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
702288
label
Child Care 1990 (2 of 2) [4]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702288
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Child Care 1990 (2 of 2) [4]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29143-007
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu Issues Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702288
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1f1152a65987336b
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0004-F[1]
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
OA/ID Number:
29143
Folder ID Number:
29143-007
Folder Title:
Child Care 1990 (2 of 2) [4]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
24
7
2
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01a. Memo
From Tom Scully to John Sununu
6/12/90
P.S.
Re: Child Care (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By IP (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
1990 Child Care (2 of 2) [4]
Date Closed:
12/17/2004
OA/ID Number:
29143-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
STAFF
THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
THE
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
has
STECUTI
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SII
June 12, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
DIRECTOR DARMAN
FROM:
Tom
Associate Director, Swely HRVL
Scully
SUBJECT:
Child Care
The Labor Committee Republican conferees are getting antsy again
and -- like last year -- are edging toward selling us out in a
conference deal. They need to have two simple messages
reinforced tomorrow:
We are in no hurry to see a child care bill, and they should
keep their feet firmly on the brake pending the outcome of a
budget summit that pays for child care.
The President will veto a bill if it includes categorical
grants of the type in ABC and HR 3; if it includes
unacceptable language constraining the use of vouchers for
sectarian care; or if it includes any restrictive federally
mandated standards.
Overview of Conference Action to Date: Action this year is
similar to last year's reconciliation action on child care.
Labor conferees are moving rapidly to come to agreement:
Kennedy, Dodd, Hatch and Hawkins have outlined the basic
framework of an agreement, and there is talk of their trying
to finish within the next two weeks. (The substance of this
agreement is reflected in the attached side-by-side.)
Other Republicans in the Senate have been involved in some of
the negotiations, but Hatch clearly is the driving force. The
House Republicans on the Labor Committee to a large extent
have been cut out, as have the three Ways and Means
representatives who are conferees on the ABC grant in the
Senate bill.
Tax conferees are moving more slowly. There is no agreement
on the major tax provisions. Each House has offered the other
essentially their own bill -- the ball is now in the Senate's
court.
The conferees have reached a tentative agreement to extend and
expand funding for a child care standards program included in
the Family Support Act, information on which is included in
the attached side-by-side.
Members'1 Agenda for the Meeting: The meeting was requested by
Rep. Goodling on behalf of House Labor Committee Republicans to:
Rein in Hatch so that he cannot say, as he did last year, that
his views are acceptable to the Administration.
Get a clearer view of the Administration's position.
Get guidance from the Administration on how to respond to
Hawkins, who has indicated that if they want to be "players"
they should come up with a proposal for resolving differences.
Express their view that a "go slow" strategy may not be the
best way to go because the President may be faced with vetoing
a bill close to the election.
We need to send them a clear veto signal (again). Tauke, and
others, still do not believe that we will veto the bill. They
are leaning toward signing onto a deal with Hawkins.
Information on Key Issues: The attached side-by-side describes
and provides information on the current status of, and
Administration position on, grant provisions in the House and
Senate bills (Attachment 1). Detail on key issues that is not
reflected in the side-by-side is provided in Attachment 2.
2
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01b. chart
Child Care Grant Provisions (2 pp.)
6/12/90
P/5
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By If (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
1990 Child Care (2 of 2) [4]
Date Closed:
12/17/2004
OA/ID Number:
29143-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release-would disclose geological or geophysical information -
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
June 12, 1990
(L401-CCGRANT)
CHILD CARE GRANT PROVISIONS*
HOUSE
SENATE
CURRENT STATUS
ADMINISTRATION POSITION
Overview of Grant Provisions
Attachment 1
Six separate grant provisions estimated to
"ABC" grant authorizations estimated to cost
cost $8.8 billion over 5 years. ($2.6 billion
$8.2 billion over 5 years. ABC grant language
is direct spending under Title XX; remaining
specifies various percentages of total grant
$6.2 billion Is for authorizations.)
to be spent on certain mandatory and optional
categories of activity.
BIII also Includes a separate $100 million 1
year authorization for grants to States for
child care risk retention pools, estimated
to cost $100 million over 5 years.
Title I (Head Start)
New grant within Head Start to:
No parallel title. [There Is a supplemental
Tentative Kennedy, Dodd, Hatch, Hawkins
Title I of House bill has been a veto item.
90 Head Start authorization, now moot.]
(KDHH) agreement to fund Title I of House
Expand Head Start eligibility to попроог
bill. No discussion yet of details.
Separate Head Start reauthorization bill is
children.
moving. Has passed House.
States are required to spend set percentage of
Provide child care for poor and nonpoor
their ABC grants to extend hours of children's
New grant distorts Head Start program.
Head Start children so programs can be
programs, including Head Start.
full day, full year.
Other child care funds available for Head
Start children, e.g., JOBS.
Estimated cost Is $2.8 billion over 5 years.
Cost Is part of $8.2 billion 5 year estimated
cost of ABC grants.
Administration will accept child care block
grant that permits funding of child care for
Head Start children.
Title II (School-Based)
New grant In Chapter I ESEA to fund:
No parallel title.
Tentative KDHH agreement to fund Title 11
Title II of House bill has been a veto Item.
of House bill.
Before and after school child care.
States specifically permitted to use ABC
All funds are provided to State and local
grant funds for before and after school
"Deal" Is to allow Hawkins to make changes
education agencies under Chapter 1 rules,
Early childhood education programs.
child care.
to Title 11, rolling-back last year's
precluding sectarian care.
reconcillation compromise, In exchange for
Estimated cost Is $1.8 billion over 5 years.
Cost Is part of $8.2 billion 5 year estimated
his pushing for ABC.
Any "cholce" mechanism conferees might
cost of ABC grants.
adopt will not allow sectarian care.
Substantial differences remain on details
of Title 11.
Early childhood education program In DoEd
would serve many of the same purposes as HHS'
Hawkins wants school systems, to whom
Head Start. Would campete with Head Start for
funds go, to be presumptive providers
funding, staff, facilities, etc. at local level.
of care.
Hatch wants parents to have more choice.
*Excludes tax provisions and authorization for a child health demonstration associated with Bentsen Health Insurance Credit. Cost estimates are Administration estimates of outlays.
HOUSE
SENATE
CURRENT STATUS
ADMINISTRATION POSITION
Title III (Title XX)
Earmarked expansion in Title XX for child
"ABC" grants are rough counterpart to
Title XX and ABC grants being dealt with In
May accept child care block grant in Labor
care services and "Infrastructure," with
House's Title 111.
two separate subconferences.
or Tax jurisdiction so long as it:
standards similar to ABC's.
KDHH deal is to adopt ABC grants. No
Requires States to provide certificates
Estimated cost is $2.6 billion over 5 years.
Estimated cost is $8.2 billion over 5
discussion of details.
(vouchers) to parents to allow them to
years.
freely choose sectarian and Informal care.
Bentsen opposes "junking up" Title XX.
Reportedly has agreed with Dodd-Mitchell
Does not Include Federal standards, Federal
to stall in conference on Title XX so Labor
requirements for State standard-setting, or
Committee gets jurisdiction on child care
Federal "inodel" standards.
grant. May result In straight, unearmarked
Increase in Title XX.
Does not exceed 20% of total child care
spending (tax credits must be 80%+).
Finance has of fered, and Ways and Means has
accepted, a provision to extend a grant In
the Family Support Act that provides funds
to States to Improve their licensing and
registration requirements and to monitor
care provided to AFDC children.
Authorization is $50m a year for FYs 92-95.
Title IV (Quality Improvement)
New separate grant to States for mandatory
States must spend specified percentages
Deal to adopt ABC may mean there will
Same as above.
and optional "Infrastructure" activities.
of ABC grants to Improve quality and supply
be no separate grant as In House bill,
of child care.
but not yet discussed.
Estimated cost is $1.2 billion over 5 years.
Cost is part of $8.2 billion 5 year estimated
cost of ABC grants.
Title V (Business Involvement)
Separate $25m a year grant to businesses
ABC grants can be used for public-private
Deal to adopt ABC may mean there will
Make al lowable activity under block grant.
to expand child care.
partnerships to expand care, Including
be no separate grant as In House bill,
business-based care.
but not yet discussed.
Estimated cost Is $103 million over 5 years.
Cost is part of $8.2 billion 5 year estimated
cost of ABC grants.
Title VI (State Standards Improvement Grant)
Separate competitive grant to States to
Off the top set-aside of ABC grant
Deal to adopt ABC may mean there will
Make al lowable activity under block grant.
Improve standards.
authorization for competitive grants for
be no separate grant as in House bill,
standards Improvement.
but not yet discussed.
Estimated cost is $310 million over 5 years.
Costs is part of $8.2 billion 5 year estimated
costs of ABC grants.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01c. Paper
Substantive Detail on Key Issues (3 pp.)
n.d.
P-5
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Open on Expiration of PRA
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
(Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
By
of
(NLGB)
on
10/28/05
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
1990 Child Care (2 of 2) [4]
Date Closed:
12/17/2004
OA/ID Number:
29143-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Attachment 2
Substantive Detail On Key Issues
Much of the debate on child care has centered on grants to States
for child care services (the ABC grants in the Senate bill and
the new Title XX grants earmarked for child care in the House
bill.) The issues discussed below are pertain to provisions in
these grants.
"Jeffords Amendment": Language included in both the House and
Senate bills provides that, "Nothing in this title shall be
construed to supersede or modify any provision of a State
constitution or State law that prohibits the expenditure of
public funds in or by sectarian institutions.' Senator Jeffords
indicated on the Senate floor that he wanted this language added
to S.5 because of his concerns "in the area of discrimination. "
Both the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Justice
Department indicate that the relevance of this language is to the
use of certificates. Their conclusions about its effects,
however, differ radically.
CRS has tentatively concluded that this language probably does
not pose major problems for implementation of certificate
programs. This conclusion is based upon an analysis that does
not take other provisions of the bills into account and that
appears to rely on a Hatch floor statement that many States have
certificate programs in place. (See next issue for a discussion
of the definition of certificate programs.)
Justice staff have concluded that the Jeffords Amendment has the
potential for becoming a very significant obstacle to the
implementation of certificate programs in as many as 38 States.
To ensure that a certificate program funded with Federal money
can be undertaken in as large a number of States as possible,
Justice believes that a provision expressly preempting any State
constitutional (or other) spending proscription that might bar
States from participating in a certificate program should be
included in a final bill. If a nonfederal matching requirement
similar to that now in the Senate bill remains, they believe the
pre-emption should apply to the matching provision as well.
Certificate Programs: There has been little, if any, meaningful
discussion of what a certificate (voucher) program means. The
definition is important because the general consensus is that
funding of care that is sectarian in nature only has a chance of
passing Constitutional muster if governmental assistance is
indirect (as with a voucher), the care is freely chosen by the
parent, and the government is genuinely neutral in the selection
process.
The National Governors Association (NGA) briefed OPD and OMB on a
survey of State child care funding arrangements now used by
States. If certificate is defined to mean a mechanism for
allowing parents to freely choose any eligible provider, then no
State has a Statewide certificate program in place. A significant
number of States do have "provider agreements" in place Statewide
or at the sub-State level. Under provider agreements, parents
can choose from among providers with whom the State has
negotiated an agreement to pay for care if the parent (or the
State) chooses to place an eligible child with the provider.
Provider agreements as they currently appear to be structured do
not seem likely to pass muster as a Constitutional means of
funding care that is sectarian in nature.
NGA has chosen not to release the survey on which they briefed
OPD and OMB. In their public statements about certificates, they
appear to be using "certificate" as a synonym for "provider
agreement. " Dodd apparently believes provider agreements meet
the requirement to have a certificate program, and NGA is
reinforcing that view. Hatch's floor statement, cited by CRS,
suggests that he may also believe provider agreements are the
same thing as certificates. He is trying to sell a related
concept as a means of providing "parental choice" under the
school-based program in House bill.
Administration position statements suggest that the
Administration wants parents to be able to select care that is
sectarian in nature, not just care that is located in a church or
other sectarian facility. If this is the case, then it may be
necessary to make that point strongly -- and to insure that the
language and legislative history of a final bill reflect a clear
understanding of what a certificate program means.
Nondiscrimination Language: Both bills contain identical
"nondiscrimination" language that allows sectarian providers to
exercise limited preferences in hiring and admissions under
certain circumstances. These provisions were deemed necessary by
their proponents because of the strong anti-sectarian language
and history of ABC. For example, the original ABC language
preempted the exemption that sectarian institutions have under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that governs employment.
Similarly, the legislative history indicated that the sponsors of
ABC intended nondiscrimination requirements to apply not only to
slots funded under ABC but to slots funded by participating
sectarian providers. The nondiscrimination language now in the
bills moderates, but does not eliminate, the problems that arose
out of the original ABC. The Administration has indicated that
the nondiscrimination language raises serious potential
entanglement issues. The Administration's position has been that
silence is preferable to the provisions that are now in both
bills.
2
Standards: It is possible to modify the child care standards
language in both bills so that it has little practical effect.
This can be done by allowing States the discretion to decide
whether or not the standards they are required to set under both
bills apply to given classes (e.g. churches) or sizes (e.g. small
family day care homes) of providers. Downey, having been
criticized on the House floor for the provisions in his bill that
require churches to comply with required State-set standards,
apparently is moving in that direction on Title XX. There are no
similar signs of movement on ABC grants in the Labor Committee's
subconference.
The Administration should consider whether language that looks a
great deal like the current standards language in both bills but
has very little real world effect would be acceptable.
3
THE CHIEF of STAFF
Child Care Proposal for Conference
has seen
Title I -- Head Start
O Funds under this title would be distributed in the same
manner as the current Head Start program and the match would
be retained. The 20% match required for child care funds
could not be that which is used to meet regular Head Start
program requirements.
O Require Secretary to promulgate regulations for
administration of the child care component.
O Retain existing Head Start eligibility level for the
child care component.
O Make clear that child care funds would be added to
overall pot of funds used in determining 15% set-aside for
administration of the programs.
