do so by working part time.
There are several possible approaches. One would be a requirement that a
claimant who limits work search to part time work may not be disqualified on the
grounds that the claimant is unavailable for full-time employment if there is good
cause for the claimant to restrict her hours of work and there is a demonstrated
labor market for part-time work in the area.
A third area where reform is needed involves the definition of "good cause" for
leaving a job. The UI program needs to be more family-friendly in this regard.
Many women have to leave a job because of personal circumstances and family
responsibilities. Such situations include moving to a new area because a spouse
takes a new job there, changes in child care arrangements that alter a parent's
potential work schedule or temporarily preclude work outside the home, and
dealing with a range of family crises or emergencies such as domestic violence.
Many states have rules that narrowly limit the definition of good cause for leaving
a job to circumstances that relate to the job itself; these rules exclude
circumstances that involve the types of family situations described above. By
contrast, some other states have made it possible for an individual who leaves
work for important family reasons such as those noted here to qualify for UI
benefits when the individual again is available for work. Federal action is needed
to induce or require states to adopt more family-friendly rules here.
Finally, improvements are needed in the extended unemployment insurance benefits
program. Only about seven states have adopted the most responsive of the "extended benefits"
triggers, As a result, if a major recession occurs, unemployed workers in a substantial number of
states with high unemployment rates will not be able to receive extended benefits when their
regular UI benefits run out.
Consideration should be given to establishing a higher federal matching rate for extended
benefits, such as a 75 percent matching rate rather than the current 50 percent rate. The cost
10
DEC. -03' 99 (FRI) 18:08
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 012/013
estimate for such a reform would be tiny now because the economic forecast is so bright. Such a
reform could prove extremely important when the next significant recession occurs.
It makes sense for the federal government to pick up more of the unemployment
compensation burden in areas experiencing high unemployment. In addition, if more states
provide extended benefits, there will not be a need to move as quickly to 100-percent federally
funded supplemental unemployment benefits in the next recession or to maintain the 100 percent
federally funded benefits for as long a period.
7.
Immigrant Benefits
We and several civil rights and religious organizations have discussed in detail with
Barbara Chow and DPC our recommendations for immigrant benefit restorations in the FY 2001
budget, I won't repeat the full list of recommendations here but did want to emphasize the
importance of this area. With Republican nervousness about Hispanic (and possibly Asian) voters
in 2000, especially in California, the year ahead may provide an opportunity to extract further
benefit restorations for legal immigrants.
OMB - and you and Barbara in particular have been magnificent on these issues.
Immigrants benefits would look very different today without your efforts. I know this remains an
area of keen interest to you. I hope as you craft the FY 2001 budget, you can expand on the
immigrant benefits proposals in last year's budget.
8.
Child Support
Another area in need of change involves federal and state rules for the distribution of child
support payments made on behalf of children in low-income families. Federal rules call for states
to send to the federal government a portion of the child support paid for a child who is receiving
cash assistance benefits. Most states divide all of the child support payments made for such
children between the feds and the state, with the child receiving none of the payment. This also
holds true for arrearage payments that cover months when the family was receiving cash
assistance.
This procedure is supposed to result in the reimbursement of federal and state welfare
costs incurred on behalf of such children. But this procedure is increasingly recognized as unwise
- it effectively results in a 100 percent marginal tax rate on these child support payments. The
child has the same income regardless of whether the father pays or not. Little wonder that many
of these fathers fail to pay (or pay lesser amounts "under the table"). The result is lower child
support payments than would otherwise be made - and greater child poverty. Moreover, this
system creates disincentives for these fathers to work "on the books;" if they do so, they will have
their paychecks garnished for child support payments that will go entirely to the federal and state
governments rather than their children.
Reforms in child support financing are needed. Such reforms should include changes that
result in a greater share of child support payments actually going to the custodial families.
11
DEC.-03'_99(FRI) 18:08
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 013/013
9.
Elderly Poverty/SSI Improvements
Poverty among elderly widows - and for that matter, among all elderly women living
alone - is about as high as poverty among children. The Administration has spoken of
improving the Social Security widows' benefit as part of Social Security reform. While excellent,
such a step would not reduce poverty among elderly women that much by itself. Accompanying
SSI improvements also are needed.
In particular, the SSI disregard that is applied to Social Security income, a disregard that
has not been adjusted for inflation since SSI started more than a quarter century ago, needs to be
increased. If this isn't done, an increase in Social Security widows' benefits will cause some low-
income widows to become ineligible for SSI, and as a result, to lose their Medicaid coverage as
well. That could make them worse off. Other poor widows would retain their Medicaid coverage
but have their SSI benefits reduced one dollar for each dollar their Social Security benefits are
increased. This would leave them no less poor. Also needed are improvements in the SSI assets
limits, which have not been adjusted for inflation in over a decade.
I don't know whether you intend to include in the budget a specific proposal related to an
improvement in Social Security widows' benefits. If you seek to finance the widows' benefit from
the budget surplus, you presumably would include the proposal in the budget. But if you want to
finance a widows' benefit improvement within Social Security, you either could include it in the
budget or say, as you did last year, that it would be worked out as part of Social Security reform.
SSI improvements. however, are not financed from within Social Security; they must be
accommodated within the non-Social Security budget. The question this raises is: do SSI
improvements need to be part of the budget in order to be part of possible Social Security
negotiations next year? Such SSI improvements would be very important, and they probably can
be secured only in the context of Social Security reform. They could be phased in so they do not
entail large costs over the next five years.
12
DEC. - 03' 99 (FRI) 18:04
CENTER ON BUDGET
TEL: 202 408 1056
P. 001/013
CENTER ON BUDGET
AND POLICY PRIORITIES
820 First Street, NE, Suite 510
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: 202/408-1080
Fax: 202/408-0848 or 408-1056
If there are any problems with the transmission of this document,
please call Betty Hitchcock 202/408-1080
To:
Melanne Verveer
FAX NUMBER:
456-6244
FROM:
Bob Greenstein
REGARDING:
Initiatives for the President's Budget
DATE:
December 3, 1999
NUMBER OF PAGES:
13
(including cover sheet)
Comments:
Melanne,
Enclosed is a copy of a memo I've sent both to Gene Sperling and to Jack and Sylvia
about potential initiatives for the final Clinton budget. I think there are some exciting and
important things that could be proposed. I'd very much like to talk to you about this. Please give
me a buzz.
Joan Lombardi
1941 Shiver Drive
Alexandria, Virginia 22307
Phone (703)-660-6711
Fax (703)-660-8924
Email [email protected]
TO: Nicole Rabner
FROM: Joan
It was great to see you today and spend time once again thinking through
issues. I really hope we can nail the child care money this year and shine a light
on issues facing young children.
Enclosed is an article I just did that reflects what I'm out there talking about.
Let me know if there is anything I can do to help and Happy Holidays!
Guest Editorial
Preschool
So here we are coming into an election
year and everyone is concerned about
early education. It is time for a national
Meets
dialogue on this issue - but it cannot
be separated from the needs of working
families, and at the same time, it cannot
Child Care
be pitted against our strong belief in the
importance of parents in the lives of
young children.
by Joan Lombardi
The next century calls for new ways of
thinking. How can we promote the
early education of young children at
As the national debate on education reform heats up, preschool has
home, in child care, and in other early
suddenly become a hot topic. For those of us who have been work-
childhood programs? How can we pro-
mote the best services not just for four
ing on early childhood issues long before they moved to the front
and five year olds but for those infants
page, the attention is welcome. During Labor Day celebrations, we
and toddlers being cared for in centers
heard about working families. When-school started, we heard about
and family child care by neighbors
the need for preschool. We can no longer have a national debate on
and by relatives? How can we ensure
these issues as if they are separate and unequal. From World War II
equal access to quality services for the
children of low-income families,
to welfare reform, child care has been viewed as a place to "put"
particularly now that their parents are
children while their parents work. Nursery or preschool has been
moving from welfare to work? And
seen as a place where children go to "learn." It is time we help
above all how can we make sure that
others recognize that child care is an educational opportunity —
Head Start, child care, and other early
a place to promote language, literacy, and a love of learning. For
childhood issues remain bipartisan? All
many young children, child care is a preschool.
of us have to help this dialogue move
forward as we go into the next phase of
public interest in young children and
Over the past few decades, we have
list. The very next year, after many
their families in the decades ahead.
seen tremendous growth in early child-
many years of debate, Congress passed
hood services. More than 10 million
and the President signed a child care
preschoolers in the United States have
bill. Although this was a big step
employed mothers. Almost half of these
towards helping low-income parents
Joan Lombardi, Ph.D., serves as an
young children spend part of each week
gain access to affordable services, the
advisor to a number of national
in organized programs including child
bill (and its 1996 successor) included
organizations and foundations. She
care centers or family child care homes.
very few provisions to promote quality
served as the
Almost 2 million children with mothers
- no one required literacy training for
first associate
not in the workforce also attend early
staff, there was limited attention to
commissioner for
childhood centers.
paying decent wages so we could
the Child Care
recruit and retain qualified teachers.
Bureau from
Ten years ago, the President and the
In fact, even basic health and safety
1995-1997.
nation's governors signed the education
protections were reduced to the bare
goals, with school readiness heading the
minimum.
Child Care Information Exchange 11/99 - 12
OCT-18-1999 08:18
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027 P.11/35
Part I - General Provisions
Maintains provisions from current law; adds a definition for "highly qualified."
