Child Care Issues in the 107th Congress
Report for Congress
Child Care Issues
in the 107 Congress
Updated March 10, 2003
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Child Care Issues in the 107 Congress
Many bills relating to child care have been introduced since 1996, but most have
failed to be enacted into law. The notable exceptions were appropriations acts that
included increases in discretionary funding for child care and some related programs.
In 2001, the Bush Administration introduced new proposals and initiatives as part of
the FY2002 budget, and the FY2002 appropriations process addressed the issue of
funding levels for some of those proposals.
The FY2002 appropriations act for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services (HHS) and Education (Ed) (P.L. 107-116) included $2.1 billion in
discretionary funding for the CCDBG ($100 million less than President Bush’s
FY2002 budget request) and did not include the Administration’s proposed $400
million set-aside for a new after-school certificate program within the CCDBG.
In its FY2003 budget request, the Administration proposed to maintain level
funding for the CCDF, while increasing Head Start funding and eliminating the Earlyth
Learning Fund. At the close of the 107 Congress, a Labor/HHS/Ed appropriations
bill had not been passed. Instead, funding was provided temporarily (at FY2002
levels) through a series of continuing resolutions.
The CCDBG provides child care subsidies to low-income families with children
under age 13. It is the primary source of federal child care assistance for low-income
families, and is funded through both mandatory and discretionary funds, referred to
in total as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Authorization for both
funding streams was due to expire at the end of FY2002. Reauthorization bills
pertaining to welfare legislation (which includes mandatory child care funding) and
the CCDBG Act (which authorizes discretionary funding and sets program rules)
were introduced, and in the House, a consolidated bill was passed (H.R. 4737).
However, in the Senate, neither a welfare nor child care reauthorization bill made it
further than committee approval during the 107th Congress. As a result, child care
funding (and welfare funding) was extended temporarily via continuing resolutions,
leaving reauthorization legislation on the agenda for the incoming 108th Congress.
With respect to other child care-related grants or tax provisions, earlier proposed
bills and initiatives reflected attempts to approach the overarching issues of child care
availability, affordability, and quality with changes to the block grant and/or tax code.
Although most of those earlier bills and initiatives failed to reach law, several similar
bills were introduced in the 107th Congress, including an omnibus tax bill, which was
signed into law, and contained changes to the Dependent Care Tax Credit.
Child care has become an area of increased focus during reauthorization
debates, and the overall issue of early childhood development has received increased
attention, with Congressional hearings, as well as a White House Summit on Early
Childhood Cognitive Development. The Administration has built upon the summit,
with the President announcing the Administration’s new “Good Start, Grow Smart”
early childhood initiative.
Federal Child Care Programs and Tax Provisions.....................1
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)..............1
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)...............2
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)...................3
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)...........................3
21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC)............4
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs.......4
Early Childhood Educator Professional Development.............4
Loan forgiveness for child care providers.......................4
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS)............5
Early Learning Fund.......................................5
Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC)...........................5
Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP)....................5
Labor/HHS/Education FY2002 Appropriations......................7
FY2002 Treasury-General Government Appropriations (Federal Child
Related Provisions in FY2003 Administration Budget.............8
Bush Administration’s FY2003 Budget Proposals....................9
CCDBG: Level Funding....................................9
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG): Level Funding..............9
Head Start: Increase Funding, with Added Emphasis on Education..9st
21 Century Community Learning Centers: Level Funding........10
Even Start: Decrease Funding...............................10
IDEA Grants for Infants and Families: Increase Funding..........10
IDEA Preschool Grants: Level Funding.......................10
Labor/HHS/Education FY2003 Appropriations.....................11
Legislative Activity in the 107th Congress..........................12
Comprehensive Child Care Legislation........................16
Child Care Bills with Tax Provisions.........................17
Bills Relating to Quality of Care, Curricula, and Health and Safety..17
Bills Relating to Child Care Providers.........................18
Child Care (and Pre-Kindergarten) Availability and Access
Multi-Purpose Child Care Legislation.........................18
White House Summit on Early Childhood.....................20
Administration’s Early Childhood Initiative....................20
List of Tables
Table 1. Funding for Federal Child Care and Related Programs,
Table 2. FY2002 Appropriations: Administration, House, and Senate
Proposed Funding Levels Versus Final Funding Levels................8
Table 3. Bush Administration’s FY2003 Budget Request for Child Care and
Related Programs and Senate Appropriations Committee Recommended
Levels for FY2003............................................11
Child Care Issues in the 107 Congress
The 107th Congress came to a close without having passed a bill making
FY2003 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services
(HHS), and Education. Instead, funding was provided on a temporary basis (at the
rate funded in FY2002) through a series of continuing resolutions (CR) that extended
into the 108th Congress. On November 23, 2002, the final CR of the 107th Congress
(H.J.Res. 124) was signed into law (P.L. 107-294) providing appropriations through
January 11, 2003, at the rate made available under the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002.