Title II -- School-based care
O Before and after school care during school year and
Ch.I
school holidays for children below 160% of lower living
standard income level (currently $27,808 - $43,024 for a
family of four) with a sliding fee established by States for
children between poverty and 160% of LLSIL.
O Services may be provided during the summer and for 3 and
4 year olds if funds are available and if all elementary
school children are able to be served during the school
year.
O Ensure that private school children would be able to
participate in the same manner as those served by Chapter 1.
0 If all children at or below 160% of the LLSIL, whose
families seek services, are served; then children from
families above that level may be served on a full fee basis.
O Allow States to distribute funds based on their own
method. However, provides some guidance for targeting areas
in need.
O Allow Local Education Agencies to administer the program.
Provides authority to contract out to other eligible
providers.
Title III -- Child care state block grant
O Governor would designate a Lead Agency to administer
block grant program. Lead Agency would submit a plan
outlining the child care needs of the State and how funds
will be used to meet those needs.
Page 2
O No Federal, State, or local child care councils or
studies required. No federal model standards or requirement
of State standards.
O Allow States to choose from a wide variety of child care
activities designed to improve the availability,
accessibility, and quality of child care. States may retain
5 percent of funds for administrative purposes.
o Parents shall have the right to receive a voucher.
Parents shall be able to choose among all eligible
providers.
O Continuing eligibility of funding shall be based upon
States' annual reporting of how funds are being used to meet
State child care needs and on the Secretary's determination
that States are using funds in accordance with Federal,
State, and local law.
Title IV -- Tax Provisions
O House EITC provisions must be the centerpiece of the
final conference report.
O The Dependent Care Tax Credit will retain its current
as
form and be capped at $90,000.
O Title XX provisions are dropped.
O Social Security Earnings Limitation waived for senior
citizens who are child care workers.
QUESTIONS:
1. Can you live with any requirements for States regarding the
setting of standards?
2. Do you want to propose alternative funding levels? Should
we propose an authorization level for each title?
3. Should we refuse to accept a severability clause, proposed
by the Democrats, which would allow the bulk of the bill to
stand if any portion was struck down on Constitutional grounds?
4. Should our proposal supersede State law with regard to
vouchers being redeemed at sectarian institutions?
5. Should children of non-working parents be allowed to
participate in the school-based program?
90-241 EPW
CRS Report for Congress
Comparison of House- and Senate-Passed Child Care
Legislation in the 101st Congress
Anne Stewart
Analyst in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division
Marie Morris
and
David Ackerman
Legislative Attorneys
American Law Division
May 8, 1990
CRS
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
COMPARISON OF HOUSE- AND SENATE-PASSED CHILD CARE LEGISLATION IN THE 101ST CONGRESS
SUMMARY
Both the House and Senate have passed different child care bills (two
A major difference between the proposals is that the House bill would
versions of H.R. 3) during the 101st Congress. Press reports have
establish a new State child care services grant program as an amendment
indicated that President Bush will veto legislation containing either the
to an existing program, the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of the
House- or Senate-passed child care proposals in their current form.
Social Security Act), while the Senate bill would create a comparable child
care program as a new, separate program. Like the existing Title XX
Both the House and Senate proposals would authorize $1.85 billion
program, the House-proposed State grant program for general child care
in grants for child care services as well as for activities to improve the
services would provide States with discretion in determining eligibility and
availability and quality of child care. Each proposal would require States
would not require nonfederal matching of Federal funds. The Senate's
to establish and enforce child care standards in specified areas. Each bill
child care grant proposal would specify family eligibility rules, State
also includes similar limitations and prohibitions regarding
matching requirements, and more State and Federal administrative
nondiscrimination and use of funds for sectarian activities. However, the
requirements than are in the House bill for child care under Title XX.
number and types of programs authorized and the amount of funds
targeted for services and other child care activities differ between the bills.
In addition, both bills contain different tax amendments that have
In addition, eligibility requirements and the extent of discretion that States
been characterized as child care assistance. In the House bill, they include
would have in choosing types of child care activities to fund also differ
provisions to expand benefits under the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
between the bills.
program and to peg the credit to family size. The Senate bill does not
propose these changes. Both bills include provisions to establish a
The House bill would authorize six grant programs under six titles for
supplemental tax credit for families with young children, with differences
child care services and related activities. The bill includes programs of
in credit amounts and ages of children eligible to claim for credit. The
child care and early childhood development services targeted specifically to
EITC amendments in the House bill are estimated to result in tax
children in Head Start programs, and other preschool children and school-
expenditures of $18 billion over a 5-year period. Tax expenditures in the
age children. Other programs are authorized for grants to the States for
Senate's EITC amendments are estimated to be $2.8 billion over a 5-year
child care services, quality improvements, employer-sponsored child care,
period.
and State standards improvement grants.
Both bills also include different amendments to the Dependent Care
In contrast, the Senate bill would authorize one large program for
Tax Credit program (DCTC). The House bill would reduce the credit for
child care services and related activities, under which many of the same
families with incomes above $70,000 and eliminate the credit for families
or similar activities that would be authorized under the House-proposed
with incomes above $89,000. The Senate bill would make the credit 90
programs would either be required to be funded or could be funded at a
percent refundable. Estimated tax expenditures of DCTC amendments
State's discretion. The Senate bill would also authorize two additional
over a 5-year period would be $1.5 billion in the House bill and would be
programs, one of which--the standards improvement incentive grants
$4.9 billion in the Senate bill.
program--is similar to the one proposed in the House bill. The other, a
State matching grant program for liability risk pools for child care
providers, is not proposed by the House.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
FUNDING
4
Authorization
4
Allocation Formulas and Matching Requirements
5
Substituting Funds
8
CHILD CARE/EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
10
Description
10
Eligible Families and Fees
12
OTHER CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
16
Employer Involvement Funds
16
Funds to Improve Quality/Expand Availability
16
Standards Improvement Incentive Grants
18
Child Development Demonstrations
18
Child Care Liability Risk Retention Group
19
SERVICE DELIVERY AND FUNDING MECHANISMS
20
Eligible Child Care/Development Providers
20
Availability of Child Care Certificates (Vouchers)
21
Payments for Services
22
STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
23
Federal Model Standards
23
State Standards Requirements
24
Training Requirements
27
State Enforcement Requirements
28
State Standards Study
29
National Standards Study
29
CHURCH-STATE AND CIVIL RIGHTS PROVISIONS
30
Nondiscrimination on the Bases of Race, Sex, Handicap, and Age
30
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion
31
Limitations on Sectarian Use of Funds
32
Preservation of State Laws Limiting Sectarian Use of Funds
33
Limitations on Facilities Assistance
33
Severability
34
STATE AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION
35
Application Process
35
State Reporting Requirements
38
Administration Costs
40
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
42
Administering Agencies
42
TAX BENEFITS
43
Earned Income Tax Credit
43
Supplemental Young Child Credit
44
Treatment of EITC by Major Welfare Programs
45
Dependent Care Tax Credit
46
Dependent Care Assistance Program
47
Child Care Earnings Exclusion
48
COMPARISON OF HOUSE- AND SENATE-PASSED CHILD CARE LEGISLATION IN THE 101ST CONGRESS
INTRODUCTION
The Federal role in addressing concerns about the availability, cost,
package. Child care legislation therefore had to be considered on the
and quality of child care has been the focus of much debate in recent
House floor again before final House-Senate conference action could occur.
years. While many agree that the Federal Government should play an
increased role in addressing these concerns, there is not a consensus on
After several months of negotiations among House members over
the nature and extent of child care problems, and on the approach to
differences in the two committee-reported versions of H.R. 3, the House
resolving them. Issues currently under debate include questions about
leadership introduced a compromise bill, H.R. 4381 (called the Leadership
whether and how Federal assistance should be extended to religiously-
bill), on March 27, 1990. On March 29, 1990, the House passed H.R. 3,
related day care; the appropriateness of setting minimum standards for
as amended by substituting the language of H.R. 4381. A substitute
publicly subsidized care; and the structure of the program or programs
amendment, by Representatives Stenholm and Shaw and endorsed by the
that would be used to provide Federal assistance to the States. (For
Administration, was rejected by a vote of 195 to 225. On April 24, 1990,
general background information on child care issues, see CRS Issue Brief
the Senate passed H.R. 3, amended by substituting their bill, S. 5, for the
Child Day Care, IB89011, regularly updated.)
text of H.R. 3, readying the bill for conference consideration.
Both the House and Senate have passed different comprehensive child
According to statements made by Representative Gingrich during the
care proposals during the 101st Congress. The Senate bill, S. 5, the Act
House floor debate and press reports, President Bush has indicated that
for Better Child Care Services, was-passed during the 1st Session, on June
he intends to veto legislation containing either the House- or Senate-
23, 1989, after several days of heated debate. The bill considered on the
passed child care proposals in their current form.
Senate floor was an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 5 as
reported by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The amended
The House version of H.R. 3 would authorize a total of $1.85
version (called the Mitchell Amendment) incorporated tax provisions
billion in FY91 for six programs under six titles in the bill. Of this
reported from the Senate Finance Committee. Much of the floor debate
amount $1.3 billion would be authorized for FY91 and such sums as
focused on various amendments affecting the availability of aid to
necessary for FY92-FY95, to be split among three of the programs, Title
religiously-related day care and on a Republican substitute, proposed by
I (47 percent), Title II (33 percent) and Title IV (20 percent). Under Head
Senator Dole and backed by the Administration, that would have provided
Start Child Care Amendments (Title I), funds would be available for Head
child care aid primarily through the tax system rather than through grants
Start programs to expand their part-day, part-year programs to full-day
to the States. The substitute was rejected by a vote of 56 to 44.
and full-year to meet the needs of working parents. A limited amount of
Title I funds would be used to serve children in families with incomes up
The House passed child care legislation on two occasions. First, on
to 125 percent of the poverty level. (Currently, families eligible for Head
October 5, 1989, the House passed two versions of H.R. 3, the Early
Start must have incomes below the poverty level.) Higher income families
Childhood Education and Development Act, one reported by the Education
would pay a fee based on a sliding scale. School-Sponsored Child Care
and Labor Committee and the other reported by the Ways and Means
(Title II) funds would be for States and school districts to provide before-
Committee. They were passed as part of the FY90 budget reconciliation
and after-school child care for school-age children and/or early childhood
legislation, H.R. 3299. The provisions of H.R. 3, as reported by both
development programs for 4-year-olds to meet the needs of working
committees, were subsequently dropped from the House reconciliation
parents. Families with incomes above specified levels would pay for care
CRS-2
on a partial or full fee basis, depending on income level. Quality
Incentive Grants and Child Development Demonstration Project, $75 million
Improvement Grants (Title IV) would be for grants to States to fund
would be authorized for each of FY91-FY98 for the Secretary of DHHS to
activities to improve the quality of care, such as training for providers,
make grants on a discretionary basis, to States to help them improve their
increased salaries to child care staff, and improving enforcement of State
standards, and to certain day care providers to operate child development
child care regulations. Up to 5 percent of Title IV funds could be used for
demonstrations.
other activities, such as for grants or loans to providers to assist them in
meeting standards.
Services funded under School-Sponsored Child Care and Title XX
Child Care Grants would have to meet certain standards requirements,
Under Title XX Child Care Grants (Title III), amendments would be
including new State-established standards that address areas such as group
made to the Social Services Block Grant program (Title XX of the Social
size limits and child/staff ratios. Provisions in Title IV would require the
Security Act) to authorize $450 million in FY91 for a new program of
Secretary of DHHS to establish model child care standards addressing
child care grants to the States. States would have to use 90 percent of
similar areas. In addition, certain prohibitions and limitations are specified
their allotments for child care services and 10 percent for administration,
regarding use of funds for sectarian purposes and religious
training and enforcement activities. States would be required to establish
nondiscrimination.
voucher programs as a means of providing financial child care assistance
to families. Income, child age, or work/training requirements would be left
The Senate version of H.R. 3, would also authorize a total of $1.85
to each State's discretion.
billion in grants in the first year. Of this amount, $1.75 billion would be
authorized for one new program, State Child Care Matching Grants. (Such
The House bill also includes tax amendments. These have been
sums as necessary would be authorized for out-years.) This would be in
characterized as child care assistance because they are viewed by some as
contrast to the several programs authorized under the House bill.
a means to increase families' purchasing power for needed child care. The
amendments include an expansion of benefits under the Earned Income
Under this one program, many of the same or similar activities
Tax Credit (EITC) program, and pegging the credit to family size. In
authorized under the several programs in the House bill would either be
addition, a new supplemental credit for families with children under age
required, or allowed at the State's option. However, amounts of funds
6 would be added. Tax expenditures of the EITC amendments are
specifically targeted for various activities differ, as do eligibility
estimated by the Joint Tax Committee to be $18 billion over a 5-year
requirements for child care services, and the extent of discretion that a
period. The bill would also amend the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC)
State would have in choosing types of child care activities to fund. In
program to reduce the credit for families with incomes above $70,000 and
addition, the child care grant program in the Senate bill would be
eliminate the credit for families with incomes above $89,000. Tax
established as a new separate program, in contrast to the general child
expenditures resulting from the DCTC amendments are estimated to be
care services program in the House bill, which would be an amendment to
$1.5 billion.
Title XX. The State grant program proposed by the Senate would be an
80 percent Federal matching program, unlike the child care services
Under the Business Involvement Grants program, $25 million would
programs in the House bill (Titles I, II, III, and IV) where nonfederal
be authorized for each of FY91-FY95 for the Secretary of the U.S.
shares would not be required.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to make grants to
businesses for child care activities. Under the Standards Improvement
Under the Senate State Child Care Matching Grant program, States
would be required to spend 70 percent of their allotments on child care
CRS-3
services. Unlike the Title XX Child Care Amendments program in the
limitations and prohibitions concerning use of funds for sectarian purposes
House bill (Title III), eligible children would be defined in the Senate
and religious nondiscrimination would be specified, similar to Title III of
program to be under age 13 from families with incomes at or below 100
the House bill.
percent of the State median income, whose parents are working. (Eligibility
is left to the State's discretion in the House.) Like Title III of the House
The Senate bill would authorize two programs in addition to the State
bill, States would have to give parents the option of receiving child care
Child Care Matching Grants. The bill would authorize 10 percent of the
assistance in the form of vouchers.