TITLE III - Early Childhood Programs and Enrichment Initiatives
Part A: Early Childhood Education
IN GENERAL - Early Childhood Education plays E. critical role in academic success for our
young people. Research into the development and growth of the human brain clearly
demonstrates that learning begins at birth, and that the years between birth and the age of
mandatory school enrollment are critical for future academic success. Part A: Early Childhood
Education brings together new early learning initiatives and existing provisions in the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act to build a cohesive federal policy that provides parents, caretakers,
child care providers, and educators with the tools they need to better ensure that our children
you.
have the opportunity to enter school ready to learn.
the
Subpart 1: Early Learning Initiative
Purpose: The purpose of Title III, Part A, Subpart 1 is to increase the availability of voluntary
programs, services, and activities that support early childhood education and promote school
readiness of young children (age birth to 6) by helping parents, caretakers, child care providers,
and educators who desire to incorporate appropriate developmental activities into the daily lives
of pre-school age children and to facilitate broader involvement of other members in the
community to develop a cohesive network of early learning opportunities. The "Early Learning
Initiative" blends two new components with the Parent Assistance program formerly in Goals
2000. Because of the preponderance of early learning and related health and human service
programs within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of HHS is
responsible for administering this initiative (except for the Parent Assistance Program) in
collaboration with the Secretary of Education.
Coordination of Federal Programs: Requires and provides the authority to the Secretaries of
the Department of Health and Human Services and Education to develop effective mechanisms
to resolve conflicts between early learning programs and remove barriers to the creation of a
community-driven, unified system of services, activities, and programs for young children and
their families.
Preserving Parental Rights and Roles: Clearly states that parents are not required to
participate in any programs, services or activities funded under this part and reinforces that
parents are responsible for directing the education of their children.
Federal Funding: $7 billion over 5 years is the amount authorized to carry out this early
learning initiative. The amount starts at $1 billion and increases to $1.8 billion a year during the
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
7
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:18
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027 P.12/35
fifth year of the authorization.
Allotments to States: The federal share is 80% for the first two years of the grant, decreasing to
70% in the second and third years, and to 50% for the remainder of the initiative. There is a
broad definition of how states can meet the match requirements, including cash or in-kind
facilities, equipment, or services. The funds are allocated to the states based equally on the
population of children aged 6 or under and the number of children aged 6 or under who are living
in poverty. There is a small state minimum of .35% and a 1% set-aside for Indian Tribes, Native
Alaskans, Hawaii Natives, and the Outlying areas. States are not permitted to use the funds to
supplant existing funding for child care, Head Start, and other early learning programs.
Limit on Administrative Costs: Administrative costs are limited for both the Department of
Health and Human Services (5%) and the States (3% for state-level coordination of services and
5% for administrative costs).
State Eligibility: To receive a grant allotment, States must submit an application, designate a
lead entity, ensure that funds are distributed on a competitive basis throughout the state, ensure
that a broad array/variety of early learning programs, activities, and services receive funds, and
develop mechanisms to ensure compliance with the requirement of the initiative. States also are
required to develop performance goals based on an assessment of needs and available resources
and annually report the State's progress towards meeting those goals.
Awarding Grants to Localities: States must award grants consistent with the performance goals set
by the State. Preference is given to grants which include services to help parents as well as those
which provide direct activities for young children, and to grants which increase local collaboration to
maximize the use of existing resources. There is no definition of entities eligible to receive grants, in
order to facilitate the broadest possible participation among local community resources.
Use of Funds: Entities receiving funds from the State grant allotment will use the funds to:
1) Help parents increase their capacity to facilitate the development of cognitive,
language comprehension, expressive language, social-emotion, and motor skills and
promote learning readiness in their young children;
2) Provide increased opportunities for parents, caretakers, child care providers and
educators to participate, with their children, in a variety of early learning programs,
activities and services;
3) Remove barriers to the provision of an accessible, unified system of early childhood
learning programs;
4) Establish and support local councils or partnerships to facilitate coordination and
encourage broad-based involvement in expanding early learning opportunities within the
community;
5) Develop linkages among early learning programs within a community and between
early learning programs and health care services for young children; and
6) Early learning activities may include: formation of community-based early learning
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
8
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:19
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027 P.13/35
councils, parent education, traveling or mobile pre-schools, home visiting, mother's-day-
out programs, family literacy, library and other reading programs, parent-child exercise
activities, recreational programs, formalized play groups, family resource services, home
extension services, museum programs, respite services for parents, English as a second
language programs for parents and their children, parent support groups, fine arts,
performance arts and cultural activities, nutritional guidance and services, computer
skills training for children, activities in non-profit cultural institutions, expansion of
existing Head Start programs (including early head start), child care services, and other
voluntary programs, services, and activities of sufficient intensity to ensure the likelihood
of sustaining early learning gains and learning readiness.
Accountability: The State is primarily responsible for monitoring the use of funds by state
grantees. If the State determines that the grantee is not complying with the requirements of the
grant, the state must inform the grantee of the problems, provide training and technical assistance
to help them correct the problems, and if that fails, terminate the grant.
Availability of Funds: The State has 2 years to expend the funds received under the State's
allotment. Any unexpended funds will be redistributed to other states which have expended their
allotment using the same formula as the original allocation. Of the allotment to Indian Tribes,
Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Outlying areas, any funds not expended withing 2 years is
redistributed to other entities receiving funding under this set-aside.
(b) - PARENTAL ASSISTANCE:
The Parental Assistance Program, formerly included in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act has
been moved to the Early Learning Initiative to more effectively integrate community-based early
learning activities within the States. The legislation continues to authorize the Parental
Information and Resource Centers that currently operate in every state. These Centers work to
increase parents' knowledge and confidence in child-rearing activities, strengthen partnerships
between parents and professionals in meeting the educational needs of children between birth and
age 5, and enhance the developmental progress of children assisted under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. A portion of the funds for this program supports the development of
Parents as Teachers and Home Instruction for Preschool Youngsters programs in communities
throughout the country. Currently funded at $30 million, the legislation changes the
authorization to a $50 million set-aside within the Early Learning Initiative, and requires that at
least half of those funds be used to establish, expand, or operate community-based early learning
programs such as Parents as Teachers and the Home: Instruction for Preschool Youngsters
programs. The Department of Education will continue to administer this program.
(c) NATIONAL RESOURCES FOR EARL LEARNING:
The National Resources for Early Learning provision of the legislation supports and enhances the
toll-free hotline which links parents, caretakers, child care providers, educators, government
entities, and private entities with community based resources to help them identify and access
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
9
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:19
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027 P.14/35
early learning resources, including child care services, available in the local area. It creates a
national clearinghouse on effective practices in the field of early childhood education and early
learning programs, services, and activities. This clearinghouse is linked to community-based
early education and child care resources to facilitate the sharing of information among parents,
providers, and educators. The hotline and clearinghouse will provide a single point of contact for
parents, care givers, child care providers, and educators. In addition, the legislation authorizes
the Secretary to work with the broadcast media to explore innovative ways to extend early
learning opportunities beyond television programming. Built upon the groundwork laid by the
Ready to Learn Act, this provision creates a collaborative process designed to engage the
commercial arena in efforts to reach out to parents, service providers, and educators through the
distribution of early learning materials, Internet-based activities, and viewing guides that
supplement educational programming by expanding early learning opportunities beyond the
television screen and in the home and community.
The Secretary is authorized to use no less than 3% and no more than 5% of the appropriations for
the Early Learning Initiative to contract for these three activities. The intent is to enhance and
expand hotline and clearinghouse resources by building on existing services.
Subpart 2: Ready to Learn Television
Purpose: The Ready to Learn Television program authorizes the Secretary of Education to
award grants or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements to develop, produce, and distribute
educational and instructional video programming for preschool and elementary school children
and their parents. Recognizing that television is part of the daily experience of most young
children, the program supports efforts to teach parents, care givers, and child care providers how
to use television as a means to help learn, develop, and play creatively.
Program: The proposed reauthorization fundamentally maintains the current Ready to Learn
Television program. It makes funds available to local public television stations to work in
partnerships with State education agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), local
schools, institutions of higher education, or community-based organization to:
1)
Address the learning needs of limited English proficient households;
2)
Develop programming and support materials to increase family literacy skills;
3)
Identify, support and enhance the effective use of innovative programs that promote
school readiness; and
4)
Develop and disseminate training materials that support efforts to integrate
developmentally appropriate games and activities based on Ready to Learn Television
programming.
Federal Funds: The Ready to Learn Television Program is currently funded at $11 million.
This legislation increases the authorization of the program to $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001
and such sums as necessary for the four succeeding fiscal years.
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
10
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:19
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027 P.15/35 .
Subpart 3: Inexpensive Book Distribution Program
Purpose and Program: Funds made available under the Inexpensive Book Distribution
Program" support "Reading is Fundamental" (RIF). Currently funded at $18 million, RIF
supports and promotes programs, including the distribution of inexpensive books to students, to
motivate children to read. RIF is a public private partnership program that operates nationwide
and serves 3.5 million children annually in schools, child care centers, libraries, hospitals, clinics
and homeless centers. The proposed reauthorization allocation for the first fiscal year following
enactment is $25,000,000 (current funding level is $15,000,000).