Funding for the mandatory portion of the CCDF and for TANF (both of which
expired at the end of FY2002), was extended (at the FY2002 level) through the first
quarter of FY2003 (December 31, 2002) under the first continuing resolutionth
(H.J.Res. 111) signed into law September 30, 2002. (The incoming 108 Congress
soon after extended temporary funding through March 31, 2003.) For more
information, see “Labor/HHS/Education FY2003 Appropriations,” infra.
Federal Child Care Programs and Tax Provisions
Several federal programs support child care or related services, primarily for
low-income working families. In addition, the tax code includes provisions
specifically targeted to assist families with child care expenses. Descriptions of those
programs and tax provisions follow, as does Table 1, which shows funding (or
estimated revenue loss or obligations where applicable) for the programs and tax
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG).1 The primary
federal grant program is the CCDBG, which was created in 1990, reauthorized and
substantially expanded in 1996, as part of welfare reform. The CCDBG was due toth
be reauthorized during the second session of the 107 Congress. However, as
explained more fully in the Legislative Activity section of this report, reauthorizationth
legislation failed to be passed in the 107 Congress, and funding was extended on a
temporary basis via a series of continuing resolutions. The CCDBG is administered
by HHS, and provides block grants to states, according to a formula, which are used
to subsidize the child care expenses of families with children under age 13, if the
parents are working or in school and family income is less than 85% of the state
median. (In practice, many states establish income eligibility levels that are lower
1 For more information, see CRS Report RL30785, The Child Care and Development Block
Grant: Background and Funding.
than this federal threshold.2) Child care services are provided on a sliding fee scale
basis, and parents may choose to receive assistance through vouchers or certificates,
which can be used with a provider of the parents’ choice, including sectarian
providers and relatives.
States receiving CCDBG funds must establish child care licensing standards,
although federal law does not dictate what these standards should be or what types
of providers must be covered. In addition, states must have health and safety
requirements applicable to all providers receiving CCDBG subsidies, that address
prevention and control of infectious diseases, building and physical premises safety,
and health and safety training for caregivers. However, federal law does not dictate
the specific contents of these requirements.
The CCDBG is funded through both discretionary and capped entitlement grants
(referred to in combination as the Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF), and
state maintenance-of-effort and matching requirements apply to part of the
entitlement funds.3 States must use at least 4% of their total funds to improve the
quality and availability of child care, and according to statute, must target 70% of
entitlement funds on welfare recipients working toward self-sufficiency or families
at risk of welfare dependency. However, because all families falling below the 85%
of state median income requirement can be categorized as “at risk,” the 70% targeting
of the welfare and at-risk population does not necessarily mean welfare families must
be served. In theory, all funds may be used for low-income, non-welfare, working
families. However, state plans indicate that many states guarantee child care to
welfare families. No more than 5% of state allotments may be used for state
In FY2002, a total of $4.817 billion was appropriated for the CCDBG (see
Table 2). Entitlement funds of $2.717 billion were appropriated in advance by the
welfare reform law, and $2.1 billion in discretionary funds were appropriated by the
FY2002 appropriations bill. (Unlike prior years, there was no advance discretionary
funding for the CCDBG in FY2002, or for FY2003.)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF provides
fixed block grants ($16.5 billion annually through FY2002) for state-designed
programs of time-limited and work-conditioned aid to families with children. Child
care is one of many services for which states may use TANF funding. In FY2000,
states spent $2.3 billion of TANF funding on child care within the TANF program.
In addition, states may transfer up to 30% of their TANF allotments to the CCDBG
(CCDF), to be spent according to the rules of that program (as opposed to TANF
rules). The FY2000 transfer from TANF to the CCDBG totaled $2 billion. In
2 For more information on states’ CCDF plans, see CRS Report RL31605, Child Care: State
Programs Under the Child Care and Development Fund.
3 For more detailed information on the CCDF financing structure and spending trends, see
CRS Report RL31274 Child Care: Funding and Spending under Federal Block Grants.
FY2001, approximately $2 billion were again transferred from TANF to the CCDF.
This represented about 8% of the annual TANF allotment.4
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). The CACFP provides
federal funds (in some cases commodities) for meals and snacks served in licensed
child care centers, family and group day care homes, and Head Start centers. Child
care providers that are exempt from state licensing requirements must comply with
alternative state or federal standards. Children under 12, migrant children under 15,
and children with disabilities of any age may participate, although most are
preschoolers. Eligible providers are usually public and private nonprofit
organizations. The CACFP is an open-ended entitlement, administered by the
Department of Agriculture. In FY2002, obligations were most recently estimated to5
be $1.9 billion.
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Title XX of the Social Security Act
authorizes Social Services Block Grants, which may be used for social services at the
states’ discretion. There are no federal income eligibility requirements, targeting
provisions, service mandates, or matching requirements. An HHS analysis of state
expenditures in FY2000 indicates that 6% of total SSBG expenditures made in
FY2000 ($165 million) were for child care in that year (compared to 13%, or $395
million) in FY1999 and just under 10% –$279 million– in FY1998). Title XX is a
capped entitlement, and state allocations are based on relative population size.