State Child Care Matching Grants appropriation to be for a standards
improvement incentive grant program, similar to the one authorized under
States would have to spend 10 percent of the 70 percent child care
Title VI of the House bill. In addition, $100 million would be authorized
services funds for expanding certain existing part-day, part-year programs
for grants to the States to operate child care liability risk retention groups
to full-day, full-year. These could include part-day Head Start and other
for child care providers. The House bill would not authorize such a
pre-school programs. The Senate bill does not authorize specific programs
program.
for Head Start expansion and early childhood education programs, as
would be established under Titles I and II of the House bill, but this 10
Finally, the Senate bill also includes amendments to the EITC and
percent requirement could fund some similar programs.
DCTC program that differ from the House amendments. The Senate bill
would establish a supplemental tax credit for families with young children,
States would be required to spend at least 10 percent of their
applicable to families with children under age 4 (instead of under age 6,
allotments on activities to improve the quality of child care in the State.
as proposed in the House bill). Resulting tax expenditures are estimated
States would be required to fund a greater number of quality improvement
by the Joint Tax Committee to be $2.8 billion over a 5-year period. The
activities under the Senate program than in a comparable program in the
Senate bill does not expand the EITC credit, or peg it to family size, as
House bill (Title IV) where States would have more discretion in choosing
the House bill does. Also in contrast to the House bill, the Senate bill
which quality improvement activity to fund.
would make the DCTC 90 percent refundable and allow for advance
payments. Tax expenditures from this provision are estimated to be $4.9
States would be allowed, but not required, to spend up to 12 percent
billion over a 5-year period. No provisions are included to phaseout the
of their allotments on increasing the availability of child care. They could
credit for higher income families.
choose activities from a detailed list of activities, that includes ones that
would be required or optional under the House bill, such as before- and
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of the major provisions
after-school care, employer-sponsored child care programs, loans to
of H.R. 3, as passed by the House and as passed by the Senate, that are
providers to help them meet standards, and a range of activities that are
characterized as being related to child care. The bills are compared with
not listed in the House bill. These other activities include funding for
relevant provisions of current law. Current law descriptions are included
child care for sick children and homeless children.
only in instances where proposals would amend an existing program
related to child care, such as Title XX, Head Start, or DCTC, or when it
Services funded under the State Child Care Matching Grants program
is considered useful to include background, such as with church-State
would have to meet certain standards and enforcement requirements,
provisions. Provisions of the Senate bill that are not related to child care
specified in the bill, and generally similar to those required in the House
are not included.
bill (under Titles III and IV). Like the House bill (Title IV), model
standards would be developed by the Secretary of DHHS. In addition,
CRS-4
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
FUNDING
Authorization
For FY91, the total amount
For FY90, the total amount
authorized would be $1.85 billion for
authorized would be $1.85 billion. Of
six programs. Authorization levels
this amount $1.75 billion would be
(including out-year amounts) for each
authorized for FY90 and such sums
program would be:
as necessary for FY91-94 for one
program, State Child Care Matching
Grants. (Sec. 104)
(1) $1.3 billion for FY91 and such
sums as necessary for each of FY92-
FY95, to be split among 3 programs
so that for each year, 47% ($611
million in FY91) would be for Title I-
-Head Start Child Care Amendments;
33% ($429 million) would be for Title
II-School-Sponsored Child Care; and
20% ($260 million) would be for Title
IV--Quality Improvement Grants;
(Sec. 3)
(2) $450 million for FY91, $550
million for FY92, $600 million for
each of FY93-FY94, and $700 million
for subsequent years for Title III--
Title XX Child Care Amendments;
(3) $25 million for each of FY91-FY95
for Title V--Business Involvement
Grants;
CRS-5
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
(4) $75 million for each of FY91-FY98
10% of the State Child Care Matching
for Title VI-Standards Improvement
Grants appropriation for each of
Grants and Child Development
FY93-FY94 would be for a standards
Demonstration Project. 2% of Title VI
improvement incentive grants program
funds would be for the demonstration
similar to House bill. This amount
project.
could not be less than $35 million or
more than $75 million in each year.
No program comparable to the Child
Development Demonstration Project
would be authorized. (Sec. 104)
No comparable provisions.
For FY90, $100 million would be
authorized for a Child Care Liability
Risk Retention Group program. (Sec.
104)
Allocation Formulas and
Head Start funds are allocated as
Title I--Head Start Child Care
No comparable provisions.
Matching Requirements
follows: 13% of the appropriation is
Amendments: 8% of the Title I funds
reserved for Indian and migrant
available for this program would be
programs, services to handicapped
reserved for Indian and migrant
children, payments to the territories,
programs, services to handicapped
training and technical assistance and
children, and payments to the
discretionary payments made by the
territories. The remainder would be
Secretary of DHHS. Eighty-seven
allocated to the States according to
percent of the appropriation is
the population factors in the existing
allocated among the States based on
Head Start formula. No match would
the States' 1981 allocation and counts
be required for funds that support
of poor children and AFDC recipients.
child care services under this program.
The program is an 80% Federal
(Sec. 104)
matching grant program.
CRS-6
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Title II-School-Sponsored Child Care:
No comparable provisions.
1% of funds would be reserved for
grants to the territories and services
for Indian children. Remaining funds
would be allocated to the States based
on the formula for basic grants under
Title I, Chapter 1 ESEA. Under this
formula, grants are made to States in
proportion to counts of poor children
multiplied by a State cost factor.
States are to make grants to local
education agencies (LEAs) in
accordance with county allocations
established by the Department of
Education. No match would be
required. (Sec. 8002)
Title XX funds are allocated to the
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
States based on population. No
Amendments: Child care funds would
One-half of 1% would be reserved for
match is required.
be distributed to States and territories
the territories and 1.5-3% would be
using a formula similar to existing
reserved for services to Indian
Title XX formula. No match would
children. One-half of the remaining
be required. (Sec. 2013)
funds would be allocated to the States
based on the number of children
under age 5 in the State multiplied by
the "allotment factor," compared to all
States. The other half would be
allocated to the States based on the
State recipient population of the
National School Lunch program
CRS-7
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
multiplied by the allotment factor,
compared to all States. The allotment
factor would be the U.S. per capita
income divided by the State per capita
income and could not be greater than
1.2 or less than .8. If a State does not
seek or receive funds, funds would be
allocated to eligible localities so that
each locality received a share of the
State grant based on the number of
children in local areas. The program
would be a 80% Federal matching
program. (Secs. 105, 117, 127)
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
No comparable provisions.
Funds would be allotted to States
using a formula substantively the
same as under the State Child Care
Matching Grants in the Senate bill,
summarized above, except that
localities would not be eligible for
funds and no match would be
required. (Sec. 658(c))
Title V--Business Involvement Grants:
No comparable provisions.
The Secretary of DHHS would make
grants to eligible businesses--no
formula is specified. Grants would be
made equitably to businesses in all
geographic areas. Businesses would
CRS-8
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
have to agree to spend twice the
amount of the grant. (Secs. 501, 503)
Title VI-Standards Improvement
Standards Improvement Incentive
Incentive Grants and Child
Grants: Would be similar to House
Development Demonstration Project:
bill. (Sec. 119)
The Secretary of DHHS would award
standards improvement grants to
States on a competitive basis. A 20%
match would be required of the
States. The Secretary would award
demonstration grants on a
discretionary basis to eligible public
and private programs. No match
would be required. (Sec. 601)
No comparable provisions.
Child Care Liability Risk Rentention
Groups: Funds would be allocated to
States according to the same formula
used in allocating funds under the
State Child Care Matching Grant
program, described above. (Sec. 124)
Substituting Funds
Title I--Head Start Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Amendments, Title II--School-
Similar provisions, except that States
Sponsored Child Care, Title IV--
can use existing expenditures in
Quality Improvement Grants: Funds
support of child care to satisfy the
could be used only to supplement, not
matching requirement.
Such
supplant Federal, State, and local
expenditures could not be used to
funds for the support of activities
satisfy the matching requirement of
CRS-9
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
under these programs. (Title IV, Sec.
any other Federal program. (Sec. 107)
658 (H))
Title III--Title XX Child Care
Amendments: Same as for Titles I, II,
and IV, except that local funds are
not included. (Sec. 2012(b)(2)(B))
CRS-10
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
CHILD CARE/EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Description
Head Start provides comprehensive
Title I--Head Start Child Care
No comparable provisions. (However,
health, nutrition, education, social
Amendments: Funds would be for
under the State Child Care Matching
and other services to eligible children.
Head Start programs to provide full-
Grants program, States would be
Most Head Start programs operate
day, full-year developmentally
required to spend a portion of their
part-day and do not operate during
appropriate child care services.
grants to extend to full-day certain
the summer months.
(Sec. 106)
existing part-day programs, which
could include Head Start programs.
(Sec. 107)
Title II-School-Sponsored Child Care:
No comparable provisions. (However,
Funds would be used by LEAs to
under the State Child Care Matching
expand, establish, or operate early
Grants program, States would be
childhood development services and/or
required to use a portion of their
before- and after-school child care.
grants to extend to full-day certain
Before- and after-school child care
existing part-day programs, which
would be developmentally appropriate
could include State- or locally-funded
and would be provided Monday-Friday
preschool programs and Chapter 1,
for the full-year, excluding legal public
ESEA programs. In addition, States
holidays. LEAs would be required to
would have the option of using a
provide full-day services to 4-year
portion of their grants to: establish
olds, and such services could be either
after school child care programs;
early childhood development or before
make grants to LEAs to establish or
and after-school child care, or both.
maintain extended child care
Early childhood development services
programs; and support demonstration
would have to be appropriate to the
projects in public schools that provide
child's age and would include services
full-day, full-year child care for
to children with disabilities,
children age 3 to 5 and before- and
coordination of health and nutrition
after-school care for children age 5 to
CRS-11
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
services that are available from other
12.) (Sec. 107)
agencies, and referrals to health and
social services. Early childhood
development services would be
prohibited from administering norm-
referenced tests. Both before- and
after-school and early childhood
development programs would have to
include adequate and nutritious meals
and if practicable, social services.
Services would also have to meet
certain requirements which are
described below in the Standards and
Enforcement section. (Sec. 8003)
Services furnished under Title XX are
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
directed at 5 broad goals described in
Amendments: States would be
States would be required to use at
law. States are given wide discretion
required to use 90% of funds for child
least 70% of their grants to fund child
as to the services they can provide
care services that meet certain
care services. At least 10% of this
and there is very limited information
requirements which are described
amount must be used to extend
on how they use their Title XX funds.
below in the Standards and
certain existing part-day child
Surveys have found, however, that
Enforcement section. (The remaining
care/early childhood development
most States use some Title XX funds
10% of funds would be for
programs (such as Head Start and
on child care, as well as a range of
administration, training, and
other preschool programs) to full-day
other social services.
enforcement.) (Sec. 2012(b))
programs. (The remaining funds
would be for activities to improve the
quality and availability of child care,
and administration.) (Sec. 107)
CRS-12
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Eligible Families and Fees
At least 90% of children in each Head
Title I--Head Start Amendments:
No comparable provisions.
Start program must be from families
Children eligible and participating in
with income less than the OMB
Head Start under current law would
poverty level. Head Start programs
be eligible for child care services. Up
are prohibited from charging fees for
to 20% of Title I funds could be used
participation. Children age 0 to
to provide both Head Start and full-
compulsory school age are served,
day, full-year child care services to
with most children age 3 or 4. (Very
children from families with incomes
young children are served in Head
up to 125% of the poverty level if all
Start Parent and Child Centers.) At
Head Start-eligible families requesting
least 10% of Head Start slots in each
child care services receive these
State must be available for
services. Families with incomes above
handicapped children.
the poverty line would pay a fee based
on a sliding scale. (Sec. 106)
Parents are not required to meet work
All parents of children served under
and training requirements as a
these amendments would have to be
condition of eligibility to Head Start.
working or in a job training or
education program. (Sec. 106)
Title II-School-Sponsored Child Care:
No comparable provisions.
Children from families of all income
levels would be eligible for before- and
after-school and child development
services. Services would be free of
charge for children with family
incomes up to 100% of the poverty
level; on a sliding fee scale for
children with family incomes above
100% of poverty through 160% of the
CRS-13
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Lower Living Standard (LLS); and on
a full-fee basis for children with
family incomes greater than 160% of
LLS. For either program, no more
than 25% of funds could be used to
serve children with family incomes
above the poverty level. (Sec. 8003)
The early childhood development
program would serve 4-year olds (to
the extent that Head Start services
are not available) and, at LEA option,
3-year olds. The before- and after-
school program would serve children
attending early childhood development
programs, kindergarten or elementary
or secondary school classes. (Sec.
8003)
To be eligible, children must live in
the area served by the LEA and their
parents must be working or in a job
training or education program. (Sec.
8003)
Eligibility for services funded by Title
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
XX is determined by each State.
Amendments: As under current Title
Services would be for children under
XX law, States would determine
age 13 with family incomes up to
CRS-14
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
eligibility criteria for child care
100% of the State median income
services.
whose parents are working, seeking
work or in a job training or education
program.
The work/training
requirements would not apply to
children who are receiving or needing
protective services. (Sec. 103)
No comparable provisions.
States would have to give priority to
serving children of families with "very
low income" or children with "special
needs." (Sec. 107) In addition, States
would have to meet the need for child
care services for eligible children,
including infants, preschool children,
and school age children, giving special
attention to meeting the needs for
low-income children, migrant children,
children with a handicapping
condition, foster children, children in
need of protective services, children of
adolescent parents, and children with
limited English language proficiency.
(Sec. 106)
CRS-15
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
States would be required to establish
Services would be provided on a
a sliding fee scale for determining how
sliding fee scale, established by the
much other families would pay for
State. (Sec. 107)
services. Services funded by these
amendments would be without charge
for families with incomes below the
poverty level. (Secs. 2012(e) and (g))
CRS-16
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
OTHER CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Employer Involvement Funds
Title V--Business Involvement Grants:
No comparable provisions. (However,
The DHHS secretary would be
under the State Child Care Matching
authorized to make grants to
Grants program States could, at their
employers for the provision of child
option, fund employer-sponsored child
care services for employees, and when
care programs using funds targeted
possible, other families in the
for improving the availability of child
community. In distributing grants,
care.) (Sec. 107)
the Secretary would give priority to
businesses with less than 100 full-
time employees. Employers receiving
grants would have to spend 2 times
the grant amount for the services.