PART B: 21st CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS
(Title III, Part B, Subparts 1 and 2)
OVERVIEW
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative is designed to give public schools the
opportunity to create facilities that deliver lifelong learning and related services to individuals of
all ages. To carry out the purpose of the program, schools are strongly encouraged to collaborate
with other public and nonprofit agencies and organizations, local businesses, and other entities so
that services may be maximized.
Several key changes have been made in the reauthorization proposal from the current law. First,
the authorization level has been substantially increased from $20 million to $800 million.
Second, the reauthorization establishes two programs: 21st Century Community Learning
Centers-Subpart 1 and Subpart 2. Subpart 1 continues the intent of the current law program
which enables schools to offer an array of activities for lifelong learners. Subpart 2 creates a
grant program that will fund non-school hours care for children and youth and will be
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Funds appropriated for the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers will be evenly divided between Subparts 1 and 2. Third,
the process for awarding grants for Subpart 1 significantly differs from current law. Presently,
the Secretary of Education awards the grants directly to schools. Since the proposed
authorization level has substantially increased, States will receive funding based on a formula
and will then make the awards to schools through a competitive process. Subpart 2, entitled
"Nonschool Hours Care," is designed to make the most effective use of existing after-school,
youth development, and youth services resources within a community. It focuses on fostering
local collaboration, eliminating barriers, providing a. broad array of activities to encourage
children and youth to participate, and meeting the needs of working parents. Funds are allocated
by formula to States, for distribution to local entities and collaboratives on a competitive basis.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
SUBPART 1: 21st CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
11
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:19
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027
P.16/35
PURPOSE - The purpose is to enable public schools to establish and develop centers that
deliver education and human resources to all members of the communities served by the public
schools. Schools collaborate with other public and nonprofit organizations, local businesses,
other educational entities, recreational, cultural, and human service organizations to address the
needs of the community.
FEDERAL FUNDING - $800,000,000 is authorized for the first fiscal year following
enactment.
ALLOTMENT TO STATES - The Secretary allots to each State an amount based on a ratio of
a State's school-age population to the school-age population of all States. A small state
minimum is also included which is 1/2 of one percent.
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE - All current grantees that have been awarded funds under the
21st Century Community Learning Centers program will continue to receive funds under the
original terms of the grant until the time period for that grant has expired.
STATE APPLICATIONS - Any State seeking a grant will include the following information
in their application to the Secretary:
a) designation of the State educational agency as the agency responsible for the
administration of the program, including dissemination of data; and
b) provides for a biennial submission of data regarding use of funds
c) period of application -- the application is for 3 years and may be amended annually as
may be necessary.
STATE USES OF FUNDS - A State educational agency may use not more than 15 percent of
funding for the following activities:
a) a peer review process for grant applications;
b) supervision of the awarding of funds to public elementary schools, secondary schools,
or consortia of these schools;
c) monitoring and evaluation of programs; and
d) providing technical assistance.
DISTRIBUTION TO SCHOOLS - A State educational agency shall use not less than 85
percent of funds to award grants, on a competitive basis, to elementary schools, secondary
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
12
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:19
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027
P.17/35
schools, or consortia of schools. A State educational agency shall not award a grant in any fiscal
year that is less than $75,000.
a) Priority -- In awarding the grants, the State educational agency shall give priority to
funding applications that describe projects that offer a broad selection of services that
address the needs of the community to be served by the school or consortium.
LOCAL APPLICATION CONTENTS - Any public elementary school, secondary school, or
consortium seeking a grant will include the following information in their application to the State
educational agency:
a) a comprehensive plan that enables the school or consortium to serve as a center for the
delivery of education and human resources for members of a community;
b) an evaluation of the needs, available resources, and objectives for the proposed project;
and
c) a description of the proposed project, including --
1) identification of Federal, State, and local programs to be merged or coordinated
so that public resources may be maximized;
2) a description of the collaborative efforts to be undertaken by community-based
organizations, related public agencies, businesses, or other appropriate
organizations;
3) a description of how the school or consortium will serve as a delivery center for
existing and new services; and
4) an assurance that the school or consortium will establish a facility utilization
policy regarding utilization of the building and supervision guidelines.
LOCAL APPLICATION SPECIAL RULE - A local educational agency may apply for a
grant under this part on behalf of a public elementary school, secondary school, or consortia if
the school building officials lack the authority to apply for Federal funds.
LOCAL USES OF FUNDS - A public school or consortium may use their grant to carry out
not less than four of the following activities:
a) literacy education programs;
b) senior citizen programs;
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
13
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:20
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027 P.18/35
c) integrated education, health, social service, recreational, or cultural programs;
d) extended learning programs, including summer and weekend school programs in
conjunction with recreational programs;
e) nutrition and health programs;
f) expanded library service hours to serve community needs;
g) telecommunications and technology education programs for individuals of all ages;
h) parenting skills education programs;
i) employment counseling, training, and placement;
j) services for individuals who leave school before graduating from secondary school,
regardless of the age of such individuals;
i) services for individuals with disabilities
SUBPART 2: NON-SCHOOL HOURS CARE
PURPOSE - The purpose of Subpart 2 is to increase the availability of care for school-age
children and youth during the non-school hours, including before- and after-school. It expands
the types of programs and activities eligible to receive funds to encourage the participation of a
wide variety of community-based youth service providers, such as schools, youth development
organizations, parks and recreation services, and other local resources.
ADMINISTRATION AND FUNDING - The Secretary of Education is required to transfer 50
percent of the amount appropriated for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers to the
Department of Health and Human Services for the administration of this Subpart.
COORDINATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS - The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs are authorized and required to develop effective mechanisms to resolve conflicts
between early learning programs and remove barriers to the creation of a community-driven,
unified system of nonschool hours activities and programs.
GRANTS TO STATES - The legislation creates a State grant program in which funds for this
Subpart are allocated to States based equally on the total number of children and youth aged 5 to
17 and the number of those youth living in poverty. There is a small state minimum of .35% and
an allocation of 1 percent for Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Outlying
areas. States are not permitted to use the funds to supplant existing funding for before- and after-
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
14
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:20
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027
P.19/35
school care, youth development programs, parks and recreational services, academic enrichment
or summer school programs, and other activities for children and youth in the non-school hours.
STATE MATCH - The federal funds can be used for 80 percent of the costs of the programs
and activities, with state or local match being cash or in-kind, including facilities, equipment, and
services. Fee-for-service funds can be used to achieve the match, as long as no fee is charged to
children living in families who qualify to receive free- or reduced price lunches.
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS - The Department of Health and Human Services may use up to
7% of the funds transferred by the Department of Education for the costs of monitoring,
evaluating, providing training and technical assistance, and administering the grant program.
States may use not more than 4 percent of the State's grant to carry out training and technical
assistance and an additional 4 percent for the costs associated with administering the grant.
STATE ELIGIBILITY -- To receive a grant allotment, States must submit an application to the
Department of Health and Human Services, designate a lead entity, ensure that funds are
distributed on a competitive basis throughout the state, ensure that a broad variety of non-school
hours programs and types of service providers receive funds, and develop mechanisms to ensure
compliance with the requirements of the initiative.
AWARDING GRANTS TO LOCAL ENTITIES - The state may award grants to public and
private entities with demonstrated experience in providing services to children and youth.
Preference is given to activities which remove barriers to the provision of nonschool hours care
(such as the lack of transportation services between school, home, and program locations),
coordinated programs which connect resources from a variety of community-based resources to
achieve a continuity of care across the age and activities spectrum, and programs which use at
least 20 percent of the funding received in the community under the Safe- and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act to provide nonschool hours activities for school-aged youth. For
the first three years of the grant program, communities which have received funding under the
21 st Century Community Learning Centers Act for after-school care will receive a preference if
they have formalized cooperative agreements that demonstrate that such program operates on a
collaborative basis with other youth serving entities in the community.
ELIGIBILITY OF LOCAL GRANTEES -- To receive a grant from the State, local entities or
collaborations must maintain cooperative agreements with a broad range of public and private
agencies, organizations, and other service providers (including, to the maximum extent possible,
local elementary and secondary schools) to facilitate a continuity of care across the age and
activities spectrum. Activities receiving funds must be designed to meet the needs of working
parents and assist youth in acquiring the skills and competencies needed to make successful
transition from childhood to adulthood. Those competencies include the social, physical,
emotional, moral, and cognitive development of children and youth. Although activities should
be primarily non-academic in focus, they can include tutoring and a wide range of academic
enrichment programs conducted outside the traditional classroom environment.
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
15
October 15, 1999
OCT-18-1999 08:20
OFC OF THE DEP SECY
202 401 9027
P.20/35
AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES - The legislation includes a illustrative list of types of programs
and activities that may receive funding under this Subpart, including: leadership development,
mentoring, peer counseling and teaching, literacy and other reading activities, community
service, sports and recreation, arts and cultural activities, character development, mediation
skills, substance abuse prevention, camping and environmental education, tutoring, academic
enrichment, and homework help.
HELPING LOW-INCOME FAMILIES - At least 30 percent of the funds received by a
grantee must be used to subsidize the cost of activities for low-income youth (living in families
qualified to receive free- or reduced-price lunches).
ACCOUNTABILITY - The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is
responsible for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of activities receiving funding under
this Subpart and shall consult with other appropriate federal agencies to ensure effective
coordination of this Subpart with other programs providing similar services for children and
youth (including child care, delinquency prevention, substance abuse, pregnancy prevention,
school-to-work transition, and extended school day/year programs). The State is primarily
responsible for monitoring the use of funds by local grantees. If the State determines that the
grantee is not complying with the requirements of the grant, the state must inform the grantee of
the problems, provide training and technical assistance to help them correct the problems, and if
that fails, terminate the grant.