Legislation enacted in 1998 (P.L. 105-178) reduced the entitlement ceiling for the
SSBG from $2.38 billion to $1.7 billion in FY2001. However, Congress
appropriated $1.725 billion for FY2001, despite the ceiling. On March 8, 2001, two
companion bills (H.R. 956 - Representative Nancy Johnson and S. 501 - Senator
Graham) were introduced, which would have restored the FY2002 authorized
funding level to its earlier level of $2.38 billion, however these bills received no
action, and the FY2002 appropriations bill (H.R. 3061), signed into law (P.L. 107-
Representative Nancy Johnson introduced H.R. 1470, which would have permanently
set the authorized funding level at $2.38 billion; it received no action. On June 19,
2002, the Senate Finance Committee approved the Charity Aid Recovery and
Empowerment Act (a substitute for H.R. 7), which would have increased funding for
the SSBG by a total of $1.3 billion above the FY2002 level over FY2003-FY2004.
Head Start. Head Start provides comprehensive early childhood education
and development services to low-income preschool children, typically (but not
always) on a part-time basis. Head Start funds are provided directly by HHS to local
grantees, which must comply with detailed federal performance standards. In
FY2002, $6.538 billion was appropriated for Head Start, of which $5.138 billion was
available in FY2002 and $1.4 billion became available in FY2003. The advance
funding component of the appropriation was new for the Head Start program, starting
4 For more information on use of TANF funding for child care, see CRS Report RL31274,
Child Care: Funding and Spending under Federal Block Grants.
5 See CRS Report 98-25, Child Nutrition Programs: Background and Funding.
6 See CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of the Social Security Act).
in FY2000.7 The Administration estimated that in 2002, Head Start would serve
916,000 children. Of that total, approximately 55,000 children under age 3 were
expected to participate in the Early Head Start component of the program.
21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC). The
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended in 1994, authorizedst
grants to rural and inner-city public elementary or secondary schools for 21 Century
Community Learning Center programs. These competitive grants funded programs
which provide support for early childhood through after-school, weekend, and
summer activities. Although authorization for the 21st CCLC programs expired at the
end of FY2000, the program was funded at $846 million in FY2001.
On January 8, 2002, the President signed into law the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 1). That legislation reauthorized the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers program at $1.25 billion for FY2002, rising
in stages to $2.5 billion by FY2007. (The FY2002 appropriation did not reach the
authorized level, but did increase funding to $1 billion.) The reauthorized program,
in contrast to its predecessor, is structured as a formula grant to states. Grants will
be awarded to states in proportion to their share of Title I Part A grants for the
preceding fiscal year. Eligible local entities (including LEAs, community-based
organizations, and other public or private entities) will be awarded grants
competitively. The authorized uses of funds under the program will be limited to
after school-hours activities for students and their families, in contrast to the broader
array of authorized uses of funds permitted under the original 21st CCLC program.
Even Start. The Department of Education administers the Even Start program,
which provides grants for family literacy projects that include early childhood
education for children through age 7. Appropriations for FY2002 were $250 million.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs. The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes an early intervention
program for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (funded in
FY2002 at $417 million), and preschool grants for children with disabilities (funded
in FY2002 at $390 million).
Early Childhood Educator Professional Development. The
Department of Education provides competitive grants to partnerships to improve the
knowledge and skills of early childhood educators who work in communities that
have high concentrations of children living in poverty. In FY2002, $15 million were
appropriated for these grants.
Loan forgiveness for child care providers. Authorized under the Higher
Education Act amendments of 1998, the loan forgiveness for child care providers
program aims to retain and encourage more highly trained individuals to enter into
the early child care profession. “Early child care” covers activities and services
provided for the education and care of children from birth through age 5. Under this
program, borrowers who have earned a degree in early childhood education, and
7 For more information, see CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Funding.
work for 2 full years as a child care provider in a low-income community, may have
a portion of their loan obligation forgiven. FY2001 marked the first year that this
program was funded, at $1 million – the same amount appropriated for FY2002.
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS). Authorized
under the Higher Education Act amendments of 1998, and first funded for FY1999
at $5 million, the CAMPIS program is designed to support the participation of low-
income parents in post-secondary education through campus-based child care
services. Discretionary grants of up to 4 years in duration are awarded competitively
to institutions of higher education, to either supplement existing child care services,
or to start a new program. Funding for FY2002 was $25 million.
Early Learning Fund. This program, authorized by the FY2001
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554) provides grants to communities to
enhance school readiness for children under 5; specifically by funding efforts to
improve the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development of these children.
Although authorized at $600 million, FY2002 funding for the program was set at $25
million, and the President’s FY2003 budget proposed to eliminate the program.
Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC). The DCTC is a non-refundable tax
credit for employment-related expenses incurred for the care of a dependent child
under 13 or a disabled dependent or spouse, under Section 21 of the tax code. On
June 7, 2001 the omnibus tax bill was signed into law (P.L. 107-16), making some
changes to the DCTC, which become effective starting in 2003. However, until
2003, the maximum credit is 30% of expenses up to $2,400 for one child (for a credit
of $720), and up to $4,800 for two or more children (for a credit of $1,440). The
credit rate is gradually reduced as income goes up for taxpayers with incomes above
$10,000, until the credit rate reaches 20% for taxpayers with incomes above $28,000.
The current estimated revenue loss for FY2002 is $2.5 billion, as determined by the
Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
Changes to DCTC in 2003. Beginning in tax year 2003, the Economic
Growth and Economic and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-16) will
increase the maximum credit rate to 35% of expenses up to $3,000 for one child (for
a credit of $1,050), and up to $6,000 for two or more children (for a credit of $2,100).
The 35% rate will apply to taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $15,000 or less.
The rate will decrease by 1% for each additional $2,000 increment (or portion
thereof) until the rate reaches 20% for taxpayers with incomes over $43,000.
Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP). Under Section 129 of the
tax code, payments made by a taxpayer’s employer for dependent care assistance may
be excluded from the employee’s income and, therefore, not be subject to federal
income tax or employment taxes. The maximum exclusion is $5,000. Section 125
of the tax code allows employers to include dependent care assistance, along with
other fringe benefits, in nontaxable flexible benefit or “cafeteria” plans. The
estimated revenue loss associated with this income exclusion was $600 million in
Table 1. Funding for Federal Child Care and Related Programs,
($ in millions)
Program 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
CCDBG (discretionary portion)a$1,002$1,000$1,183$2,000$2,100
CCDBG (entitlement portion)2,0672,1672,3672,5672,717
Child and Adult Care Food1,562c1,599c1,690c1,766c1,878c
Social Services Block Grantsd2,299d1,909d1,775d1,725d1,700d
21st Century Community Learning402004548461,000
Ce nte r s
IDEA Infants and Families350370375384417
IDEA Preschool Grants374374390390390
Early Learning Fund (Early
Learning Opportunities Act)---2025
Early Childhood Educator
Loan forgiveness for child care
provid ers - - - 1 1
Child care Access Means Parents in
Dependent Care Tax Credith2,455h2,200h2,500h2,500h
h h h h h
Dependent Care Assistance400400500600
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a The CCDBG discretionary amounts shown in each column reflect the appropriated funding to be
made available for that given year, taking the advance funding into account.b
TANF funds ($16.5 billion annually) may be used for child care, but are not specifically appropriated
as such. HHS data indicate that in FY1999, $600 million of federal TANF dollars were spent
for child care. In FY2000, this increased to $1.4 billion, and in FY2001, $1.6 billion. These
numbers reflect federal TANF dollars, not state spending associated with the TANF program.c
Estimated obligations, Department of Agriculture.d
Total SSBG amount shown. In FY2000 (the most recent data available), almost 6% of SSBG
expenditures, or $165 million, were for care.e
Of the $5.267 billion, $3.867 billion was available for FY2000, and $1.4 billion for FY2001.f
Of the $6.2 billion, $4.8 billion was available for FY2001, and $1.4 billion for FY2002.g
Of the $6.538 billion, $5.138 billion was available for FY2002, and $1.4 billion became available
Estimated revenue loss, Joint Committee on Taxation. Comparable estimate for FY1998 not
Labor/HHS/Education FY2002 Appropriations
On January 10, 2002, H.R. 3061(Committee Report H.Rept. 107-342), the bill
approved by Congress, making FY2002 appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education was signed into law (P.L. 107-
116). The law included $2.1 billion for the Child Care and Development Block
Grant (CCDBG). This reflected a $100 million decrease from the level of funding
provided for the CCDBG in FY2001. (The FY2002 bill also did not include the
Administration’s proposed $400 million set-aside for a new after-school certificate
program within the CCDBG.) The $2.1 billion did include the following set-asides:
$19 million for school-age care and resource and referral; $1 million for the Child
Care Aware toll-free hotline; $100 million for infant and toddler care; $173 million
for quality initiatives; and $10 million for research.
The bill provided $1.7 billion for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG),
which states could choose to use for child care, and also maintained states’ authority
to transfer up to 10% of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
allotments to the SSBG. Also included in H.R. 3061 were $6.538 billion for Head
Start, of which $1.4 billion would not become available until FY2003. The 21st
Century Community Learning Centers (reauthorized by legislation (H.R. 1) signed
into law on January 8, 2002) received an FY2002 appropriation of $1 billion.
The FY2002 bill maintained the same level of funding (as in FY2001) for the
following programs: Even Start ($250 million), IDEA preschool grants ($390
million), loan forgiveness for child care providers ($1 million), Child Care Access
Means Parents in School ($25 million).