Providers would have to comply with
applicable State and local licensing
requirements. (Secs. 501, 503)
Funds to Improve Quality/Expand
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Availability
States would be required to use funds
States would be required to use 10%
under this program to do at least 1
of their grants to do several
activity from the following list of
mandatory activities that are similar
activities: a) expand resource and
to the activities listed in the House
referral programs; b) provide training
bill, plus additional activities,
to child care staff; c) improve
including providing grants to libraries
monitoring and enforcement of State
for child care materials and services.
standards; and d) improve salaries of
(Sec. 107)
Head Start teachers, teachers under
the Title II--School-Sponsored Child
Care program, and, to the extent
CRS-17
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
practicable, other major Federal and
State child care programs. The
amount of funds to be used for this
purpose is not specified, but would be
at least 93% of their Title IV grants
(i.e., their total minus allowed
expenses for improving availability--
up to 5%--and administration-up to
2%). (Sec. 658E)
Title III--Title XX Child Care
Amendments provides that Title IV
could not authorize the use of any
funds with respect to child care
services provided under Title XX. (Sec.
2021)
States would be allowed to use up to
States would be allowed to use up to
5% of their Title IV funds to support
12% of State Matching Grant program
1 or more other specified child care
funds for 1 or more activities to
activities, including making loans to
improve the availability of child care.
providers for renovations, making
A greater number of discretionary
grants or loans to providers to assist
activities is specified under the Senate
them in meeting standards, and
bill. Activities include ones similar to
providing assistance to businesses.
those proposed in the House bill, plus
(Sec. 658E)
others, including providing temporary
care of sick children who are unable
to attend child care, providing child
care for homeless children, and
establishing a revolving loan fund for
CRS-18
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
family day care providers to make
capital improvements. (Sec. 107)
Standards Improvement Incentive
Title VI-Standard Improvement
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Grants
Incentives Grants: On Oct. 1, 1990
Similar program, except the Secretary
the Secretary of DHHS would be
would have 3 years from the time of
required to establish a State matching
enactment to establish it. (Sec. 119)
grant program to assist States in
improving their standards. Grants
would be made to States on a
competitive basis, taking into account
the quality of the State's existing
standards relative to standards in
other States that apply for funds; the
level of standards that the State
wants to adopt and its plans for
achieving it; and the fiscal status of
the State relative to other States.
Grants would be for 2-year periods
with no State to receive more than 3
consecutive grants. The program
would terminate after 8 years. (Sec.
601)
Child Development
Title VI--Child Development
No comparable provisions.
Demonstrations
Demonstration Project: The Secretary
of DHHS would be authorized to fund
up to 10 public agencies and private
entities to administer child
development models. To receive
CRS-19
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
funding, applicants would, among
other things, have to assure that they
will recruit, train, monitor, and
support between 20 and 35 family
child care providers and require them
to provide high quality child care
services. Grantees would evaluate
and report on the model by April
1993. (Sec. 601)
Child Care Liability Risk
No comparable provisions.
Child Care Liability Risk Retention
Retention Group
Group: States would use funds under
this program to establish or operate
risk retention groups for child care
providers licensed under State or local
law. Within 3 years of enactment,
providers participating in risk pools
would have to meet State standards
required under the State Child Care
Matching Grants program, as
described below in the Standards and
Enforcement Section. (Sec. 124)
CRS-20
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
SERVICE DELIVERY AND FUNDING MECHANISMS
Eligible Child Care/Development
Head Start programs are operated by
Title I--Head Start Child Care
No comparable provisions.
Providers
local public or private nonprofit
Amendments: Agencies that meet
agencies that meet requirements
existing requirements under Head
specified in law.
Start would be eligible providers.
Title II--School-Sponsored Child Care:
No comparable provisions. (However,
LEAs could provide services directly
if States choose to use State Child
or through grants to or contracts with
Care Matching Grant funds for grants
other public entities and certain
to school districts, school districts
private nonprofit community-based
would be allowed to provide services
organizations. Priority would be
directly or through contracts with or
given to funding programs operated
grants to other public entities and
in a public school building, if the cost
certain private nonprofit community-
is comparable to the costs of programs
based organizations, similar to those
operated in other facilities. (Sec. 8003)
specified in the House bill.) (Sec. 107)
Title XX does not specify entities
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
eligible for providing child care
Amendments: States could provide
States could provide services through
services. By law, Title XX-funded
services directly, through contracts
contracts with or grants to providers,
child care services must meet
with or grants to providers, by issuing
grants to units of general purpose
applicable State and local standards.
certificates, or by other arrangements.
local government, or through issuing
Eligible providers would be those that
certificates. Eligible providers would
meet the standards and enforcement
be center-based providers, group home
provisions specified in the bill and
providers, family child care providers,
summarized below in the Standards
and certain relatives that meet
and Enforcement section. (Sec.
standards and enforcement
2012(a)(4))
requirements summarized below.
CRS-21
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
Eligible providers are defined under
this program only to be those similar
to those in Senate bill, except that
grandmothers would be the only
relative specified. Providers would
have to meet standards and
enforcement requirements under this
program, summarized below. (Sec.
658K)
No comparable provisions.
Providers would be required to serve
a mix of children, including children
with different socioeconomic
backgrounds and disabled children, if
feasible. They would also have to
give priority to serving children with
"very low family incomes" and children
with "special needs." States would be
required to distribute funds to a
variety of types of providers in each
community and equitably among
providers in urban and rural areas.
(Secs. 103, 107, 108)
Availability of Child Care
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Certificates (Vouchers)
Amendments: Within 2 years of
Participating States would be required
enactment of this program,
to give parents the option of receiving
participating States would be required
a child care certificate, usable at
to establish a child care certificate
eligible child care providers, but only
CRS-22
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
program. Each parent and legal
if a resource and referral program was
guardian receiving assistance under
established according to specifications
the program would be given the
in the bill. (Sec. 108)
option of receiving assistance in the
form of a certificate, usable at any
eligible child care provider. Child care
certificate is defined as a certificate
issued by a State directly to a parent
or legal guardian. Eligible providers
would have to meet applicable
standards of State and local law. (Sec.
2012(a)(4))
Payments for Services
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Amendments: Reimbursement for
Payments to providers would be at
child care expenses would be at the
the same rate charged by providers in
market rate, with higher
the State or substate area for
reimbursements for infants and
comparable services to children of
toddlers, children with disabilities, and
comparable ages and special needs
comprehensive child care programs for
whose parents are not eligible for
children of adolescent mothers. (Sec.
certificates under this program or for
2012(e))
child care assistance under any other
Federal or State program. (Sec. 107)
CRS-23
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
Federal Model Standards
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Within 60 days of enactment, to
Similar to House bill, with differences
improve the quality of child care
in the composition and appointment
services, the Secretary of DHHS
method of the advisory committee.
would be required to establish a
(Sec. 118)
national advisory committee to
develop recommended child care
standards addressing certain areas for
center-based care, family home care,
and group home care. The Secretary
would publish the recommended
standards in the Federal Register for
comment and issue rules establishing
the recommended standards. (Sec.
658J)
For center-based care, these areas
The recommended standards would
would be group size limits; child-staff
differ, in that they would include, in
ratios; staff qualifications; health,
addition to the House categories,
nutrition, and safety requirements;
specified health and safety
inservice training; and parental
requirements for each of the child
involvement.
care settings, as follows: prevention
and control of infectious diseases;
For family home care, these would
injury prevention, control and
be maximum number of children
treatment; building and physical
served, including the total number of
premises safety; general health and
infants; minimum caregiver age;
nutrition; services for children with
health, nutrition, and safety
special needs; and prevention of child
CRS-24
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
requirements; and inservice training.
abuse. In addition, the standards
could not be "less or more rigorous
For group homes, this would be the
than the least or most rigorous
same as for family homes, with the
standard" that exists in any of the
addition of child-staff ratios.
States. (Sec. 118)
State Standards Requirements
Head Start programs are currently
Title I--Head Start Child Care
No comparable provisions, except that
not required by Federal law to meet
Amendments: No change to current
Head Start programs would be subject
State and local child care standards.
law. (However, requirements that all
to standards and enforcement
States vary in their practices of
publicly funded child care meet
requirements applicable to publicly
requiring Head Start programs to
standards under Title III of the bill
funded child care, as would be
meet standards.
would apply to Head Start programs.
required under the State Child Care
In addition, requirements under Title
Matching Grants program.
IV of the bill that all State licensed
and regulated child care providers be
subject to enforcement activities, could
also apply to Head Start programs,
unless not regulated by State law.)
Title II--School-Sponsored Child Care:
No comparable provisions. (However,
Programs would be required to comply
if States choose to fund extended day
with "applicable State regulatory
care programs, States would have to
standards for health and safety" and
assure that such care is
"applicable State standards for
developmentally appropriate to meet
program quality." (Sec. 8003) In
the needs of school-age children and
addition, within 3 years of enactment,
that parents have the opportunity to
States would be required to establish
participate.) (Sec. 107)
standards in specified areas for both
early childhood development and
before- and after-school care funded
CRS-25
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
under Title II. (Sec. 8004)
The early childhood development
standards would address group size
limits; child-staff ratios; staff
qualifications; health, nutrition, and
safety requirements; and parent
involvement.
The before- after-school care standards
would address in-service training for
staff; health, nutrition, and safety
requirements; and parental
involvement.
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Amendments: During the 3-year period
The providers of child care services
following enactment of this program,
for which assistance is provided under
funds would be for child care services
the program would be required to
that meet "all applicable child care
comply with "all licensing or
standards and licensing and
regulatory requirements (including
registration requirements" as
registration requirements) applicable
established by State and local law.
under State and local law," and ensure
(Sec. 2012(b)(2))
that "such requirements are imposed
and enforced by the State uniformly
on all licensed and regulated child
care providers within the same
category of care, which receive public
funds." (Sec. 107)
CRS-26
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Within 3 years after enactment,
Within 3 years after enactment,
participating States would have to set
participating States would have to set
child care standards addressing the
child care standards addressing the
same areas covered by the Federal
areas covered by the Federal model
model standards for center care,
standards for center care, family care,
family care and group care (above).
and home care (above). The
The standards would apply to "all
standards would apply to "all such
child care funded in the State under
providers who are receiving assistance
this title and all child care services
under this title or under other
delivered by providers in the State
publicly-assisted child care programs."
who receive public funds for child care
(Sec. 107)
services and are required by the State
to be licensed or regulated." (Sec.
2012(c))
States could not reduce the categories
Similar provisions. (Sec. 107)
of providers licensed or regulated by
the State or the level of child care
standards, except the standards could
be reduced if the State demonstrates
the reduction is based on positive
developmental practice or is necessary
to increase access to and availability
of child care providers and will not
jeopardize the health and safety of
children. (Sec. 2012(h))
States would be ineligible for further
States would be ineligible for
funding 3 years after enactment
assistance 3 years after enactment
unless they demonstrate that "all child
unless they demonstrate that all child
CRS-27
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
care providers in the State who
care providers required to be licensed
receive funds under this title and all
or regulated are, and are subject to
other providers in the State who
the enforcement provisions; and, that
receive public funds for child care
"all such providers who are receiving
services" are licensed or regulated as
assistance under this title or under
required by State or local law, comply
other publicly assisted child care
with the new child care standards
programs" meet these requirements
established by the State (as required
and meet the new child care standards
above) and are subject to the Title III
established by the State (as required
enforcement provisions (described
above). (Sec. 110)
below). (Sec. 2011)
Provisions of the Title IV program
No comparable provisions.
could not be construed to impose any
requirement relating to licensing,
training, compliance, enforcement,
salaries, recommended standards, or
the making of grants or loans, or to
authorize the expenditure of any
funds, with respect to child care
services provided under Title XX,
including the child care amendments
authorized under Title III of the
House bill. (Sec. 2021)
Training Requirements
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Amendments: Within 2 years of
Within 3 years of enactment, States
enactment, States would have to
would have to require that all
require all child care providers (and
employed or self-employed persons
their caregivers) who receive public
who provide licensed or regulated care
CRS-28
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
funds for child care services and are
complete a "minimum number of
required to be licensed or regulated in
hours" of training each year. (Sec.
the State to take 15 hours of training
113) (States would use 10% of their
each year. Training would be tailored
grants for several quality
to the needs of the States and
improvement activities, including
providers. States would use 10% of
training, however proportion for
their grants for training, enforcement
training is not specified.)
and administration. Proportions for
each are not specified. (Sec. 2012(d))
State Enforcement Requirements
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Amendments: Within 3 years of
Similar provisions, except that the
enactment of Title III, States receiving
enforcement policies would be
assistance would be required to have
applicable to all licensed or regulated
in effect 10 specified enforcement
care in the State. (Sec. 107)
policies applicable to care funded
under Title XX. (Sec. 2012(i))
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
Within 3 years of enactment of the
bill, States receiving assistance under
this program would have to have in
effect the same enforcement provisions
as required under Title III, but they
would be applicable to all licensed or
regulated care in the State. (Sec.
658E)
CRS-29
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
State Standards Study
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
State Child Care Matching Grants:
The State agency administering the
Similar provisions, except that the
Title IV program would be required
review would be conducted by a newly
to review existing State licensing
established State Advisory Committee
requirements and policies and report
on Child Care, Subcommittee on
within 18 months to the State CEO
Licensing; the report would have to
on the review. The report would
be made within 3 years of enactment
include recommendations concerning
and would contain additional
standards that should apply to school-
information, including comments on
sponsored child care under Title II.
how the State standards compare with
If the State conducted such a review
the national model standards. (Sec.
within 3 years prior to participating
111)
in this program, the review would not
have to be conducted. (Sec. 658E)
National Standards Study
No comparable provisions.