Part C: High School Initiative
The purpose of this part is to create initiatives that will better prepare high school students to
meet the challenges of the global economy. The part consists of two subparts which are: (1) a
high school reform program and (2) Part D from the current Title I law--which is the Prevention
and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk
of Dropping Out.
To implement the high school reform program, States will award funds competitively to high
schools for the development of activities to motivate students to complete their high school
education. Such efforts include: articulation agreements between secondary and postsecondary
institutions; promoting partnerships with both business and the community; and alternative
school efforts that match a student's readiness to learn with a curriculum that addresses the
student's learning needs.
The Title I, Part D, program for youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk of dropping out
primarily serves youth who have been assigned to institutional facilities. The purpose of the
program is to provide those youth with the opportunity to make a successful transition from
institutionalization to further schooling or employment. Most of the current law provisions
would be retained in this proposal.
Senate Discussion Draft Summary
16
October 15, 1999
5
Option 4 -- Make Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit Refundable
Pros:
Making the credit refundable will increase the share of federally-assisted child care benefits
accruing to low-income families, particularly those with income below the poverty level.
Among working mothers who pay for child care, low-income working mothers typically
spend a greater share of their income for child care than those with higher incomes. In
1991, working mothers with child care expenditures and income below the poverty level
spent 27 percent of their family income on child, while those with higher income spent 7
percent.
Cons:
Families need funds for child care assistance in "real time." But most recipients will not
be able to obtain the credit until they file a tax return at the end of the year, long after the
child care bills have come due. Low-income families may find it difficult (if not
impossible) to rearrange their finances or borrow against the receipt of a tax credit at the
end of the year.
To address this concern, advance payments of the credit could be made available,
but experience with the EITC suggest that most taxpayers will not take advantage
of this option. Eligibility for advance payments may be difficult to verify, unless
a government office or employer is required to monitor claims.
The IRS cannot verify child care expenditures prior to the payment of the credit to the
taxpayer, but will not find it cost-effective to recapture erroneous payments to lower-
income taxpayers with small tax liabilities. A social service office may be better able to
check the authenticity of child care expenditures prior to paying out a voucher.
Efforts to create new refundable credits have led to intensified scrutiny of the EITC and its
compliance problems. The EITC provides a credit of $3,656 to families with two or more
qualifying children with incomes between $9,140 and $11,930. The credit for families with
one child and income between $6,500 and $11,930 is $2,210. The credit has been sharply
attacked by Congressional critics in recent years (and will be attacked again this fall).
In the income range where making the child credit refundable matters, the EITC
exceeds substantially the sum of income and payroll taxes. Hence, critics of a
refundable child credit will be quick to label these payments "welfare" and
vigorously fight this proposal.
11/15/99 why
2001 Budget Proposals:
The Working Families Project
EITC
1) Eliminate marriage penalty (increase the level of income for married filers)
2) Reduce the marginal tax-rate (reduce the phase down rate) 60 percent of EITC recipients are
in the phase down region of the credit and face marginal tax rates of 50 percent.
3) Create a third tier for families with three or more children
Child care/Early education funding
increase funding for child care of working poor thru CCDBG, require states to move in the
direction of horizontal equity. Create new block grant, improve quality, create standards in
exchange for funding and local decision-making on who benefits (0 -5).
goals
Dependent Care credit
Increase, target, and make refundable. (Or fold into child credit and increase/target credit to
low-income families with young children)
Transportation
1) Change food stamp statute to require states to use TANF vehicle asset limit
for food
stamps.
2) Set-aside HHS funds for car research. There are two studies that provide evidence that cars
improve job and earning prospects significantly. They are local studies (Michigan and L.A.).
More evidence would be helpful. A small set-aside for research that compares car/no car
prospects in several different areas (city with transit, older suburb, rural) would be very helpful.
3) Promote auto-choice legislation (Lieberman ,Moyn McCornell) vcost of insurance
4) Fully fund (with no earmarks) Access to Jobs and target only to public/private partnerships with
employer contribution.
5) Change TANF IDA legislation to permit use for car purchase.
couldhely grow IDA
or wasing
Child support
Pass - thru to working parents.
Welfare - to - Work Grants
New funds targeted to community service jobs to create infrastructure for future when there are
more welfare recipients who cannot find a job - and meet the needs of those (especially in the
cities.)
Annual income
OOS 6g
000 80
OOS Ox
000 SA
005 Ex
000 24
loos O₂
000 6E
3> 500
000 E
00S BE
000 EE
DOS VE
000 OE
DOS 82
000 <2
009 at
000 2
DOS 11
000 is
00s 61
000 81
loos 9,
000 9
00s EL
000 21
000 loos TO,
9
OOS:
L
000'g
6,
DOS'A
000'8
00s
O
0
CTC
009
1,000
EITC
1,500
Proposed DCTC
2,000
Amount of credit
2,500
3,000
00500
4,000
(single parent with two non-infant children)
Interaction of EITC, CTC, and DCTC under Combined Proposal
Annual income
005 000 005 000 000 00s sts 28
649 8VS 9V$ $45 EAS 2422 OAD 635 LES
ges FES EES
LES OFS 82$
000 $28
000 00s 000 005 00s 000 000 00s 000 loos 6s $10
ZIS
12$ 615 81$ 91$ 1915 ELS ZLS
00s 00s 00S 000 000 00s 000 005 00s. 000 000
00g 15
000 98
DOG 45
000 Es
$7 500 SO
0$
CTC
$500
$11000
EITC
DCTC
$11500
$2,000
Credit amount
$2,500
$3,000
005.00
$4,000
(single parent with two children)
Current Law Interaction of EITC, CTC, and DCTC
Proposed Interaction of EITC, CTC, and Refundable DCTC
(single parent with two children)
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
Amount of credit
$2,000
$1,500
EITC
Proposed DCTC
$1,000
$500
CTC
$0
$7 so 500
$3 1000
S4 500
$6 iooo
57 500
$16 $10 $18, $9 $15
000 00s 000 000 00$ 00$ 000 00s 005'01$ 61$
00s 000 000 OOS L2$
000 500 000 500 000
$22. 1000 FOOD 500 500
00$ 000 000 000 00s 00s Ots CDS
00s
$24 $25
$28 $27
$30 531 $33 $34 $36 $37 $39
$43 $45 $46 $48 $49
Annual income
DEC-10-1999 15:39
P.01/16
FAX COVER SHEET
Executive Office of the President
Office of Management and Budget
Education, Income Maintenance and Labor Division
Room 260, Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20503
(202)-395-4844
TO:
Nicole Robnee
FROM:
Barbara Chow, Associate Director
Jennifer McGee, Special Assistant
Sarah Zambon, Intern
DATE:
12-10-99
FAX#:
62878
# OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 15
NOTES: Basbara wants you to
see their
DEC-10-1999 15:39
P.02/16
MEMORANDUM
December 10, 1999
To:
OMB Staff
From:
Senator Kennedy's Staff
Re:
Funding Requests for President Clinton's FY 2001 Budget
Attached are brief descriptions of the priorities that Senator Kennedy recommends for the
Administration's FY 2001 budget. These descriptions only focus on the areas of education,
labor, poverty, disability, job training, and immigration. We greatly appreciate your
consideration of these requests, and look forward to continuing to work with you throughout the
budget process next year.
DEC-10-1999
15:39
P.03/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
EDUCATION BUDGET PRIORITIES
GOAL: Increases in the education budget in FY2001 are essential to the success of ongoing
standards-based reforms. A funding freeze not only will earn opposition from Democrats and the
education community, but also will hand Republicans a political opportunity to "one-up"
Democrats on education. An increase of $5 billion is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Enrollments are rising, teachers are retiring, standards are higher, and
children's needs are more diverse -- we need more resources to help communities meet those
needs and help all children meet higher standards. We are reauthorizing ESEA this year. We
should make clear early on that when we improve the law and increase accountability for results,
we will also increase the resources to help schools accomplish the goals of the new law.
PROPOSAL: In addition to the signature Clinton programs, we need to support programs that
are important to our core constituencies. The education community has been very supportive of
the President's/Democrats" new programs such as after-school and class size, and will continue
to be. But, the core programs that are critical to the groups' members such as Title I,
Eisenhower, IDEA, bilingual education, and Technology are not getting the same support from
the White House and Congress. For example, between FY98-FY2000, Title I received only an
8% increase, Eisenhower received 0% increase, Technology Literacy Challenge received a 0%
increase. However, the new Class Size initiative received $1.2 billion last year and $1.3 billion
this year (an 8% increase in Title I is only $510 million), and after-school went from $40 million
to $450 million. National, state, and local constituencies are blaming both Republicans and
Democratsfor this failure to increase key programs. Republicans have only fought for increases
in Pell (+$175 in the max. grant) and IDEA ($700 million increase) this year. The education
community believes that no one is fighting for real increases in core programs of ESEA. Even
Bush is making Title I a signature issue.
POLITICS: Education polls high in every national poll. The education budget will be as much
about message as it is about funding. As evidenced by the past year, Republicans are making
headway on the education funding issue, and they will continue to try to do so this year. Even
Bush is talking about more money for education and a strong federal role. The President's
increase last year was modest ($1.2 billion) and Republicans were able to make Democrats go on
the defensive (they pushed for a $3 billion increase). Republicans have also been able to make
some headway on IDEA and Pell grants (core Democratic issues). We need to regain control
over the education funding issue. We should not leave Gore and Congressional Dems
susceptible to criticism on education funding - especially in an election year.