Other child care-related programs whose funding increased in FY2002 include:
IDEA grants for Infants and Families ($417 million), the Early Learning
Opportunities Act, sometimes referred to as “Early Learning Fund” ($25 million),
and the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development program ($15 million).
(For background on the funding levels proposed in the House and Senate
versions that preceded the appropriations bill ultimately signed into law, see Table
Table 2. FY2002 Appropriations: Administration, House, and
Senate Proposed Funding Levels Versus Final Funding Levels
($ in millions)
House Sena t e
President’s pa sse d pa sse d
Program request version v ersio n F ina l
CCDB G $2,200 $2,200 $2,000 $2,100
Head Start (total)6,3256,4766,6006,538
SSB G 1 ,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
IDEA grants - preschool390390390390
IDEA grants - infants and families384430384417
Loan forgiveness for child care1111
Child Care Access Means Parents in
School (CAMPIS) 25252525
Early Learning Opportunities Act002525
Early Childhood Educatornotnot
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
FY2002 Treasury-General Government Appropriations
(Federal Child Care Provisions)
On November 12, 2001 the President signed the FY2002 appropriations bill for
the Department of Treasury, the Postal Service, and General Government into law
(H.R. 2590/P.L. 107-67). On October 31, 2001 and November 1, 2001, the House
and Senate had respectively agreed to the conference report on H.R. 2590 (H.Rept.
107-293). Included in the law are provisions to maintain the federal pilot project for
federal day care centers, the purpose of which is to improve the affordability of child
care for lower income personnel in Executive agencies.
Related Provisions in FY2003 Administration Budget. In its FY2003
budget proposal (described in detail below), the Bush administration proposed
elimination of the provisions found at Section 630 of P.L. 107-67. The provisions
authorize use of appropriated funds (salaries and expenses accounts) to provide child
care in a federally owned or leased facility, either directly or through contract, for
civilian employees of the agency. The funds used are to be applied so as to improve
affordability of the service for lower income personnel. The Committees on
Appropriations are to be notified before implementation. P.L. 107-67 also added
language authorizing payment to licensed or regulated child care providers “in
advance of services rendered, covering agreed upon periods, as appropriate.”
Unlike the Bush Administration, the House and Senate appropriations bills for
FY2003 (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740) did not propose to repeal the aforementioned
provisions found in Section 630 of P.L. 107-67. A final appropriations bill for the
Department of Treasury, the Postal Service, and General Government was not passed
into law during the 107th Congress.
Bush Administration’s FY2003 Budget Proposals
President Bush released his Administration’s proposed budget for FY2003 on
February 4, 2002. The following is a summary of child care-related funding and
initiatives proposed in the budget documents. Table 3 shows the proposed FY2003
funding levels, and how the proposed funding amounts compare to the levels
appropriated for FY2002.
CCDBG: Level Funding. The President’s FY2003 budget proposed to
maintain the discretionary funding level for the CCDBG at $2.1 billion and the
mandatory (or “entitlement”) funding amount at $2.717 billion, for a total of $4.817
billion. Also included in the budget request were proposals to maintain the set-asides
of $19 million for child care resource and referral and school-aged child care
activities ($1 million for the Child Care Aware toll free hotline); $273 million for
quality activities (of which $100 million would be specifically for improving the
quality of infant and toddler care); and $10 million for use by the Secretary of HHS
for child care research, demonstration, and evaluation activities.
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG): Level Funding. The
Administration’s FY2003 budget proposed to continue funding the SSBG at its
authorized level of $1.7 billion. The ability of states to transfer up to 10% of their
TANF state allotments was not addressed. The FY2002 appropriations law (P.L.
107-116) maintained the 10% transfer, superceding earlier legislation which would
have decreased the transfer limit to 4.25%.8
Head Start: Increase Funding, with Added Emphasis on Education.
The Bush Administration proposed to continue the trend of increasing funding to the
Head Start Program, along with plans to make education the program’s top priority.
The budget requested $6.667 billion for Head Start, a $130 million increase above
the FY2002 appropriation. Of the total amount proposed, $1.4 billion would be
advance appropriated for FY2004.
The President maintained plans to reform Head Start by making education the
program’s primary focus. In the FY2002 budget, the Administration proposed to
require Head Start to adopt a “proven core curriculum that makes school readiness
–pre-reading and numeracy– its top priority.” In the FY2003 budget documents, the
Administration highlighted an HHS-Department of Education (ED) task force which
formed in order to assess ways to improve Head Start and lay the ground work for the
proposed transfer of the program to ED. The transfer is intended to reinforce the
program’s emphasis on school readiness, and is planned as part of the program’s
8 For more information on the SSBG, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant
(Title XX of the Social Security Act).
reauthorization. The budget also proposed to maintain funding ($75 million) for the
Early Reading First program within ED for research-based reading programs in
existing pre-school programs, including Head Start Programs.