State Child Care Matching Grants:
The Secretary of DHHS and the
Office of Technology Assessment
would be required to study child care
standards nationally and report to
Congress. The study would have to
occur within 4 years of enactment.
(Sec. 120)
CRS-30
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
CHURCH-STATE AND CIVIL RIGHTS PROVISIONS
Nondiscrimination on the Bases
Recipients of Federal financial
Title II-School-Sponsored Child Care:
State Child Care Matching Grants:
of Race, Sex, Handicap, and Age
assistance are generally barred from
All programs would be subject to the
All assistance, including assistance in
discriminating on the bases of race,
sex nondiscrimination requirement of
the form of child care certificates,
color, and national origin (Title VI of
Title IX (Sec. 8003(e)(3)), and such
would be subject to the general
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
programs sponsored by private
nondiscrimination requirements of
2000d et seq.), handicap (Section 504
nonprofit community-based
Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29
organizations would be subject as well
the Age Discrimination Act. (Sec.
U.S.C. 794), age (the Age
to the nondiscrimination requirements
122(a))
Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C.
of the Head Start Act The sex
6101 et seq.), and, in the case of
nondiscrimination provision of the
education programs or activities, sex
latter Act would be construed "so as
(Title IX of the Education
to be consistent with Title IX." (Sec.
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681
8003(2)(B))
et seq.). Title IX exempts educational
institutions controlled by religious
Title III--Title XX Child Care
organizations from its prohibition on
Amendments: All assistance, including
sex discrimination if such
assistance in the form of certificates,
nondiscrimination "would not be
would be subject to the
consistent with the religious tenets of
nondiscrimination requirements of
such organization[s]." The Head Start
Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and
program supplements these
the Age Discrimination Act. (Sec.
requirements with both a general
2012(3)(A))
prohibition of discrimination on the
bases of "race, creed, color, national
origin, sex, political affiliation, or
beliefs" and specific prohibitions
against discrimination on the bases of
sex or handicap. See 42 U.S.C. 9849.
CRS-31
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
The Head Start program contains no
exemption from its sex
nondiscrimination requirement for
institutions controlled by religious
organizations. Finally, Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) generally bars
employment discrimination on the
bases of race, color, national origin,
religion, and sex, regardless of
whether or not an employer receives
Federal financial assistance. Religious
organizations are exempt from Title
VII's ban on religious discrimination
but not from the other prohibitions.
Nondiscrimination on the Basis
Current law contains no general
Title I--Head Start Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
of Religion
prohibition on religious discrimination
Amendments: Would retain and apply
Would bar religious discrimination in
by recipients of Federal financial
the existing Head Start religious
the provision of child care services
assistance. Some individual programs,
nondiscrimination provision.
funded under this program. Would
do prohibit religious discrimination.
also bar religious discrimination in
The Head Start Act, for instance,
Title II-School-Sponsored Child Care:
admissions and in employment (with
requires that all grants and contracts
Would impose the Head Start
respect to employees who work
provide that "no person with
nondiscrimination requirement,
directly with children), except that
responsibilities in the operation
including that concerning "creed. .or
providers who receive less than 80%
thereof will discriminate with respect
beliefs," on nonprofit community-based
of their operating budgets from public
to any such program. because of.
organizations as a condition of
funds could give preference in
.creed. .or beliefs." (42 U.S.C.
eligibility for grants or contracts.
admissions for slots not funded by
CRS-32
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
9849(a)) But others, including most
(Sec. 8003(e)(2)(B))
this program to children whose
other child care programs and the
families participate, and preference in
Title XX program, do not. In
Title III--Title XX Child Care
employment to individuals who
addition, Title VII of the Civil Rights
Amendments: Would impose religious
participate, on a regular basis in the
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.),
nondiscrimination requirements in
activities of the organization that
as noted above, bars discrimination in
admissions, services, and employment
owns or operates such providers.
employment on the basis of religion
identical to those contained in the
Notwithstanding the foregoing,
but exempts religious organizations
Senate bill. (Sec. 2012(a)(3)(B))
sectarian day care providers would be
from that prohibition.
permitted to require that all
employees adhere to their religious
tenets and beliefs and to rules
forbidding the use of alcohol or drugs.
(Sec. 122)
Limitations on Sectarian Use of
The First Amendment to the
Title II--School-Sponsored Child Care:
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Funds
Constitution bars Congress from
As an addition to the ESEA, would be
Would bar the use of funds "for any
enacting any law "respecting an
subject to the existing restriction in
sectarian purpose or activity,
establishment of religion." Education
Title X of the ESEA (redesignated as
including sectarian worship and
and health programs, including the
Title IX by the bill) barring "the
instruction," but would exempt from
Elementary and Secondary Education
making of any payment under this
that prohibition assistance provided
Act (ESEA), frequently prohibit the
chapter for religious worship or
in the form of child care certificates
use of funds for religious worship or
instruction." (20 U.S.C. 3384) Also
and assistance received by relatives
instruction. Existing child care grant
mandates the inclusion of private
caring for a grandchild, niece, nephew,
programs, including Head Start and
school children "in accordance with
or sibling. In addition, would provide
Title XX, contain no explicit sectarian
the provisions of Chapter 1 of title I."
that "financial assistance provided
use prohibitions.
(Sec. 8003(b)(5))
under this title shall not be expended
in a manner inconsistent with the
Title III--Title XX Child Care
Constitution." (Secs. 121(a) and (b))
Amendments: Would impose same
sectarian use restrictions as are
CRS-33
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
contained in the Senate bill, except
that exemption in the Senate bill for
funds received by a provider caring for
a "grandchild, niece, nephew, or
sibling" is here expressed as an
exemption for funds received by a
provider caring solely for "members of
the family of such provider." (Sec.
2012(a)(2))
Preservation of State Laws
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Limiting Sectarian Use of Funds
Amendments: Same as Senate bill.
Provides that "[n]othing in this title
shall be construed to supersede or
modify any provision of a State
constitution or State law that
prohibits the expenditure of public
funds in or by sectarian institutions."
(Sec. 122)
Limitations on Facilities
Education and health facilities
Title I--Head Start Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Assistance
construction grant programs generally
Amendments, Title II--School-
In addition to the sectarian use
exclude facilities to be used for
Sponsored Child Care, and Title IV--
limitations noted above, would require
sectarian instruction or worship or as
Quality Improvement Grants: In
all providers receiving assistance for
a school or department of divinity,
addition to the sectarian use
the renovation or repair of child care
and require proportionate repayment
limitation noted above for Title II,
facilities to repay a proportionate
if those limitations are violated.
would require all providers receiving
amount of the assistance if the
assistance for the renovation or repair
facilities cease to be used for child
of child care facilities under these
care services during the useful life of
titles to repay a proportionate amount
the renovation or repair. Would limit
of the assistance if the facilities cease
facilities assistance to sectarian
CRS-34
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
to be used for child care services
providers to renovations or repairs
during the useful life of the
"necessary to bring such facility into
renovation or repair. Would limit
compliance with health and safety
facilities assistance to sectarian
requirements" imposed by this title.
providers to renovations or repairs
(Sec. 108)
"necessary to bring such facility into
compliance with health and safety
requirements" imposed by these titles.
(Sec. 658H(b))
Severability
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
Amendments:
Would declare
Would declare provisions of this
provisions of this program to be
program to be "separable," so that if
severable, so that if any part were
any part were held to be
held to be unconstitutional or
unconstitutional, the rest of the title
otherwise invalid, the rest could
would remain valid. (Sec. 128) In
continue to be implemented. (Sec.
addition, would declare provisions of
2012(a)(3)(B)(v))
the nondiscrimination section of this
title to be severable, so that if any
part of that section were declared to
be invalid, the rest of the title could
still be given effect. (Sec. 122)
CRS-35
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
STATE AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION
Application Process and
Head Start agencies apply to the
Title I--Head Start Child Care
No comparable provisions.
Administering Agencies
Secretary of DHHS according to a
amendments:
No change from
process specified in regulations.
existing law.
Title II--School-Sponsored Child Care:
No comparable provisions.
To be eligible for Title II funds, States
would submit to the Secretary of
Education (through their State
education agencies) assurances
regarding fiscal control, accounting,
standards, and 2-year plans to be
submitted by participating LEAs. (Sec.
8004)
Under Title XX, States are not
Title III-Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
required to submit applications, but
Amendments: States would initially
States would submit an application to
prior to spending their allotments
be entitled to funds, but after 3 years,
the Secretary of DHHS containing
they must submit to the Secretary of
funding would be contingent on
assurances that the State will comply
DHHS annual "pre-expenditure
demonstrating that standards
with the requirements of the bill, and
reports" on how they intend to use
requirements (summarized above in
a 3-year plan developed by a State
their funds.
Standards and Enforcement section)
administering agency or a State child
are met. Like under current law,
care board. The bill contains several
States would submit a pre-expenditure
policies and procedures that must be
report on use of funds under this
addressed in the 3-year plan including
program. The report would be in
meeting the standards requirements.
addition to the one required under
The administering agency or board
existing law. (Secs. 2011, 2014)
would also coordinate services with
those of other Federal, State and local
CRS-36
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
programs; assess child care needs and
develop a plan to meet the needs;
hold hearings on child care; and
establish local advisory councils to
conduct local child care needs
assessments, advise the administering
agency, and make reports and
recommendations. (Secs. 106 and 107)
No comparable provisions.
States could obtain a planning grant
to meet the State plan requirements.
The grant amount could be up to 1%
of the State's allotment and would
be considered to be part of the State's
administrative costs under the
program. (Sec. 109)
The State agency with primary
The State Governor would appoint
responsibility for child care in the
the administering agency. The
State would administer the program.
Governor would also appoint a State
(Sec. 2012(a))
advisory committee on child care to
assist and advise the administering
agency. The advisory committee
would have a subcommittee on
licensing. (Sec. 111)
No comparable provisions.
In the case of States that do not
participate in the program, the
application process would be carried
out by the CEO of units of general
CRS-37
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
purpose local government.
(Sec.
127)
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
No comparable provisions.
States would submit an application to
the Secretary of DHHS containing
assurances that they will comply with
the requirements of the bill, and a 5-
year plan developed by a State
administering agency. The plan
would provide that activities specified
under the bill are accomplished. (Sec.
658E)
Title V--Business Involvement Grants:
No comparable provisions.
Businesses would submit applications
to the Secretary of DHHS containing
specified information. (Sec. 503)
Title VI-Standards Improvement
Standards Improvement Incentive
Incentive Grants: States would
Grants: Similar provisions. (Sec. 119)
submit an application to the Secretary
of DHHS containing assurances about
the State contribution to the program,
use of funds, and information about
current standards and their expected
improvement. (Sec. 601)
CRS-38
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Title VI--Child Development
No comparable provisions.
Demonstration Project: Eligible
agencies would submit applications
containing specified information to the
Secretary of DHHS. (Sec. 601)
State Reporting Requirements
Under Title XX, States are required
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
to submit to the Secretary of DHHS
Amendments: States would submit a
No comparable provisions. (However,
3 types of reports. Prior to spending
pre-expenditure report on the use of
States would have to submit a plan,
funds, they must submit pre-
Title III funds, similar to the one
as described above under Application
expenditure reports on how they
required for regular Title XX funds.
Process.)
intend to use funds, including
The report would not have to be
information on the type of activities
revised during the year. (Sec. 2014(a))
to be supported and the categories or
characteristics of individuals to be
served. Pre-expenditure reports must
be made public, and revised
throughout the year to reflect
changes.
The second report required is the
States would be required to provide
No comparable provisions. (However,
annual report, which must contain
similar reports on the child care
under the State plan requirements,
information on how funds were
activities funded under this program
States would establish procedures for
actually spent, including information
or under the regular Title XX
collecting certain data on how child
on the number of persons served
program. The reports would contain
care needs of families are being met,
broken down by children and adults
information specific to child care, as
including information on the number
and the types of services they
follows: For each of center-based
of children served under the program
received; total amount spent for each
care, group home care, family care,
and under other Federal programs;
service, including per child costs and
and relative care, information on the
the type and number of providers in
per adult costs; eligibility criteria
number of children served by income
the State; the average cost of care in
CRS-39
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
used, including fee scales; and
category, the average cost and market
the State; other information
methods of delivering services,
rate of care by geographical area, and
considered necessary by the Secretary;
showing those by public and private
the out of pocket cost borne by
the extent to which the availability of
agencies.
families for funded services;
care has increased; and how the
information related to recipients who
purposes of the program are being
receive public benefits; eligibility
met. There is no requirement that
criteria used; methods of providing
data be collected on an annual basis.)
services; and State standards,
(Sec. 107)
licensing, regulatory, and enforcement
requirements in effect. (Sec. 2014(c))
In addition, within 3 years of
enactment, State Advisory Committees
on Child Care would be required to
submit reports to the Governor on
child care services provided by
different types of providers and
recommendations made by the
Subcommittee on Licensing. The
Governor would submit reports to the
Secretary of DHHS. (Sec. 111)
States must also conduct audits on
Similar audits would be required. (Sec.
No comparable provisions.
their Title XX funds every 2 years.
2014(d))
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
Some similar information would be
Beginning not later than Dec. 31,
collected under the data collection
1992, States would be required to
requirement, described above.
report to the Secretary of DHHS
every 2 years on how Title IV funds
are used, including information on
why certain activities were funded;
CRS-40
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
how the child care needs of families
are met; the number of children
served under this program and other
State and Federal programs; the type
and number of child care providers in
the State; and the salaries of child
care staff in the State. (Sec. 658
D(c)(6))
Administration Costs
Head Start programs can use up to
Title I--Head Start Child Care
No. comparable provisions.
15% of funds for administration.
Amendments: No change to existing
law.
Title II-School-Sponsored Child Care:
No comparable provisions.
States could use up to 3% of funds
for administration. (Sec. 8004(b))
No administrative cap is specified
Title III--Title XX Child Care
State Child Care Matching Grants:
under Title XX.
Amendments: States would spend
States could spend up to 8% of funds
10% of funds for administration,
for administration. (Sec. 107)
training and enforcement. No specific
breakdown is provided. (Sec. 2012(b))
Title IV--Quality Improvement Grants:
No comparable provisions.