COST: The education community is probably going to advocate for a $5 billion increase
(approximately 15%) in education funding. In a year when education is such a hot national,
state, and local topic, and when even Republicans are arguing for increased funds, Democrats
should come out strong for a substantial new investment in education.
DEC-10-1999 15:40
P.04/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
EARLY LEARNING INVESTMENTS
GOAL: Ensure that every child starts school ready to read, ready to learn, and ready to succeed
by providing quality early educational services and development for children under the age of 6
by providing long-term investments necessary to create an early learning system that will sustain
our nation's prosperity and ability to lead the world through the 21st century.
BACKGROUND: Medical research conducted this decade shows that adequate stimulation
before age 5 (specifically ages 0-3) is necessary for children's brains to develop to their full
potential. Proper stimulation consists of varied interactions and positive relationships with adults
and other children, including music, exercise, reading, games, and other forms of creative
expression. However, advances in scientific understanding are not reflected in our nation's
practices. Unlike most European countries, America wholly lacks an early-learning
infrastructure. Parenting support and early education programs are available in a few localities,
but no coordination of programs or identification of best practices exists, and program quality
varies widely.
Moreover, 60% of children under age 5 are cared for by someone other than a parent during the
workday. No federal early learning standards exist, and state accreditation and regulation in this area
is inconsistent, sparse, and largely limited to safety matters as oppose to education or development.
Pay is barely above minimum wage for college-educated early learning instructors. The federal
government runs a variety of programs for pre-school children but serve far less than those who are
eligible. For example, some 40% of pre-school age children are served by Head Start, and less than
2% of eligible children are currently served by Early Head Start. Furthermore, federal support for
early learning is scattered among Early Head Start, Head Start, the Child Care and Development
Block Grant, and the Individuals with Disabilities Act. While these programs are effective, they are
all severely underfunded, they are largely limited to low-income families, and no coordination exists
among them. Many states have begun pre-kindergarten in recognition of the importance of early
learning, but these reach no one below age four.
PROPOSAL: A major federal investment on the order of $2 billion per year should be made to
build our early learning infrastructure. This program should be administered by the Department of
Health and Human Services. A mechanism akin to mandatory funding must be found to protect
funding for effective programs that already exist while enabling providers to confidently engage in
long-range planning. State matching funds should be required, and local and private cooperation
encouraged. The object is to make early learning resources universally available to children before
they enter kindergarten. Local organizations can best identify each community's most urgent needs,
and they should be responsible for targeting resources. State and national initiatives can help
monitor use of funds among localities, identify best practices and disseminate information, and make
appropriate policy decisions. Virtually all of the new early learning resources should be used for
seven specific early learning activities, as each locality deems most appropriate: (1) enhancing
childhood literacy; (2) providing parenting education and support; (3) increasing access to Early
Head Start and State pre-K programs; (4) increasing early learning access for young children with
special needs; (5) expanding existing Head Start programs to full-day, full-year; (6) linking early
learning programs with health services; and (7) improving quality of child care programs. In short,
DEC-10-1999 15:40
P.05/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
the new federal support would be used to build and coordinate both existing programs and new ones
as each locality believes will best promote early learning.
POLITICS: Republicans (Stevens, Jeffords, Voinovich, DeWine) have already joined Democrats'
call for a new early learning initiative. Moderates like Snowe, Specter, and Collins should have
cover to join a call for prompt passage of an initiative in the Senate. Education and health are
consistently among the issues of highest concern to Americans today, and early learning can be cast
as both an education and a health issue. Head Start, which should be preserved intact and helped by
any new initiative, consistently enjoys broad public support.
COST: $10 billion over 5 years of mandatory funding.
DEC-10-1999 15:40
P.06/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
PROTECTION FOR WORKING FAMILIES
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GOAL: To ensure that the National Labor Relations Act is enforced properly to protect workers.
BACKGROUND: Until last year, the National Labor Relations Board rarely received the
resources necessary to carry out its important mission. Past years' cuts have seriously eroded the
NLRB's service to the public. Although the Board received a substantial increase for FY2000, a
one-year boost alone will not enable it to sustain a full level of service. Funding must be
maintained, with sufficient allowance for inflation, to permit full staffing through a multi-year
hiring program, on-going training, and acquisition and maintenance of current technology, as
well as travel to the sites of labor disputes and other necessary tools of investigative. The
Administration insistence that the NLRB receive a significant $205 million FY2000 budget was
an important step in allowing this agency to turn the corner. A FY2001 budget of $216 million
would allow the agency to continue the progress that it has already made.
PROPOSAL AND COSTS: I urge your strong support for an additional increase in funding for
the NLRB to $216 million in FY2001 to enable it to fully carry out its mission of prompt,
thorough investigation and resolution of workplace disputes.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION WAGE AND HOUR
ADMINISTRATION
GOAL: To ensure that the laws protecting workers' safety and health and minimum wage,
overtime pay, equal pay, prevailing wages, child labor, immigration are enforced.
BACKGROUND: While overall OSHA funding is important, a few programs deserve special
attention for funding increases. In hearings in the HELP Committee this year, both the majority
and minority agreed that whistleblowers are a crucial part of ensuring safe and healthy
workplaces. OSHA should receive additional resources to fund 20 new positions focusing on
assisting whistleblowers. OSHA also needs to devote additional resources to training its staff.
The Susan Harwood Training Grant Program should be doubled to approximately $14 million.
This program provides grants to organizations around the country to offer training.
PROPOSAL AND COST: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Wage
and Hour Administration received significant increases in FY2000 and deserve a full 10%
increase in FY2001.
DEC-10-1999 15:41
P.07/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
GRANTS FOR FAMILY LEAVE
GOAL: To establish demonstration projects to provide family income to respond to the needs of
working families.
BACKGROUND: As you may know, Senators Dodd, Leahy, Murray, and I sponsored the
Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Insurance Act, or FIRST bill, this past
year. It would provide funds for states and to set up demonstration projects that offer wage
replacement to workers taking family leave. The FIRST bill would build on President Clinton's
initiative to allow the states to expand their unemployment insurance programs, so that new
parents can take paid family leave to care for their children, and on the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993. As you know, workers covered by that law can take up to 12 weeks of
unpaid leave a year to care for a newborn or adopted child, or a seriously ill family member, and
know that their jobs will be there when they return. That Act was one of President Clinton's
most important achievements, and it has given millions of workers the time they need to care for
their families. But as recent studies have shown, the loss of a paycheck during unpaid leave
prevents millions of other workers from taking leave when they need it. President Clinton's
initiative and the FIRST bill are important steps towards solving that problem, and I urge funding
of such a grant program.
PROPOSAL AND COSTS: I ask that you fund $400 million in grants to allow states and
localities to set up demonstration projects that offer wage replacement to workers taking family
leave.
DEC-10-1999 15:41
P.08/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
HUNGER RELIEF
GOAL: Repair gaps in the Food Stamp Program, increasing Program costs by 2% to cure hunger
in working families.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies consistently show that hunger remains a serious problem in
America. Food pantries across the nation report 15-20% increases in requests for emergency
assistance during 1998. USDA determined that 6.1 million adults and 3.3 million children lived
in households that experienced hunger during 1998, comprising 3.5% of all U.S. households. A
1997 Urban Institute study of former welfare recipients concludes that 33% have to skip or cut
meals due to lack of food. One of every five U.S. children is poor and lives in a family that
receives food stamps. America's core defense against hunger is the Food Stamp Program. 90%
of recipients have incomes below the poverty line. Despite essentially unchanged hunger rates,
about eight million fewer people who live in poverty access food stamps today than did in 1995.
A July 1999 GAO study concludes, "children's participation in the Food Stamp Program has
dropped more sharply than the number of children living in poverty, indicating a growing gap
between need and assistance." Much of the decline in food stamp participation is due to the 1996
welfare reform law, which restricted eligibility and made other changes designed to save $22.5
billion over five years.
The cure for hunger is known, and under the Food Stamp Program it costs on average $2.30 per
person per day. With a cure so readily in sight, Hunger should not be tolerated even for a short
time.
PROPOSAL: Approximately $2.5 billion of the 1996 mandatory spending cuts should be
restored as quickly as possible to meet the most urgent nutritional needs, which are concentrated
in families of the working poor, including many legal immigrants. More should be done to
eliminate hunger in America, especially among children. Specifically, the Hunger Relief Act: (1)
restores food stamp eligibility to all legal immigrants ending the status-based limitations on
eligibility imposed by the 1996 welfare reform law; (2) permits states to count the value of one
Crop
vehicle for food stamp purposes the same way states do for TANF purposes, enabling more
Program
working families to have safe transportation for work and children while remaining eligible for
food stamps; (3) raises the "shelter deduction cap" and then indexes it to inflation, which helps
families who live in high-rent metropolitan areas qualify for more food stamps whenever they
must spend more than half of their income on housing and energy costs; and (4) increases federal
support for emergency food programs (commodity distributors, pantries, and soup kitchens) by
10%, or $20 million per year. In short, this bill repeals about 10% of the food stamp cuts that
were made in 1996 to address the most urgent nutritional needs of working families.