21st Century Community Learning Centers: Level Funding. The
budget proposed to maintain funding for 21st Century Learning Centers at the
FY2002 level of $1 billion. The 21CCLC program provides formula grants to states,
which in turn award subgrants to communities. Funds are used to provide academic
enrichment opportunities and related services to students (many of whom attend
high-poverty schools) during non-school hours (including weekends and summers).9
Even Start: Decrease Funding. The Administration requested $200
million for the Even Start program– a $50 million decrease from the FY2002
appropriation level. The budget justifications for the Department of Education
indicate that the decrease in Even Start reflects the Administration’s proposal to shift
funds to increase Reading First State Grants (to $1 billion). (Note: the budget
requested level funding for the Early Reading First program, at $75 million.)
IDEA Grants for Infants and Families: Increase Funding. The
Administration’s FY2003 budget requested $437 million for IDEA infants and
families grants. This reflected an increase of $20 million above the amount
appropriated in FY2002: $417 million. The Administration stated that the goal of
the IDEA grant program for infants and families (referred to in earlier years as infants
and toddlers) is to provide a comprehensive system of early intervention services that
will enhance family and child outcomes.
IDEA Preschool Grants: Level Funding. The FY2003 budget requested
$390 million for IDEA preschool grants, which is the same amount as was
appropriated for the program in FY2002.
Table 3 shows proposed funding for the aforementioned programs, as well as
smaller child care-related programs. The table shows the President’s request for
FY2003, a comparison to FY2002 actual funding, and in the last column, the
amounts recommended by the Senate Appropriations committee (as included in S.
9 For more information, see CRS Report RL30306, 21st Century Community Learning
Centers: An Overview of the Program and Analysis of Reauthorization Issues.
Table 3. Bush Administration’s FY2003 Budget Request for
Child Care and Related Programs and Senate Appropriations
Committee Recommended Levels for FY2003
Sena t e
Difference Appro pria t io ns
FY2003 President’s recomme nded
Program($ in millions) appropriation($ in millions)
CCDBG discretionary $2,100 same level$2,100
CCDBG mandatory$2,717same levelN/A
SSBG (Title XX)$1,700same level$1,700
Head Start$6,667+ $130 million$6,870
21st Century Learning Centers$1,000same level$1,090
Even Start$200- $50 million$250
IDEA Infants and Families$437+ $20 million$437
IDEA Preschool Grants$390same level$390
Early Learning Fund0- $25 million$38
Early Reading First$75 same level$75
Early Childhood Educator
Professional Development $15same level$15
Childcare Access Means Parents in
School (CAMPIS)$15- $10 million$15
Loan forgiveness for child care
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on the President’s FY2003 Budget Request and legislative bill
and report language for S. 2766.
Labor/HHS/Education FY2003 Appropriations
At the close of the 107th Congress, a bill making FY2003 appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education had yet to pass. Instead, funding was
provided on a temporary basis (at the rate funded in FY2002) through a series of
continuing resolutions (CR) that extended into the 108th Congress. On November 23,th
107-294) providing appropriations through January 11, 2003, at the rate made
available under the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002. Funding for the
mandatory portion of the CCDF and for TANF (both of which expired at the end of
FY2002), was extended (at the FY2002 level) through the first quarter of FY2003
(December 31, 2002) under the first continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 111) signed into
law September 30, 2002. (The incoming 108th Congress soon after extended
temporary funding through March 31, 2003.)
Prior activity with respect to FY2003 Labor/HHS/Ed appropriations included
the Senate Appropriations Committee approving (on July 22, 2002) its version of a
bill which would have made FY2003 appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education (S. 2766/ S.Rept. 107-216). As shown
in Table 3 above, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s recommended funding
levels for child care-related programs either met or exceeded the levels requested by
the Administration in the President’s FY2003 budget request. The programs for
which the committee recommended a funding increase are Head Start, 21st Century
Community Learning Centers, Even Start, and the Early Learning Fund.
On September 4, 2002, Representative Young introduced H.R. 5320, a bill that
would have made FY2003 appropriations for the Departments of Health and Human
Services, Education, and Labor (Labor/HHS/Educ). The bill was introduced in the
House without committee action, and requested the same funding levels as proposed
by the President in his FY2003 budget.
Legislative Activity in the 107th Congress
There are many examples of legislation covering a range of early child care and
education issues that were introduced the 107th Congress. Several bills aimed to
address issues of child care affordability with modifications to the tax code (i.e., the
DCTC and DCAP), and as mentioned earlier in this report, some changes were
already passed as part of the omnibus tax bill (P.L. 107-16). Other proposals aimed
to improve child care quality, either by enhancing resources available to child care
programs, or by promoting better compliance with health and safety standards.
Issues relating to availability of and access to care were addressed through proposed
legislation providing for construction of child care facilities, and greater access to
child care services for federal employees. In addition, as in previous Congresses,
omnibus child care bills addressing multiple child care issues (among other areas)
were once again introduced. Finally, bills addressing child care came in the context
of reauthorizing major welfare (TANF) and child care programs (CCDBG).