States could spend up to 2% of funds
for administration. (Sec. 658E)
CRS-41
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
No comparable provisions.
Child Care Liability Risk Retention
Group: States could spend up to 10%
of funds for administration.
CRS-42
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
Administering Agencies
Head Start and Title XX are
All programs except Title II and the
DHHS would administer the State
administered by DHHS.
tax provisions would be administered
Child Care Matching Grants program,
by DHHS. Title II would be
the Standards Improvement Incentive
administered by the Dept. of
Grants, and the Child Care Liability
Education and the tax provisions
Risk Retention Group program. A
would be administered by the Internal
new position of Administrator of Child
Revenue Service.
Care would be created within DHHS
to coordinate all DHHS child care
activities and those of other Federal
agencies. The administrator would
collect and maintain child care
information, evaluate programs, and
provide technical assistance to States.
The tax benefits would be
administered by Internal Revenue
Service.
CRS-43
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
TAX BENEFITS
Earned Income Tax Credit
Who benefits: Families with at least
Who benefits: Same as current law,
Same as current law.
one child under 19 (or under 24 if a
except that credit would be adjusted
full-time student) and at least one
for number of children in family, up
employed parent.
to three. (Sec. 302)
Formula for benefits: 14% of earned
Formula for benefits: for 1 child: 17%
Same as current law.
income (defined as $5,714 as adjusted
of earned income; for 2 children: 21%
for inflation). In 1990, adjustment is
of earned income; for 3 children: 25%
14% of $6,807 of earned income.
of earned income; defined and
Maximum credit in 1990 is $953.
adjusted as under current law. (Sec.
302(b))
Phaseout: Credit is reduced by 10%
Phaseout: credit is reduced as follows
Same as current law.
of income over $9,000, as adjusted for
on income in excess of $9,000, as
inflation. In 1990, phaseout begins at
adjusted for inflation (i.e, $10,730 in
$10,730. Credit is zero at incomes at
1990). For 1 child: credit is reduced
over $20,264.
by 12% of excess income; for 2
children:credit is reduced by 15%; for
3 or more: credit is reduced by 18%.
Refundability (receipt of benefit even
Refundability: Yes
Same as current law.
if taxpayer has no tax liability): Yes
Advance payments: Yes
Advance payments: Yes
Same as current law.
(Sec. 302(c))
CRS-44
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Supplemental Young Child Credit
No comparable provisions.
Who benefits: Families qualifying for
Who benefits: Families qualifying for
regular earned income tax credit with
regular earned income tax credit with
a child under 6. (Sec. 302(b)(2))
at least one child under 4 years old.
(Sec. 214)
No comparable provisions.
Formula for benefit: Would add 6%
Formula for benefit: Would add 7%
to EITC credit.
to the EITC credit (limited to $500)
for taxpayers with one qualifying
child; would add 10% to EITC (limited
to $750) for taxpayers with more than
one qualifying child.
Phaseout:
Would increase EITC
Phaseout:Supplement for young
phaseout rate by 4.25%
children credit phases out at a 15%
rate (10% for taxpayers with one
qualifying child) for income in excess
of the lesser of $10,000, as adjusted
for inflation, or $12,000.
CRS-45
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Treatment of EITC by Major
For EITC eligibility, taxpayers must
Household expenses paid with AFDC
Same as current law.
Welfare Programs
pay more than one-half the cost of
or other Federal means-tested transfer
keeping up a home for a child.
payments would be treated as support
Federal means-tested program benefits
provided by the taxpayer for purposes
(e.g., AFDC and food stamps) are not
of the EITC. (Sec. 302(j))
treated as provided by the taxpayer.
Thus if more than half of the
taxpayers' income is from AFDC, etc.,
taxpayers cannot qualify for EITC
benefits.
Under AFDC, EITC refunds and
EITC advance payments or refunds
Same as current law.
advance payments must be counted as
made to a person applying for or
income when received for purposes of
receiving AFDC would be ignored in
deciding AFDC eligibility (gross
deciding continued program eligibility
income cannot exceed the 185% of the
or in calculating benefits under any
state's standard of need test), but
means-tested program financed wholly
EITC is not counted as income for
or in part with Federal funds.
calculating the benefits of eligible
persons (the monthly payment test).
EITC advance payments and refunds
would be treated as described above
Under Medicaid, EITC is treated the
for all Federal means-tested benefit
same as under AFDC.
programs.
Under SSI, EITC advance payments
or refunds must be counted as earned
income; generally this means that the
SSI benefit is reduced by 50% of the
EITC amount, rather than 100%.
CRS-46
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Under the food stamp program, EITC
advance payments must be ignored in
deciding program eligibility and in
calculating benefits, but EITC refunds
must be counted as a liquid asset in
judging eligibility.
Under the veterans' pension program,
EITC advance payments and refunds
must be counted as income under a
general rule counting gross income in
the past year.
Dependent Care Tax Credit
Who benefits:
Credit benefits
Who benefits: Same as current law.
Who benefits: Same as current law.
employed persons with children under
age 13, or employees with a
handicapped dependent or spouse.
Formula for benefits: Tax credit on
Formula for benefits: Same as current
Formula for benefits:
Same as
a sliding scale from 30% of qualified
law, but phaseout and income cap
current law.
expenses for persons with incomes up
would be added. (Sec. 303)
to $10,000; declining to 20% for
persons with incomes over $28,000.
Phaseout: No upper income limit
Phaseout: Credit would be reduced by
Phaseout: No upper income limit.
1% per additional $1000 of income for
taxpayers with incomes over $70,000
and eliminated for taxpayers with
incomes over $89,000.
CRS-47
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Refundability: No
Refundability: No change to current
Refundability:
Would be 90%
law.
refundable for tax filers with adjusted
gross incomes under $28,000. (Sec.
212)
Advance payments: None under
Advance payments: No change to
Advance payments: After 1991. (Sec.
current law.
current law.
212)
Limits: No special rules about
Limits: No change to current law.
Limits:
Government subsidized
government subsidized expenses;
expenses (including income disregards)
however, qualified expenses cannot
not eligible for the dependent care tax
exceed taxpayer's earned income.
credit after 1989. (Sec. 212)
Dependent Care Assistance
Who benefits: Employees whose
Same as current law.
Same as current law.
Program
employers offer a DCAP. Qualifying
taxpayers would be the same group as
those who might use the dependent
care tax credit.
Formula for benefit: Up to $5,000 of
Formula for benefit: Same as current
benefits may be excluded from income.
law, but phaseout and income cap
Benefits are used to provide
added. (Sec. 303)
dependent care services to employee.
CRS-48
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHILD CARE BILLS
Provision
Current Law
H.R. 3
H.R. 3
(House passed)
(Senate passed)
Phaseout: None
Phaseout:
Maximum amount of
Phaseout: Same as current law.
exclusion would be reduced by $250
for each $1000 increase in income for
taxpayers with incomes over $70,000
($35,000 for married individuals filing
separately). Taxpayers with incomes
over $89,000 would be ineligible for
the exclusion.
Offset: The dependent care tax credit
Same as current law.
Same as current law.
is reduced by the amount of exclusion
claimed under a DCAP.
Child Care Earnings Exclusion
Persons under age 70 who are
Same as current law.
Would permit social security recipients
drawing social security benefits lose
under age 70 who work as child care
a portion of their benefits if they have
providers to earn income from child
earnings which exceed certain
care without being penalized by offset
amounts, which vary depending on
of social security benefits. (Sec. 306)
their ages. After age 70, there is no
earnings limitation.
J07A
3
1
of the eligible individual if--
2
(A) such individual is entitled to a deduction
3
under section 151 for such child (or would be SO
4
entitled but for paragraph (2) or (4) of section
5
152(e)),
6
(B) such child has the same principal place of
7
abode as such individual for more than one-half of
8
the taxable year, and
9
(C) such child has not attained age 6 as of the
10
close of the calendar year in which or with which the
11
taxable year of the taxpayer ends,
:2
An individual shall not be a qualifying child for
13
purposes of this section for the taxable year if credit
14
is allowed to the taxpayer under section 21 for such year
:5
and employment-related expenses with respect to such
16
individual are taken into account in computing the amount
17
of such credit.
18
(c) ADVANCE PAYMENT PROVISIONS --
19
(1) PAYMENT BASED ON NUMBER OF QUALIFYING CHILDREN --
20
(A) Subsection (b) of section 3507 of such Code
21
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
22
paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end of
23
paragraph (3) and inserting , and 1 and by
24
inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
25
paragraph:
RECONXI
20
1
as follows:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
23
16.43
2 or more qualifying children
25
17.86
2
(ii) TRANSITION PERCENTAGES.
3
(I) For taxable years beginning in
4
1991, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
16.7
11.93
2 or more qualifying children
17.3
12.36
5
(II) For taxable years beginning in
6
1992, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
17.6
12.57
2 or more qualifying children
18.4
13.14
7
(III) For taxable years beginning in
8
1993, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
18.5
13.21
2 or more qualifying children
19.5
13.93
9
(D) SUPPLEMENTAL YOUNG CHILD CREDIT. In the
10
case of a taxpayer with a qualifying child who has
11
not attained age 1 as of the close of the calendar
12
year in which or with which the taxable year of the
13
taxpayer ends--
RECONXI
20
1
as follows:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
23
16.43
2 or more qualifying children
25
17.86
2
(ii) TRANSITION PERCENTAGES.
3
(I) For taxable years beginning in
4
1991, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
16.7
11.93
2 or more qualifying children
17.3
12.36
5
(II) For taxable years beginning in
6
1992, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
17.6
12.57
2 or more qualifying children
18.4
13.14
7
(III) For taxable years beginning in
8
1993, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
18.5
13.21
2 or more qualifying children
19.5
13.93
9
(D) SUPPLEMENTAL YOUNG CHILD CREDIT In the
10
case of a taxpayer with a qualifying child who has
11
not attained age 1 as of the close of the calendar
12
year in which or with which the taxable year of the
13
taxpayer ends--
RECONXI
2
21
1
(i) the credit percentage shall be
2
increased by 5 percentage points, and
3
``(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be
4
increased by 3.57 percentage points.
5
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT.
qualifying individual under section 21.
6
(A) IN GENERAL, The term health insurance
7
credit means an amount determined in the same manner
this subparagraph, such child shall not be treated as a
8
as the basic earned income credit except that--
If the taxpayer elects to take a child into account under
9
``(i) the credit percentage shall be equal to
10
6 percent, and
11
(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be equal
12
to 4.285 percent.
13
(B) LIMITATION BASED ON HEALTH INSURANCE
14
COSTS. The amount of the health insurance credit
15
determined under subparagraph (A) for any taxable
16
year shall not exceed the amounts paid by the
17
taxpayer during the taxable year for insurance
18
coverage--
19
``(i) which constitutes medical care (within
20
the meaning of section 213(d) (1) (C)), and
21
(ii) which includes at least 1 qualifying
22
child.
23
For purposes of this subparagraph, the rules of
24
section 213(d)(6) shall apply.
25
(C) SUBSIDIZED EXPENSES. --A taxpayer may not
22
RECONXI
21
1
`(i) the credit percentage shall be
2
increased by 5 percentage points, and
3
(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be
4
increased by 3.57 percentage points.
5
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT.
qualifying individual under section 21.
6
(A) IN GENERAL, The term health insurance
7
credit means an amount determined in the same manner
this subparagraph, such child shall not be treated as a
8
as the basic earned income credit except that-
If the taxpayer elects to take a child into account under
9
(i) the credit percentage shall be equal to
10
6 percent, and
11
(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be equal
12
to 4.285 percent.
13
(B) LIMITATION BASED ON HEALTH INSURANCE
14
COSTS. The amount of the health insurance credit
15
determined under subparagraph (A) for any taxable
16
year shall not exceed the amounts paid by the
17
taxpayer during the taxable year for insurance
18
coverage--
19
``(i) which constitutes medical care (within
20
the meaning of section 213 (d) (1)(C)), and
21
``(ii) which includes at least 1 qualifying
22
child.
23
For purposes of this subparagraph, the rules of
24
section 213(d)(6) shall apply.
25
(C) SUBSIDIZED EXPENSES. --A taxpayer may not
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Memo
From Leigh Ann Metzger to John Sununu
10/26/90
P/5
Re: Child Care: New Wee Tots Credit Concerns (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Open on Expiration of PRA
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
(Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
By If (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
1990 Child Care (2 of 2) [4]
Date Closed:
12/17/2004
OA/ID Number:
29143-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA}
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
P.RM. Removed as a personal record misfile
AC/ER
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OCTOBER 26, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FROM:
LEIGH ANN METZGER LAM
RE:
CHILD CARE
New Wee Tots Credit Concerns
I have been notified by Rector, Bauer and the other troops that
any change in the "no douple dip" policy of the wee tots credit
would be not only unacceptable, but worse than no wee tots credit
at all.
They feel that the essense of the original wee tots credit was to
prevent parents from getting both the credit and the DCTC. It
was their hope that over time they would diminish the DCTC by
forcing families to choose one or the other. If the "no douple
dip" element of the wee tots is lost in the negotiations, they
would prefer no wee tots credit at all.
While they still have several problems with the child care deal
that I'm sure we won't be able to satisfy, we could even loose
our high ground if they attack our wee tots provision.
RECONXI
20
1
as follows:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
23
16.43
2 or more qualifying children
25
17.86
2
(ii) TRANSITION PERCENTAGES.
3
(I) For taxable years beginning in
4
1991, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
16.7
11.93
2 or more qualifying children
17.3
12.36
5
(II) For taxable years beginning in
6
1992, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
17.6
12.57
2 or more qualifying children
18.4
13.14
7
(III) For taxable years beginning in
8
1993, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
18.5
13.21
2 or more qualifying children
19.5
13.93
9
(D) SUPPLEMENTAL YOUNG CHILD CREDIT. In the
10
case of a taxpayer with a qualifying child who has
11
not attained age 1 as of the close of the calendar
12
year in which or with which the taxable year of the
13
taxpayer ends--
RECONXI
21
1
``(i) the credit percentage shall be
2
increased by 5 percentage points, and
3
(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be
4
increased by 3.57 percentage points.