POLITICS: The bill is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Specter, Leahy, and Jeffords. Over
500 organizations, including some in every state and others of national renown, have signed a
letter supporting the Hunger Relief Act. It appeals to religious, social services, educational,
immigrant, poverty, homelessness, and nutrition groups. The Act's four components specifically
attract support of immigrant advocates, rural populations that rely on vehicles to work, urban
populations with high rents, and the families most urgently in need of emergency food. The
DEC-10-1999 15:41
P.09/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Administration hasn't completed a major anti-poverty initiative in over two years, and moderate
Republicans in the House and Senate have already recognized the appeal of the Hunger Relief
Act by cosponsoring it.
At a cost of $2.30 per person per day, and especially in this time of prosperity, our nation can
readily afford to restore $2.5 of the $22.5 billion (over 5 years) that was cut from the Food Stamp
Program in 1996. This is true especially considering that adequate nutrition helps reduce health,
education, and unemployment. Preventing hunger is the anti-poverty initiative likely to attract
the most universal public support.
COST: $2.5 billion over 5 years of mandatory funding.
DEC-10-1999 15:42
P. 10/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT
GOAL: Ensure that adequate funding is made available for the remainder of this year , and in the
2001 budget for the work incentives planning, assistance and outreach provisions of the work
incentives legislation.
BACKGROUND: With the passage of the Work Incentives Improvement Act, 2 million of the 9
million individuals with disabilities currently receiving health care and cash subsidies have the
potential of becoming employed. If only 1% of the 9 million current beneficiaries are
successfully employed, savings in cash assistance alone would total over $3.5 billion over the
work life of those individuals.
$1.5 million in supplemental funds should be made available in FY2000 to set up the Work
Incentive Planners and protection and advocacy infrastructure grants prior to the implementation
of the health care and ticket to work provisions that become effective in FY2001. In FY2001,
$30 million is required to fund these same infrastructure grants which support consumer outreach
and enrollment efforts.
PROPOSAL: Include in the 2001 budget the $30 million ($23 & $7 ) that is needed to fund the
Work Incentives Planning, Assistance and Outreach provisions of the Act, and to provide $1.5
55/
million in supplemental funding which is needed this year to begin implementation of the new
infrastructure grant provisions.
COSTS: Supplemental Dollars -
FY2000 = $1.5 million
FY2001 budget = $30. million
DEC-10-1999 15:42
P.11/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
HIGH TECH TRAINING INITIATIVE
GOAL: Now that our long-term effort to reform the employment training system has resulted in
enactment of the Workforce Investment Act, the Administration should propose a major increase
in the resources devoted to providing America's workers with the skills they will need to succeed
in the 21st century workplace. It is one of the best investments we can make to keep the
economic expansion going and to extend the current prosperity well into the next century.
Across the nation from Massachusetts to Virginia to California, high tech companies are
experiencing a serious shortage of employees possessing the necessary skills. Nationally, the
number of unfilled high tech positions is believed to exceed 300,000. We need to provide
additional resources through the workforce system to accelerate training in these specialized
skills.
BACKGROUND: Enactment of the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 provides a modern and
effective framework to reach those workers seeking to upgrade their skills. But, the financial
resources to meet the challenge are not currently available. The only portion of the workforce
system which has received a substantial increase in funding is the Dislocated Workers Program.
The need for additional resources to retrain dislocated workers is very real and the
Administration's on-going efforts to expand that program should continue. However,
participation in the dislocated worker program is limited to workers who have been discharged
by their former employer and are currently unemployed. That is a very narrow segment of the
workforce. There has been no significant increase in funding for other portions of the overall
workforce training system. We must also create training opportunities for those who currently
hold relatively low paying jobs and wish to obtain new skills to enhance their employability and
improve their futures. The demand for workers possessing high tech job skills is well
documented. The federal government needs to bridge the high tech skill gap which today
separates millions of workers from the 21st century jobs they desire.
PROPOSAL: The Administration should propose the creation of competitive grants to regional
workforce boards in areas experiencing a substantial shortage of high tech workers to fill
currently available positions. The grants would be in addition to those funds which the federal
government currently provides for training, and would be awarded based on innovative high tech
training proposals developed jointly by the board and area employers who are willing to commit
to hiring a specific number of the graduating trainees. This will target the additional resources
effectively to areas where the shortage of employees with high tech skills is greatest. I believe
such a plan would receive broad-based support from the business community. It would respond
directly to the concern of high tech employers over the inadequate number of skilled employees
to meet their needs. It would greatly enhance the productivity of the workers trained. It would
be a wise and prudent investment which would stimulate economic growth for years to come.
COST: The cost of training in the existing JTPA adult program averages $2,500 per worker. It
is likely that the cost of teaching the high tech proficiencies which these businesses now require
will be somewhat higher -- $3,000 to $4,000 per employee. An investment of $500 million
DEC-10-1999 15:42
P.12/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
would enable us to upgrade the skills of approximately one hundred and fifty thousand workers.
If we required the high tech employers who are benefitting to pay a portion of the training cost,
we could reach even more workers. Spread over two or three fiscal years, a federal investment of
this magnitude should be manageable.
DEC-10-1999 15:42
P.13/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
RESTORATION OF PUBLIC BENEFITS TO LEGAL IMMIGRANTS
HEALTH CARE
GOAL: Medicaid and CHIP coverage to all children who are lawfully in the U.S., regardless of
their date of arrival. Prenatal care to all pregnant women legally present in the U.S., regardless of
their date of arrival.
BACKGROUND: Although the 1996 welfare laws continued Medicaid coverage for most
indigent immigrants who were in this country on August 22, 1996, states are barred from
enrolling immigrants who arrived in the United States after that date. This bar extends to the
enrollment of children in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Also barred are
children who were in the country by August 22, 1996, but were not deemed "qualified aliens."
A closely linked and equally important proposal would be to give the states the ability to provide
prenatal care to pregnant women. Expanded health care coverage for pregnant women
significantly reduces the number of high risk pregnancies and results in healthier children.
Currently, emergency Medicaid covers the cost of delivery for pregnant women, but not health
care for prenatal services.
PROPOSAL: Include in the budget funding to allow states to provide Medicaid and CHIP
coverage to all children who are lawfully in the U.S., regardless of their date of arrival.
Additionally, allow states to provide prenatal care to all pregnant women legally present in the
U.S., regardless of their date of arrival.
COSTS: The estimated cost of restoring Medicaid and CHIP is $300 million dollars over a five
year period. The estimated cost of providing prenatal care to those lawfully residing is $10
million for five years.
FOOD STAMPS
GOAL: Full restoration of food stamps for all legal immigrants, regardless of date of arrival.
BACKGROUND: Last year, Congress restored food stamps to some legal immigrants (children,
elderly, and disabled) who were in the U.S. before August 22, 1996. Although an important first
step, this legislation only benefitted one third of the 935,000 legal immigrants who were
receiving food stamps before the 1996 law made them ineligible. Children continue to be denied
food stamps because they arrived in the U.S. after the cut off date. Many other children continue
to go hungry because their family members are ineligible for food stamps, therefore, the
household is not able to purchase the food they need. Earlier this year, I co-sponsored the
"Hunger Relief Act," which ensures that all legal immigrants who need food stamps may obtain
them, regardless of their date of arrival to the U.S. I recommend that you include in your budget
request the $630 million over 5 years that is needed to fully restore food stamps to all legal
DEC-10-1999 15:43
14/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
immigrants. This is an important step in our struggle to eradicate hunger in our country.
PROPOSAL: Include in the budget funding to fully restore food stamps eligibility to all legal
immigrants, regardless of their date of arrival.
COST: The estimated cost of restoring food stamps is $630 million dollars over a five year
period.
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME
GOAL: Restore SSI eligibility to all legal immigrants.
BACKGROUND: The Balanced Budget Act made significant steps in restoring SSI eligibility to
legal immigrants. However, much more can be done. Most low-income, legal immigrants who
entered the United States after August 22, 1996, are still barred from SSI, even if they experience
an unforseen accident or disabling illness. SSI should be extended to qualified immigrants who
arrived after August 22, 1996, and later become disabled.
SSI coverage for elderly immigrants remains extremely restricted. Only elderly immigrants who
were on the SSI rolls on August 22, 1996, may receive SSI benefits. Immigrants who were in the
United States, but not receiving SSI should not become destitute when they grow old.
Immigrants who were living in the United States prior to August 22, 1996, should qualify for SSI
as they reach age 65.
PROPOSAL: Include in the budget funding to extend of SSI to qualified immigrants who arrived
after August 22, 1996, and later become disabled. Additionally, include in the budget funding to
extend SSI to legal immigrants who were living in the United States prior to August 22, 1996 as
they reach age 65.
COST: SSI coverage for legal immigrants who become disabled after arrival is estimated to cost
$1.5 billion over 5 years. The estimated cost of SSI coverage to legal immigrants who were
living in the United States prior to August 22, 1996 as they reach age 65 is $1.5 to 2 billion over
a 5 year period.
DEC-10-1999 15:43
P. 15/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
FUNDING FOR IMMIGRATION SERVICES
GOAL: Create an Immigration Services Capital Investment Fund.