Reauthorization Legislation. Several bills were introduced in the latter partth
of the 107 Congress that pertained specifically to TANF and CCDBG
reauthorization, however none were passed into law. (Both of these block grants
play a major role in providing child care to low-income families.) Also, the
Administration in February 2002 released a welfare reform reauthorization document,
Working Toward Independence, which proposed level funding for child care (both
the discretionary and mandatory portions) for FY2003. Reauthorization bills that
were introduced are listed below.
H.R. 4737, by Representative Pryce (introduced May 9, 2002 as H.R.
4700, passed the House May 16, 2002 as H.R. 4737). The Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002 encompassed many of the
provisions proposed in H.R. 4090 and H.R. 4092 (the welfare and child care
reauthorization bills reported out of the Ways and Means and Education and
Workforce Committees respectively – see below). However, it differed with respect
to proposed child care funding. Like H.R. 4700, which was the “merged” bill as
originally introduced by Rep. Pryce, H.R. 4737 would have increased child care
funding and authorization levels above those included in H.R. 4090 and H.R. 4092.
Under H.R. 4737, mandatory child care funding would have been set at $2.917
billion in each of FY2003-FY2007 (for an increase of $1 billion over 5 years above
current funding). The authorization level for discretionary funding would have
increased by $200 million annually for 5 years, reaching the level of $3.1 billion in
Like H.R. 4092, H.R. 4737 would have increased the quality set-aside from 4%
to 6%, and would have amended state child care plan requirements to encourage
states to improve the quality of child care available to families, and to promote
school readiness by encouraging the exposure of children in care to nurturing
environments and developmentally-appropriate activities. Likewise, the bill would
have allowed states to establish CCDBG income eligibility limits at any level
(prioritized by need), eliminating current law’s federal limit of 85% of state median
income. The only additional child care provision not included in H.R. 4092 would
have required that aggregated statistics on child care supply, demand and quality be
included in biennial reports to Congress.
Senate Finance Committee version of H.R. 4737 (approved by
Senate Finance Committee June 26, 2002). The Work, Opportunity, and
Responsibility for Kids (WORK) Act was the committee’s substitute for House-
passed H.R. 4737. This welfare reform reauthorization measure contained provisions
that would have provided mandatory child care funding for the Child Care and
Development Block Grant at $3.717 billion in each of FY2003-FY2005; and $3.967
billion in each of FY2006 and FY2007 ($1 billion and $1.25 billion above the
FY2002 funding level, respectively, for a $5.5 billion total increase over 5 years).
The increases up to the $3.717 billion level in each of the five fiscal years would
have been applied to the “guaranteed” portion of mandatory funding (requiring no
match and allocated to states according to the same proportion of guaranteed funds
received in FY2002). The increase beyond that (i.e. the additional $250 million in
each of FY2006 and FY2007) would have required a state match and would have
been allocated based on states’ relative share of children under age 13. All increases
above the FY2002 mandatory funding level could not have supplanted state funding
for child care. Of the new funding that would have required no match, $10 million
would have been reserved for Puerto Rico in each of FY2003-2007. (Under current
law, Puerto Rico is not entitled to any of the mandatory CCDBG funding.)
In addition, states would have been required to certify in their state TANF plans
that procedures are in effect to ensure that any child care provider delivering child
care services funded by TANF complies with the health and safety requirements
applicable to the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
Also included in the Chairman’s Mark, as amended and passed (13-8), was a
provision that would have permanently restored states’ authority to transfer up to 10
percent of their annual TANF allotments to the Social Services Block Grant.
Furthermore, funding for FY2005 would have been authorized at a level of $1.952
billion. A week earlier, on June 19, the Senate Finance Committee approved the
Charity Aid Recovery and Empowerment Act (a substitute for H.R. 7), which would
have authorized SSBG funding increases for FY2003 and FY2004.
H.R. 4092, by Representative McKeon (introduced April 10, 2002;
reported from Education and Workforce Committee May 2, 2002). The
Working Toward Independence Act of 2002 (not to be confused with the
Administration’s welfare reform document “Working Toward Independence”) as
originally introduced proposed to authorize the discretionary portion of CCDF
funding at the current level of $2.1 billion annually for FY2003-FY2007. However,
in the Education and Workforce full committee mark-up, an amendment offered by
Representative Castle was accepted (25-21), which would have increased the
authorization level to $2.3 billion in FY2003, and such sums as may be necessary for
FY2004-FY2007. It also would have increased the quality set-aside from 4% to 6%.