5
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT.--
qualifying individual under section 21.
6
(A) IN GENERAL, The term health insurance
7
credit means an amount determined in the same manner
this subparagraph, such child shall not be treated as a
8
as the basic earned income credit except that--
If the taxpayer elects to take a child into account under
9
``(i) the credit percentage shall be equal to
10
6 percent, and
11
``(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be equal
12
to 4.285 percent.
13
(B) LIMITATION BASED ON HEALTH INSURANCE
14
COSTS. The amount of the health insurance credit
15
determined under subparagraph (A) for any taxable
16
year shall not exceed the amounts paid by the
17
taxpayer during the taxable year for insurance
18
coverage--
19
(i) which constitutes medical care (within
20
the meaning of section 213(d)(1)(C)), and
21
(ii) which includes at least 1 qualifying
22
child.
23
For purposes of this subparagraph, the rules of
24
section 213(d)(6) shall apply.
25
(C) SUBSIDIZED EXPENSES.--A taxpayer may not
RECONXI
20
1
as follows:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
23
16.43
2 or more qualifying children
25
17.86
2
(ii) TRANSITION PERCENTAGES.
3
(I) For taxable years beginning in
4
1991, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
16.7
11.93
2 or more qualifying children
17.3
12.36
5
(II) For taxable years beginning in
6
1992, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
17.6
12.57
2 or more qualifying children
18.4
13.14
7
(III) For taxable years beginning in
8
1993, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
18.5
13.21
2 or more qualifying children
19.5
13.93
9
(D) SUPPLEMENTAL YOUNG CHILD CREDIT. In the
10
case of a taxpayer with a qualifying child who has
11
not attained age 1 as of the close of the calendar
12
year in which or with which the taxable year of the
13
taxpayer ends--
RECONXI
21
1
(i) the credit percentage shall be
2
increased by 5 percentage points, and
3
(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be
4
increased by 3.57 percentage points.
5
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT.-
qualifying individual under section 21.
6
(A) IN GENERAL, The term health insurance
7
credit means an amount determined in the same manner
this subparagraph, such child shall not be treated as a
8
as the basic earned income credit except that--
If the taxpayer elects to take a child into account under
9
``(i) the credit percentage shall be equal to
10
6 percent, and
11
``(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be equal
12
to 4.285 percent.
13
(B) LIMITATION BASED ON HEALTH INSURANCE
14
COSTS. The amount of the health insurance credit
15
determined under subparagraph (A) for any taxable
16
year shall not exceed the amounts paid by the
17
taxpayer during the taxable year for insurance
18
coverage--
19
``(i) which constitutes medical care (within
20
the meaning of section 213(d) (1) (C) and
21
``(ii) which includes at least 1 qualifying
22
child.
23
For purposes of this subparagraph, the rules of
24
section 213(d)(6) shall apply.
25
(C) SUBSIDIZED EXPENSES. --A taxpayer may not
RECONXI
20
1
as follows:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
23
16.43
2 or more qualifying children
25
17.86
2
(ii) TRANSITION PERCENTAGES.
3
(I) For taxable years beginning in
4
1991, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
16.7
11.93
2 or more qualifying children
17.3
12.36
5
(II) For taxable years beginning in
6
1992, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
17.6
12.57
2 or more qualifying children
18.4
13.14
7
(III) For taxable years beginning in
8
1993, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
18.5
13.21
2 or more qualifying children
19.5
13.93
9
(D) SUPPLEMENTAL YOUNG CHILD CREDIT. In the
10
case of a taxpayer with a qualifying child who has
11
not attained age 1 as of the close of the calendar
12
year in which or with which the taxable year of the
13
taxpayer ends--
RECONXI
21
1
``(i) the credit percentage shall be
2
increased by 5 percentage points, and
3
(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be
4
increased by 3.57 percentage points.
5
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT.--
qualifying individual under section 21.
6
(A) IN GENERAL, The term health insurance
7
credit means an amount determined in the same manner
this subparagraph, such child shall not be treated as a
8
as the basic earned income credit except that--
If the taxpayer elects to take a child into account under
9
(i) the credit percentage shall be equal to
10
6 percent, and
11
(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be equal
12
to 4.285 percent.
13
(B) LIMITATION BASED ON HEALTH INSURANCE
14
COSTS. The amount of the health insurance credit
15
determined under subparagraph (A) for any taxable
16
year shall not exceed the amounts paid by the
17
taxpayer during the taxable year for insurance
18
coverage--
19
``(i) which constitutes medical care (within
20
the meaning of section 213(d) (1) (C)), and
21
(ii) which includes at least 1 qualifying
22
child.
23
For purposes of this subparagraph, the rules of
24
section 213 (d) (6) shall apply.
25
(C) SUBSIDIZED EXPENSES. --A taxpayer may not
SENT BY:HERITAGE FOUNDATION-3 ; 6-11-90 6:24PM ;
5907->
2024562397; # 2
The
Heritage Foundation
A tax-exempt public policy research institute
June 11, 1990
Mr. John H. Sununu
Chief of Staff to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear John,
As you know, the House and Senate conferees on daycare
legislation have begun meeting to produce a compromise bill. In
the last two years there has been great progress on the "child
care issue." Liberal initiatives have been stalled and debate
has been increasingly focused on President Bush's principles of:
non-discrimination against traditional families, parental rights
of choice, and equal treatment of parents seeking religious
daycare. In no small measure, this progress has been a result of
the leadership, commitment, and energy which you have personally
devoted to this issue. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
The enormous outpouring of support for the Stenholm bill in
March shows that the public embraces President Bush's child care
principles. Over 100,000 phone calls deluged Capitol Hill in
support of the Stenholm bill and in opposition to the
Downey/Hawkins bill. Political momentum is on your side.
But, as you know, victory is still far away. The
legislation passed in both the House (H.R.3) and the Senate
(S.5), while paying lip service to the President's principles,
contradicts these principles in nearly all respects. In their
present form both S.5 and H.R.3 discriminate against traditional
families, limit parental choice in daycare, and discriminate
against parents seeking religious care for their children.
H.R.3, which establishes a new federal program to provide daycare
for young children in public schools with a flat prohibition on
parental choice, is almost as deplorable as the original ABC
bill.
Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., President
Phillip N. Truluck, Executive Vice President
Burton Yale Pines, Senior Vice President
Herbert B. Berkowitz, Vice President
M. D. B. Carliale, Vice President
Charles L. Heatherly, Vice President
Peter E.S. Pover, Vice President
Terrence Scanlon, Vice President and Treasurer
Bernard Lomas, Counselor
Board of Trustees
David R. Brown, M.D.
Hon. Shelby Cullom Davis, Chairman
J. William Middendorf, II
Joseph Coors
Robert H. Krieble, Ph.D., Vice Chairman
Thomas A. Roe
Midge Decter
J. Frederic Rench, Secretary
Richard M. Scaife
Edwin J. Feulner, Jr.
Lewis E. Lehrman
Hon. William E. Simon
Joseph R. Keys
Jay Van Andel
214 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-4400
-
SENT BY:HERITAGE FOUNDATION-3 ; 6-11-90 6:25PM ;
5907->
2024562397:# 3
The objectionable features of H.R.3 and S.5 are so
pervasive, that any attempt to "clean up" those bills in
conference will not produce a bill which is acceptable to
President Bush or to the conservative groups who have devoted so
much effort to this issue for the past two and a half years. I
have attached a list of some of the worst features of H.R.3 and
S.R.5. Most of these are, no doubt, familiar to you. We
believe that all of these features, not just some, would have to
be eliminated to produce an acceptable bill. For example, there
are many technical issues relating to the definition of vouchers.
and limitations on their use. All of the provisions relating to
vouchers listed in the attached paper would need to be corrected
in order to produce a voucher which parents could realistically
use in most churches. If only part of these problems are
corrected, we would achieve the appearance of victory while
yielding the substance to the liberals.
I am encouraged by the President's continuing support for
solid conservative child care principles, and by his expressed
willingness to veto the existing child care legislation. I am
worried, however, that an undirected and piecemeal effort by
Republican conferees to improve H.R.3 and S.5 could result in
legislation which remained highly undesirable, but was more
difficult for the President to successfully veto.
Let me thank you again for the effort and commitment which
you have shown on this issue and express the confidence which we
all have in your leadership. I believe that with continuing
perseverance we can transform the enormous liberal daycare
initiative of the past two years into a significant victory for
American conservatism.
Sincerely
Edwin J. Feulner Jr.
President
SENT BY:HERITAGE FOUNDATION-3 ; 6-11-90 6:25PM ;
5907->
2024562397:# 4
MAJOR PROBLEMS IN THE DAYCARE LEGISLATION
PASSED IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE
The following major provisions of the daycare legislation passed
in the House (H.R.3) and the Senate (S.5) violate President
Bush's basic childcare principles. Where appropriate, a
comparison to the provisions of the Stenholm/Shaw childcare bill,
(H.R.4294) 4294) which carefully adhered to the President's principles,
is provided.
1.) S.5 makes the current dependent care tax credit
refundable. This means that both the overall tax credit
component as well as the daycare program component of S.5
discriminate against traditional families who care for their own
children. It would be best if child care legislation did not
discriminate against traditional families at all; at the very
least, the tax credit component of any final bill should not
discriminate.
2.) Neither S.5 nor H.R.3 contains the "wee tots" tax
credit which was included in the Stenholm bill: a tax credit
exclusively for mothers who are caring for their own infant
children at home. This credit is central to much of the grass
roots support for the Stenholm bill and should be included in any
final legislation.
3.) Title II of H.R.3 creates a new federal program to
provide daycare for children under the age of five in the public
schools. This program would prohibit parental choice and would
ultimately drive most private sector and religious daycare
providers out of business.
4.) Some or all of the funds of Title IV of H.R.3 could be
used to fund public school daycare programs which prohibit
parental choice. Title IV is effectively a clone of the Title II
public school daycare program and should be equally unacceptable.
5.) The Stenholm bill guaranteed that all parents receiving
daycare assistance under the Social Service Block Grant Program
(Title XX) would have a right to a voucher which would permit
them to choose who cared for their child. S.5 and H.R.3
voucherize only the new, earmarked daycare funds under Title XX;
the rest of the Title XX funds used for daycare are not
voucherized. The President's principle of parental choice should
apply to all Title XX funds, not just the new earmarked portion.
6.) While $.5 and H.R.3 ostensibly provide parents
receiving new daycare funds under Title XX with the right to
receive a voucher, they permit the state bureaucracy to severely
restrict where the "voucher" may be used. Currently many states
SENT BY:HERITAGE FOUNDATION-3 ; 6-11-90 6:26PM ;
5907->
2024562397;# 5
provide "vouchers" which can only be used in one or two daycare
centers selected by the government. This practice could continue
under H.R.3 and S.5. In contrast the Stenholm bill guaranteed
that parents receiving vouchers had the right to use the voucher
with a wide variety of child care providers, including relatives,
neighbors, churches and private sector providers. The Stenholm
wording is essential to ensure that the President's principle of
parental choice is carried out in practice.
7.) The Stenholm bill guaranteed that any parent receiving
federal assistance in the form of a voucher could use that
voucher to pay for daycare which included religious worship and
instruction. Under H.R.3 and S.5, any state government could
prohibit federal funds from being used in this manner. Having
lost the "religious issue" in the U.S. Congress, liberals would
like to force conservatives to refight it from scratch in every
state capital. The Stenholm wording is essential in order to
ensure that parents who want religious daycare are not
discriminated against under the Title XX program.
8.) Thirteen states provide partial or full regulatory
exemptions to religious daycare centers. Under H.R.3 and S.5
parents in those states could not use vouchers to pay for
religious daycare.
9.) Under both S.5 and H.R.3 a church which received even
one voucher could no longer show preference for members of the
faith in hiring daycare workers. The same church could not show
preference to members of the faith in selecting children for
admission to daycare slots for which no government funds were
received. These provisions are clearly intended to minimize
church participation in the Title XX program.
10.) H.R.3 and S.5 explicitly state that a voucher received
by a church constitutes federal financial assistance to the
church. The Stenholm bill remained silent on this issue. The
S.5 and H.R.3 language would make it much more difficult for
conservative churches to accept vouchers.
11.) S.5 and H.R.3 explicitly prohibit any church which
receives grants directly from the government from including
religious activities in its daycare program. The Stenholm bill
conformed with existing Title XX law by remaining silent on this
subject.
12.) Under S.5 and H.R.3 a parent could not use a voucher
to pay for daycare by a friend or neighbor unless that individual
provisions. underwent government training and complied with other regulatory
13.) S.5 and H.R.3 contain a "regulatory ratchet clause"
which permits any state to make its daycare regulations stricter
at any time, but prohibits a state from making any daycare
regulations more lenient without the approval of the Secretary
SENT BY:HERITAGE FOUNDATION-3 ; 6-11-90 6:27PM ;
5907->
2024562397; 6
of H.H.S. This is an unprecedented usurpation of state
regulatory authority.
14.) Over half the states have provisions requiring a
mother caring for even one child for pay in her own home to be
licensed or regulated. For the most part, no effort is made to
enforce these requirements. S.5, however, would insist that
each state must actively enforce all existing daycare regulations
while prohibiting the states from making those regulations more
lenient. The intent of this "daycare police" provision is to
force many of the present 1.5 million small, informal daycare
providers out of business.
15.) Both S.5 and H.R.3 create a National Advisory
Committee on Daycare, as well as numerous overlapping daycare
committees at the state level. The purpose of these provisions
is to create a permanent political infrastructure to lobby for
stricter regulation and more funding for daycare.
16.) Both S.5 and H.R.3 impose over one hundred new
regulations and mandates on state governments.
SENT BY:HERITAGE FOUNDATION-3 ; 6-11-90 6:24PM ;
5907->
2024562397;# 1
"
The
Heritage Foundation
214 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
TELEPHONE: (202) 546-4400
FAX: (202) 544-2260
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET
Date: Jamell
Time: 6:25
To: Linda Casey 45c-2397
Facsimile #:
This cover plus 5 pages
Message #:
From: RoBert RECTOR
Comments:
If you have any problems with this transmittal please call ROBERTRECTOR at (202) 546-4400.