BACKGROUND: The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in all likelihood will
undergo fundamental restructuring in the next few years, resulting in a separation of services
from enforcement functions. While separating these two functions is an excellent idea, such a
separation will exacerbate funding problems for services. Under existing law and practice, the
service core functions of the INS -- the adjudication of applications for naturalization and
residence -- are funded almost entirely through examination fees, a practice that has lead to
serious financial shortfalls and resulted in unacceptable delays and backlogs. Enforcement
functions, on the other hand, are largely funded by directly appropriated funds.
Service funding shortfalls will only be resolved by appropriating adequate funding levels, to
supplement examination fees. As such, an Immigration Services Capital Investment Fund should
be enacted. Such a fund, appropriated to the Attorney General, would be used to fund service-
related infrastructure improvements, major capital acquisitions, backlog reductions, and any
other service-related expenses that the Attorney General determines are not adequately funded by
examinations fees. We need only look at the recent successes in naturalization processing to see
the results that adequate funding produces - the completion of 1.2 million naturalization
applications during FY 1999, a 105 percent increase over FY 1998. This result, however, was
only possible by reprogramming funds and diverting resources from the adjudication of residence
applications. The neglect of residence cases has now resulted in a backlog of over 900,000 cases.
Appropriating funding for immigration services will enable the Attorney General to authorize
needed funding and avoid future harmful trade offs.
PROPOSAL: Include in the budget funding to create an Immigration Services Capital
Investment Fund to be used to fund service-related infrastructure improvements, major capital
acquisitions, backlog reductions, and any other service-related expenses that the Attorney
General determines are not adequately funded by examinations fees.
DEC-10-1999 15:43
P.16/16
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
INCREASED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS
GOAL: Increase the refugee admissions ceiling to 100,000.
BACKGROUND: As a leader in refugee policy, America has a duty to maintain a strong refugee
program. Such an obligation reaffirms our country's most cherished values and our long-standing
humanitarian tradition to assist the persecuted and oppressed. By maintaining a vigorous refugee
resettlement program, we also set an example that other nations will follow. As such, the
Administration's refugee policy is important not only in terms of its immediate effect, but also in
terms of its effect on other countries' decisions, where our leadership by example is essential. We
saw this during the Kosovo crisis, where United States leadership was instrumental in
establishing an international refugee protection response.
The Administration was commended for increasing the refugee admissions ceiling to 90,000 for
fiscal year 2000. We must continue on this course in fiscal year 2001, and end the decline in
refugee admission ceilings in recent years, falling more than 40 percent from 132,000 in 1993 to
78,000 in 1999. This decline occurred as the number of refugees fleeing global turmoil and civil
strife steady increased. Today, there are an estimated 13 million refugees, the majority of whom
are women and children.
The private refugee organizations make a compelling case for admission of at least 132,000
refugees in fiscal year 2001, the number admitted during the first year of Clinton's
Administration. This figure is only a small fraction of the world's refugees. At a minimum, I
urge you to increase refugee admissions to 100,000. Appropriating adequate funding to process
these refugees in FY 2001 is critical. Congress appropriated only $625 million in FY 1999 for
the Migration and Refugee Assistance Account, $25 million less than the Administration's
request. Although the FY 2000 shortfall may be made up with remaining Kosovo emergency
supplemental funding, this funding will not be available in FY 20001. Without adequate
funding, the U.S. cannot maintain its commitment to refugees.
PROPOSAL: Include in the budget funding to allow the admission of 100,000 refugees.
COST: The estimated cost is over $660 million for FY 2001.
TOTAL P.16
[email protected] (Jeanne Ireland)
11/15/99 06:48:24 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: child care update
As you've all heard by now, we did not get any new child care money in
this year's approps bill, which is disappointing to say the least.
However, on the bright side, Senator Specter has given his word that
he will put $2 billion in the chairman's mark next year for the CCDBG
and that the money will not be forward funded like it is now, i.e.,
states will get it in 2001, rather than 2002, which is when they would
have gotten the money that we were pushing for anyway. He made this
committment during negotiations with the White House and reiterated it
in a conversation with Senator Dodd today. In return, Senator Dodd
agreed not to try to push him beyond the $2 billion mark next year.
As next steps, we'll work with the Administration to make sure it goes
in their budget and try to clear the way for the new money in the
House.
Thanks again for all the work you guys did to get us this far. This is
still a victory -- we're just going to have a wait a little longer to
throw the party. Give me a call if you have any questions.
Message Sent To:
[email protected] (joan huffer)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP
Nicole
MEMORANDUM
DEAR
BE
LOR
TO:
Senior Administration Staff
DT: October 22, 1999
THE
SEAIS SO
WIDE
AND
so MYBOATIS SMALL
FR:
Grace Reef and Helen Blank
Children's Defense Fund
Children's Defense Fund
RE: Child Care Advocacy Community Letter to the President
Attached is a copy of a letter to the President that 52 groups signed today to urge the
President to push for a significant increase in child care and early childhood development.
Particularly following on the heels of the new HHS report released on October 19th, we urge that
the President (or staff involved in negotiations) hold firm on investing in child care.
Over two-thirds of mothers with children work outside the home today. Children often
enter care as early as 6 weeks of age. As you know, this is a critical time for a child's
development and the quality of care makes a significant difference. Children cannot enter school
ready to learn without quality child care. With so many of their parents working, the affordability
of child care, the availability of child care, and the quality of child care becomes so much more
important.
As the new HHS report found, "if all states expanded eligibility to the Federal maximum
limit, over half the states (27 states) would be serving less than 10 percent of eligible children,
with the remaining half (24 states) serving between 10 and 25 percent of eligible children." At a
time when the federal budget surplus is expected to reach nearly $2.9 trillion over the next
decade, it is shameful that we provide so little investment in early childhood development, which
we know has a long-term pay-off in helping more children realize their full potential.
Last, but not least, the Senate has voted four times on this issue this year. The most recent
vote on September 30th showed strong bipartisan support for an $818 million increase for child
care in fiscal year 2000. As budget negotiations occur during the next few days (or weeks), we
urge that you and the President put child care on your short list of priorities for any Labor, HHS,
Education appropriations discussions and negotiations.
Should you need any additional information, please feel free to contact Helen Blank,
Director of Child Care at 202-662-3547 or [email protected] or, Grace Reef,
Director of Intergovernmental Relations at 202-662-3558 or [email protected]
CHILD CARE
October 20, 1999
XXX
The Honorable William Clinton
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20520
NOW!
Dear Mr. President:
You have repeatedly stated your recognition of the importance of good child care and early
learning opportunities, beginning with the White House conference on child care.
There is now an opportunity to ensure that the appropriations for this year reflect your strong
commitment to this issue. We urge you to ensure that the Senate-passed $818 million increase in
the Child Care and Development Block Grant remains in the final FY2000 Labor, Health and
Human Services Appropriations bill this year.
There can be no debate about the urgent need for new child care resources. Just a few days ago,
the Department of Health and Human Services released a new report revealing the extraordinary
gap in existing child care resources -- of the 14.7 million children eligible for child care
assistance under Federal law only 10 percent were served in Fiscal Year 1998.
Child care programs in nearly every community each day struggle with inadequate funding as
they try to recruit and retain staff to work with children Given the strong economy, it is a
yeoman's task to convince caregivers, almost all of whom are women, to work. at wages of $5.00
or $6.00 an hour with no benefits when countless other job opportunities with less responsibility
and better compensation are at their doorstep. Increased Child Care and Development Block
Grant (CCDBG) funds could provide important new resources to help programs address this
growing staff crisis.
Children will not have the skills they need to enter school ready to read without skilled teachers
helping them to gain the preliteracy experiences which establish a firm base in their early years.
The need for increased funding for child care is great and the time is ripe. The country is in the
midst of unprecedented prosperity. If we do not act now to ensure that young children living in
families working hard to keep the country and the economy strong get off to a good start, when
will child care become the priority it must be? As you work with Congress to finalize the Labor,
Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill, please ensure that the $818 million increase in
the Child Care and Development Block Grant becomes a reality this year.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union, Women's Rights Project
American Federation, State, County, Municipal Employees
American Association for Health Education
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
25 E Street NW
Washington DC 20001
Telephone 202 662 3671
Fax 202 662 3560
American Association of University Women
Americans for Democratic Action
American Humane Society
American Public Health Association
Center for Women Policy Studies
Child Care Action Campaign
Child Care Law Center
Child Welfare League of America
Children's Defense Fund
Church Women United
Communications Workers of America
Council for Professional Recognition
Equal Rights Advocates
Family Focus
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
Good Faith Fund/Arkansas Enterprise Group
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America
Jewish Center for Public Affairs
Jewish Women International
Kaw Nation of Oklahoma
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, ELCA
Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma
Na'amat USA
National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies
National Association for the Education of Young Children
National Black Police Association
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Coalition for Campus Children's Centers
National Family Preservation Network
National Head Start Association
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Negro Women
National Women's Law Center
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
9 to 5
National Organization of Women Legal Defense Fund
Ohio Professionals for School-Age Care
Providers Choice, Inc.
Quality Care for Children
Teaching Strategies, Inc.
The ASPIRA Association, Inc.
The Children's Foundation
The Salvation Army
United Way of America
USA Child Care
Windham Child Care Association
YMCA of the USA
BE GOOD LOR TOME D
THE SEAiS so
WIDE AND
MYBOATIS
so SMALL
Children's Defense Fund
R
Grace A. Reef
Director,
Intergovernmental Relations
25 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone 202 662 3558
Fax 202 662 3550
[email protected]
----
DEAR
BE GOOD LOR TOME
THE SEAiS so
WIDE AND
December 7, 1999
MYBOATIS
so SMALL
Mr. Jack Lew
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Children's Defense Fund
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20502
RE: Children's Defense Fund FY2001 Budget Priorities
Dear Mr. Lew:
As the Administration begins to set budget priorities for the next fiscal year, we urge you to consider the following
priorities of utmost importance to children:
CHILD CARE
We appreciate the President's continued recognition of the importance of child care for working families. However,
we were disappointed by your recent comments to the press that indicated the Administration won funding for all of
its priorities in FY2000. With four bipartisan victories on the Senate floor to increase investments in child care in
1999, we joined millions of families throughout the country in hoping that any final budget bill would include a
significant increase in child care. Unfortunately, child care funding was not a priority for the conference committee
this year. Therefore, we urge you to maintain and expand the Administration's commitment to a substantial new
investment in child care and after-school programs in FY2001. We urge the Administration to:
Increase the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) by $20 billion over the next five years with
an $818 million increase included in the discretionary funding portion of CCDBG to increase total discretionary
funds to $2 billion to be made available October 1, 2000.
Restore the set-aside of $50 million for infants and toddlers and $10 million for research to be available
October 1, 2000.
Maintain the set-aside of $172 million for improving child care quality and the $19 million for school-age care
and child care resource and referral services in the CCDBG.
Increase Head Start by $1 billion in FY2001. We were heartened to see the Administration expand its
commitment to Head Start this year in order to meet the higher quality set-asides. It will be important to
continue to support substantial new investments in both Head Start and Early Head Start in order to reach more
children, help Head Start meet the needs of working families, and continue to bolster program quality.
Provide $10 billion over five years in mandatory funding for a new Early Learning Fund to ensure that all
children can enter school ready to learn. This will allow communities to expand and improve the quality of
child care, create new early education opportunities for children, including infants and toddlers, help Head Start
meet the needs of working families, and provide parents with information to help ensure that their children get a
good start.
Expand the sliding scale for the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) and make it refundable to help the lowest
income families with the cost of child care.
25 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone 202 628 8787
Fax 202 662 3510
E-mail
[email protected]
Internet
www.childrensdefense.org
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
In order to help states achieve the goals of safety and permanent homes for children, as envisioned by the Adoption
and Safe Families Act, we recommend that the Administration include a new $200 million down payment for a
Child Welfare/Alcohol and Drug (AOD) Partnership in its FY2001 Budget.
An estimated 40-80 percent of children in the child welfare system today have families with alcohol and drug
problems. Although two-thirds of the families need alcohol and drug treatment, less than one-third actually receive
it. New partnerships between child welfare and AOD agencies are needed to ensure safety and permanent homes for
these children and appropriate alcohol and drug treatment and prevention services for their families. The
Department of Health and Human Services laid the groundwork for such a partnership in Blending Perspectives and
Building Common Ground, the April 1999 Report to Congress on Substance Abuse and Child Protection, and in the
Stakeholders meeting, jointly sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families and the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, in early November.
To ensure meaningful collaboration between the two systems, the Child Welfare/AOD Partnership should require
the state child welfare and substance abuse agencies to jointly plan, apply for, and administer the new grant funds,
and contribute to the state match. Grants also should be administered jointly by the Administration for Children and
Families and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in HHS. These grant activities
should be focused on families with alcohol and drug problems who come to the attention of the child welfare
system.
An increase in resources and flexibility will allow child welfare and alcohol and drug agencies to implement a range
of comprehensive individualized alcohol and drug prevention and treatment services; improve screening and
assessment procedures; eliminate barriers to treatment and to child safety and permanence; develop effective
engagement and retention strategies; provide cross-system training; improve data collection; and evaluate states'
progress in all of these areas.
PREVENTION/AFTER-SCHOOL/JUVENILE JUSTICE
The $250 million increase in FY2000 for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program was a hopeful
signal for the millions of children home alone, without adult supervision, each week after school. However, this
program is still extremely modest given the number of young children as well as teen-agers who do not have access
to constructive after-school activities. Substantial new investments are still needed given the role that after-school
programs can play both in keeping children safe from harm and in helping them stay on track academically. We
urge the Administration to:
Increase the 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $550 million to a total of $1 billion to help schools
and community-based organizations start, operate, and expand programs for children and youth.
Expand Title V, Local Delinquency Prevention, from $95 million to at least $250 million. Title V is a
prevention program worthy of continued and increased support. It represents an effective model of community
collaboration in which community stakeholders -- including locally elected officials, law enforcement, private
nonprofit organizations, and youth workers -- come together to develop a plan for juvenile delinquency
prevention. This cost-effective program that keeps children and communities safe, has been increased but
continues to receive a fraction of what new punishment initiatives like the Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grant receive (unauthorized but funded at $250 million).
Increase the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention formula grants to states and communities by $268
million to ensure a strong juvenile justice system that holds children accountable, helps them get back on track,
but does not put them in adult jails and prisons or undermine their potential to become productive members of
the community.
2
STRENGTHENING FAMILIES
We are pleased that efforts to cut the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant were
unsuccessful in the FY2000 budget, and urge the Administration to take the strongest possible stance in FY2001 to
prevent cuts from taking place. The final TANF regulations published last April are extremely helpful in clarifying
to states the many opportunities to use TANF funds wisely to provide work supports for families seeking to leave
welfare. However, additional changes would encourage investments in the supports families need. We urge the
Administration to:
Restore funding to $2.3 billion for the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) to assist states in meeting the
diverse needs of children and families.
Exempt months in which TANF recipients work and yet remain eligible for reduced support from counting
toward the time limit.
Allow a broader range of activities to count toward the required hours of work participation, including post-
secondary education, training, and other activities states judge to be appropriate parts of an individual's
"personal responsibility plan" intended to enable parents to overcome barriers to employment.
Allow states with caseload declines of more than 20 percent since August 1996 to increase the percentage of
exemptions from the time limit allowable under TANF.
Provide funds for at least an additional 100,000 Section 8 housing vouchers for FY2001.
Restore Food Stamps for legal immigrants still denied this assistance, including parents of children, elderly
between the ages of 60-65, and immigrants who enter the country legally on or after August 22, 1996. Food
stamp cuts affecting families with high shelter costs should be rescinded.
Reauthorize the Welfare-to-Work block grant. Now that the eligibility criteria are less restrictive, we have
every hope that states will spend more of their Welfare-to-Work block grant funds. The Administration should
continue to press for an additional $1 billion.
Provide block grant support for services for noncustodial parents. The Fathers Count bill that passed the House
in the 106th Congress would provide $150 million for various jobs, parenting, and other services to help fathers
be a positive presence in their children's lives through financial and other forms of support. We support these
services for noncustodial parents (fathers or mothers), although we also support stronger protections for
custodial parents at risk of domestic violence.
Make the child tax credit refundable. Families with children with the greatest need have little federal income
tax liability and can only benefit when tax credits are refundable.
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit by providing help to families with more than two children. An
expanded EITC would recognize the costs of child-rearing more accurately than the current formula.
3
CHILDREN'S HEALTH
The Childhood Immunization program (Section 317) is the primary federal source of funds for immunization
infrastructure, including assessment of population-wide immunization rates, vaccine preventable disease
surveillance, public education and outreach, and vaccinations in public clinics for groups whose health insurance
does not cover vaccinations (the Vaccines for Children program is essential in paying for vaccines for uninsured or
Medicaid-insured children, but not for under-insured children). The Section 317 and Vaccines for Children
programs complement each other and provide the states and public health officials with the resources they need to
continue to increase (as well as maintain) childhood immunization rates. We urge the Administration to:
Fund the Childhood Immunization program at $585 million. This is a $95 million increase over the FY2000
funding level of $490 million. The increased appropriation for Section 317 is essential to sustain infrastructure
and outreach initiatives as well as to adequately fund necessary vaccine purchases.
Provide sufficient funds to give states the option to provide legal immigrant children health coverage through
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
We understand the Administration is considering a substantial revision of the federal role in the child support
enforcement program. It is essential that funding changes encourage the additional commitment of state and federal
resources to this under-resourced program, and not reduce federal investments. Reducing the federal commitment
would result in significant setbacks in the collection and enforcement of child support obligations for millions of
children. Under this Administration, states have made some progress in improving paternity establishment,
enforcement of orders, and child support collections. We urge the Administration to continue to bolster states in
their efforts, rather than reducing the federal government's investment in the program.
We also urge that the federal government take a leadership role in exploring how to make child support a more
reliable source of income for low-income single parents struggling to support their children through work. Funding
for child support assurance demonstrations would be an important step in this direction. Similarly, states should be
encouraged to pass through to families at least some of the child support dollars collected on their behalf and to
disregard some or all of the amount passed through in calculating assistance levels.
IN SUMMARY
No doubt, there are many competing priorities under consideration as part of the FY2001 budget. However, if we
can find the resources to ensure the Pentagon enters the next millennium secure, we ought as well to find the
resources to ensure that our children enter the next millennium equally secure. While overall poverty is declining,
the number of poor children still remains unconscionably too high at 13.5 million. As you know, poor children are
at risk of poor nutrition, low educational performance, and much lower future earnings as adults. This
Administration can lay the foundation for a better future for our children. For the President's final budget
submission, please consider a major investment in children so that the legacy of this Administration will truly put
children first.
Sincerely,
Marian Wright Edelman
CC:
Secretary Donna Shalala
4