10/25/90
17:23
002
BILL GOODLING
Room 2283
Service House OFFICE BUILDING
19TH DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA
Telephone: (202) 220-$434
TOLL FREE DISTRICT NUMBER:
EMETRICT OFFICE:
800-632-1811
FEDERAL BUILDING
200 SOUTH Geonge STREET
COMMITTEE ON
York, PA 17408
EDUCATION AND LABOR
RANKING MINORITY:
Chamser BUILDING
ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND
Congress of the United States
212 NORTH HANOVER GYMMY
CARLIELE, PA 17013
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
POST OFFICE BUILDING
COMMITTEE ON
House of Representatives
ROOM 200
BUDGET
GETTYBLING, PA 17325
Mashington, DC 20515
2020 YALE Avenue
CAMP HILL PA 17011
44 Fameerick STREET
HAROVER, PA
October 25, 1990
The Honorable John H. Sununu
THE CHIEF of STAFF
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
has seen
Dear Governor Sununu:
I understand that people are raising concerns about the
child care proposal that was worked out between the White Eouse
and Senate, and which now has the support of the House of
Representatives.
I believe that the narrow concern being raised, that States
do not have to use all their funds under the block grant for
direct services, is missing a larger point. For many years, the
Republican party has pushed the use of block grants as a means
of providing Federal funds to the States. Inherent in this
approach is the principle of allowing States the flexibility to
use funds, in this case for child care, for the activities that
they choose as most important to meet their own needs. I know
that, as a former Governor, you support this State based
decision making approach.
The child care package that your staff negotiated empowers
States to make these choices, without Federal dictates. If a
State chooses to provide direct services with the funds, then it
must offer the voucher as a form of payment. Frankly, those of
us who have been involved in the child care issue for the past
two years were pleasantly surprised that we ended up with a
pretty clean block grant at less than half the original
authorization level. Throw in mandatory vouchers, church
involvement, and no Federal standards, and you have a bill that
is better than we expected.
I think it would be a major mistake to
reopen
this
part
of
the compromise. We have much more to lose than to win by
placing the basic structure of the bill back on the table.
If you would like to discuss this any further, I would be
happy to talk with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Bill Bill Goodling
Famil
Research Council
R
Gary L. Bauer, President
October 26, 1990
The Honorable John Sununu
Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Governor:
We have just learned that the Democrats did not include the Stenholm "wee
tots" tax credit provision in the child care portion of the budget package.
Instead, we have been informed that the bill contains a flat-sum add-on to the
standard deduction for families with a child under age 1.
In addition, we have been told that this provision does not contain a "no double
dip" clause which specifies that taxpayers will be eligible for this credit only
if they do not claim the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) or the Employer-
Provided Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAPs). If this is true, this
provision would be counter-productive.
I have enclosed "no double dip" language from the Holloway-Schulze Bill. This
language is similar to that included in the Stenholm bill and the President's
bill. Unless this language is inscrted into the bill, this standard deduction
provision does more harm than good.
Please see to it that this clause is inserted in the bill language. It would be
better 10 have no provision at all than a provision without a "no double dip"
clause.
Sincerely,
Gary Gany L. Bauer
President
P.S. 1 noticed the "tax on children" is still in dispute. How about offering a
trade: a cap on the DCTC/DCAPs (like that found in the Stenholm and Downey
child care bills) in exchange for lifting the cap on the personal and dependent
exemption? Absent such a deal, the only way we sec to correct this problem is
through a higher top tax rate.
Family Research Council
A division of Focus on the Family
700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 393-2100
FAX (202) 393-2134
copy to Roger Porter
Family
Research Council
R
Gary L. Bauer, President
October 23, 1990
THE CHIEF of STAFF
The Honorable John Sununu
Chief of Staff
has seen
The White House
do
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Governor:
We want to alert you to our deep and growing concern about the
rapidly deteriorating situation with respect to the child care
provisions in the budget reconciliation bill now in House-Senate
conference.
Throughout the 101st Congress, we have enjoyed our close working
relationship with you in the pursuit of a child care bill that does
not discriminate against traditional families and that puts
resources into the hands of parents, not bureaucracies, to make
decisions crucial to the well-being of their children. While we,
like the President, have always preferred that child care benefits
be distributed through non-discriminatory tax credits, we have been
prepared to accept, as part of a tax-based package, a program of
child care grants that would guarantee to parents access to
vouchers usable in family and church-based day care settings. At
last week's meeting with you at the White House, we were given
encouragement to believe that the Administration-Senate Leadership
child care package represented just such a program, with 75% of
appropriated funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 dedicated to a completely voucherized system of child
care benefits for families.
We have now had an opportunity to examine the language of the
Senate Report that describes this program in detail. The long and
short of it is that the grant program it describes is a break-
through not for parental choice but for a massive Federal
investment in day care infrastructure. Not one parent is assured
of seeing a single dime of Federal pass-through support for the
child care arrangement of their choice. In fact, we believe that
the structure of the new grant program created by H.R. 5835, taken
together with existing State and Federal child care authorities,
contains positive inducements that will ensure that this money
would be rarely, if ever, used for vouchers.
The report language states that the purpose of the block grant is
"to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of child
care" throughout the nation. While a state "may use 75% of block
grant funds for direct assistance to parents for child care
services and to increase the supply and to improve the quality of
child care, there is no provision specifying any percentage set-
Family Research Council
A division of Focus on the Family
700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 393-2100
FAX (202) 393-2134
Page Two
Child Care Legislation
aside for such direct assistance. The report says only that the
States "may use some portion of these funds" for an 11-point list
of activities (other unspecified activities are also permitted) to
increase the supply of child care services, including: grants and
loans to providers; grants and loans to assist providers in meeting
state and local standards; assistance for the temporary care of
sick children; assistance for comprehensive, full-site, all-day
child care demonstration projects in schools for children age 3-5;
and SQ forth. We find no language barring the use of funds for
creation of new state child care advisory bodies or regulatory
agencies or guidelines.
In brief, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990
provides no guarantee of delivery of voucherized child care
services. It does, however, create an opening for funding of any
and all of the uses of Federal funds envisioned in the original Act
for Better Child Care. Moreover, we believe that the availability
of these new funds for administrative, regulatory, and infra-
structural activities will operate in most States as an inducement
to pay for these projects with the new block grant and to provide
actual services through such mechanisms as SSBG Title XX, which are
subject to no mandates regarding the availability of vouchers or
their use in religious day care settings.
Adoption of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990
would amount to a massive wager of funds ($925 million in FY 93) in
a child care shell game in which parental choice will seldom be the
winner. This is, needless to say, completely unacceptable to us.
We are convinced that few members of Congress understood, nor per-
haps the negotiators themselves, how damaging this report language
is to the child care principles the Administration and its
supporters have repeatedly articulated. Child care grantsmanship
is per se violative of the second leg of the President's quartet of
principles: that child care programs should not, as you wrote in
May 1989, "discriminate against two parent families in which one
parent stays home to care for the children;" to this per se viola-
tion is now added a violation of the third leg which requires child
care programs to increase parental options.
This bill is clearly designed to provide a competitive advantage to
large licensed daycare centers (which now serve less than 10
percent of preschool children). The bill would discriminate not
only against mothers who care for theirown children, but also
against mothers who use family in-home daycare, who use informal
legal-but-unlicensed daycare, and who use religious daycare.
Informal, unlicensed, or religious daycare is preferred by the
majority of employed mothers, and the proposed legislation makes it
next to impossible for these types to receive funding. Driving
informal daycare providers out of business will only increase the
Page Three
Child Care Legislation
cost of licensed daycare and make millions of parents -- and chil-
dren -- unhappy.
Finally, let us mention our sore disappointment that White House
negotiators have reportedly agreed to give $10 million to the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. This money
will ultimately deliver control of teacher certification all across
America into the hands of the two largest teachers' unions, who
dominate the Board. There is little question but that the Board's
recommendations will be hostile to educational choice (including
the decision to home school), to merit pay and alternative cert-
ification concepts, and to overall parental prerogatives in the
rearing of children. The anti-parent agenda of the National
Education Association was reaffirmed this past summer in Kansas
City (see the enclosed article), and we are vehemently opposed to
Federal funding of this agenda at a time when parents are crying
out for genuine reform.
Realizing how weighty is the burden you carry as the last days of
this Congress unfold, we urge you nonetheless to act as forcefully
as you can to reassert the President's principles in child care and
education and avert total embarrassment when the public discovers
that the current provisions in the budget reconciliation bill are
even more anti-mother, anti-religious, and anti-parental choice
than the original ABC Dodd-Kildee-Hawkins bill.
Sincerely,
Gary Gary L. Bauer
President
PhinetinSchlafly Eagle Forum
Phyllis Schlafly
President
Family Research Council
RECONXI
20
1
as follows:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
23
16.43
2 or more qualifying children
25
17.86
2
(ii) TRANSITION PERCENTAGES.
3
(I) For taxable years beginning in
4
1991, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
16.7
11.93
2 or more qualifying children
17.3
12.36
5
(II) For taxable years beginning in
6
1992, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
17.6
12.57
2 or more qualifying children
18.4
13.14
7
(III) For taxable years beginning in
8
1993, the percentages are:
In the case of an eligible
The credit
The phaseout
individual with:
percentage is: percentage is:
1 qualifying child
18.5
13.21
2 or more qualifying children
19.5
13.93
9
(D) SUPPLEMENTAL YOUNG CHILD CREDIT In
the
10
case of a taxpayer with a qualifying child who has
11
not attained age 1 as of the close of the calendar
12
year in which or with which the taxable year of the
13
taxpayer ends--
RECONXI
21
1
(i) the credit percentage shall be
2
increased by 5 percentage points, and
3
``(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be
4
increased by 3.57 percentage points.
5
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT.--
qualifying individual under section 21.
6
(A) IN GENERAL, The term health insurance
7
credit means an amount determined in the same manner
this subparagraph, such child shall not be treated as a
8
as the basic earned income credit except that--
If the taxpayer elects to take a child into account under
9
``(i) the credit percentage shall be equal to
10
6 percent, and
11
``(ii) the phaseout percentage shall be equal
12
to 4.285 percent.
13
(B) LIMITATION BASED ON HEALTH INSURANCE
14
COSTS. The amount of the health insurance credit
15
determined under subparagraph (A) for any taxable
16
year shall not exceed the amounts paid by the
17
taxpayer during the taxable year for insurance
18
coverage--
19
``(i) which constitutes medical care (within
20
the meaning of section (d) (1) (C)), and
21
(ii) which includes at least 1 qualifying
22
child.
23
For purposes of this subparagraph, the rules of
24
section 213(d)(6) shall apply.
25
(C) SUBSIDIZED EXPENSES. --A taxpayer may not
Child Care
Strengthening Families
The child care provisions in the reconciliation bill
advance the first and most important principle the
President established when he proposed his child care
legislation: Parents, who are best able to make decisions
about their children's care, should have the discretion to
make these decisions.
Over $16 billion will flow directly to parents through
expanded tax credits.
-
All these dollars will flow through the Earned Income
Tax Credit (EITC), a no additional bureaucracy
approach to expanding parental choice.
-
A new "wee tot" credit will provide additional funds
for children under one year old.
-
Existing provisions that encourage use of paid care
will be scaled back through elimination of the
"double dip;" parents eligible for both the EITC and
the child and dependent care tax credit (DCTC) will
have to choose between the two.
The new block grant to states for child care for the first
time requires states to offer parents a voucher which can
be used to pay for child care provided by any provider
willing to accept the voucher -- relatives, neighbors,
churches, and day care centers.
-
States will receive $731 million in FY 1991; 25
percent must be reserved for latchkey and early
childhood programs and activity to improve quality.
-
From the non-reserved funds, states must offer
parents the opportunity to have a voucher whenever
they use funds to pay for child care services.
A second grant program, funded at $300 million per year,
would help families that would go on welfare without child
care assistance.
Both grant programs are without the extensive regulatory
requirements that characterized previous congressional
proposals.
-
There are no direct funds to the education
establishment, no regulation of family-provided child
care, no restrictions on state child care regulation.
Child Care Provisions: Budget Reconciliation Act
Parental Choice and State Flexibility
A) Tax Credits ($13.1b) -- Pro-family, parental-choice child care that
enhances working families' option to have one parent stay at home to care
for their children.
EITC expansion ($12.4b) -- low income working families with
incomes below $21,000 will receive a maximum tax credit of 23%
($1633) for one child and 25% ($1775) for two or more children.
(Credit currently is 14% for families of. all sizes.)
"Wee tot" credit ($700m) -- an additional EITC credit of 5% for low
income families with children under age 1. This new pro-family
credit will make it easier for mothers to stay at home with their
children during the first critical year of life.
B) Child Care and Development Block Grant of 1990 ($2.5b)
Block Grant -- The Department of Health and Human Services is
authorized, under a formula, to give block grants to the States.
Authorization is $750m for FY91, $825m for FY92, $925 for FY93
and such sums for FYs 94 and 95.
State Plan -- The States have discretion in spending the funds, but
before receiving initial funding, the State must submit a plan
(covering 3 yrs.) to the Secretary outlining how the funds will be
used. The State has total discretion to design its plan within the
following limits:
1) Reserve - 25% of the funds must be reserved for a) enhancing the
quality of services, b) serving latchkey. children (before and after
school care), or c) early childhood development activities. However:
- The States have discretion on how to spend these
funds, and they do not have to go directly to the SEA or
through the school systems;
2
- The States may use certificates for services delivered
within this reserve, but it is not mandatory that they
do so.
2) Certificates - For the remaining 75% of the funds, the State has
complete discretion to spend the funds on any child care activities
outlined in its plan, except that:
- Any child care services must be provided through a delivery
mechanism that includes an unrestricted certificate option
(mandatory vouchers).
No Standards
- There are no federal standards;
- States are required to review their existing State standards,
if they haven't done so in the last 3 years - but no changes are
required;
- States can lower their standards or level of regulation, and
must only inform the Secretary in their annual report.