The bill also would have amended state child care plan requirements to encourage
states to improve the quality of child care available to families, and to promote
school readiness by encouraging the exposure of children in care to nurturing
environments and developmentally-appropriate activities. In addition, the bill would
have allowed states to establish CCDBG income eligibility limits at any level
(prioritized by need), eliminating current law’s federal limit of 85% of state median
H.R. 4090, by Representative Herger (introduced April 9, 2002;
reported from Ways and Means Committee May 2, 2002). The Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002, a welfare reauthorization
bill reported out of the Ways and Means Committee, included level funding for the
mandatory portion of CCDF funding ($2.7 billion) through FY2007. The bill would
have increased the percentage of the TANF block grant that states may transfer to the
CCDF from 30% to 50% (or from 20% to 40% if a state transfers its maximum of
10% to the Social Services Block Grant). During the mark-up, Representative Stark
offered an amendment to increase mandatory funding for the CCDF by $11.25 billion
over 5 years, which did not pass. Chairman Thomas indicated plans to recommend
an additional $2 billion (above the current funding level) for the CCDF when the bill
reached the House floor, however additional funding was later proposed in H.R. 4700
(see above), the reauthorization bill introduced on May 9, 2002, which “merged”
many of the provisions from H.R. 4090 and H.R. 4092.
S. 2758 Substitute Version (Passed by Senate HELP Committee
September 4, 2002). The HELP Committee approved a substitute version of S.
2758 (the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act, also known
as the Access to High Quality Child Care Act — originally introduced by Senator
Dodd on July 18, 2002, see below). Funding authorized by the substitute mirrored
that included in the original version of the bill ($3.1 billion in discretionary funds for
FY2003, and such sums as necessary for FY2004-FY2007).
However, unlike the original version of S. 2758, the substitute would have
required that a state’s reservation of funds for quality be increased from a minimum
of 4% to a minimum of 10% only if the increase can be made without reducing the
number of families receiving child care subsidies. As with the original bill, the
required increase to a minimum of 10% only would have been implemented if
mandatory child care funding were to exceed 115% of the FY2002 level. Likewise,
5% of all CCDF funds would have been reserved and used for improving child care
reimbursement rates, but only if the mandatory child care funding level were to
exceed 105% of the FY2002 level.
Like the original S. 2758, the substitute would have allowed states to use
CCDBG funds to operate an at-home infant care program. The substitute also
maintained the original bill’s legislative language authorizing the Federal Employees
Child Care Act and the Early Care and Education Act, as well as the Book Stamp Act
(although the substitute would not have provided for the establishment of a special
postage stamp for child literacy).
S. 2758, by Senator Dodd (introduced July 18, 2002). The Access to
High Quality Child Care Act, S. 2758, would have amended and reauthorized the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, adding provisions that focus on
improving child care quality and data collection, and increasing overall funding. The
bill also would have authorized initiatives to improve the quality of child care in
federal facilities specifically, in addition to authorizing the Early Care and Education
Act (originally introduced by Senator Kennedy as S. 566), which would have
provided incentive grants to states for developing or enhancing systems of early child
care and education. Sometimes referred to as the ACCESS Act of 2002, S. 2758
would have authorized discretionary CCDBG funding at a level of $3.1 billion for
FY2003, and such sums as necessary for FY2004-FY2007. Under this bill, not less
than 4% of CCDF funds would have been reserved and used for quality activities
(rising to not less than 10% if mandatory child care funding were to exceed 115% of
the FY2002 level). Moreover, 5% of all CCDF funds would have been reserved and
used for improving child care reimbursement rates, but only if the mandatory child
care funding level were to exceed 105% of the FY2002 level. The bill would also
have allowed states to use CCDBG funds to operate an at-home infant care program.
S. 2524, by Senator Bayh (introduced May 15, 2002). The Work and
Family Act of 2002 was a welfare reauthorization bill that would have increased
mandatory child care funding by $8 billion over 5 years, according to the following
increments: $3.717 billion for FY2003, $4.117 billion for FY2004, $4.417 billion
for FY2005, $4.617 billion for FY2006, and $4.717 billion for FY2007. The bill
would also have increased the entitlement ceiling for the Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG), starting at $1.9 billion in FY2003, and rising to $2.8 billion in FY2007. In
addition, the bill would have maintained states’ authority to transfer up to 10% of
their annual TANF allotments to the SSBG.
S. 2117, by Senator Dodd (introduced April 11, 2002). The Access to
High Quality Child Care Act (or “The 2002 ACCESS Act”) aimed to bolster the
child development aspect of the CCDF program with new set-asides for promoting
quality and school readiness. It also would have modified aspects of TANF law to
ensure child care provided with TANF funds meets the same standards as CCDF-
funded care. The bill did not designate a dollar figure for the mandatory funding
portion of the CCDF, and would have authorized the discretionary component of the
CCDF at such sums as necessary for FY2003-FY2007. The quality set-aside, 4%
under current law, would have been increased to 5%, and additional set-asides aimed
at improving the quality of the child care provider workforce and increasing the rates
at which providers are reimbursed would have been contingent on (or triggered by)
additional mandatory funding. Among other things, under this bill states would have
had to certify that they require up to two unannounced visits a year to providers
receiving CCDF funds. Research, data collection, and technical assistance would
also have extended beyond that required under current law.
S. 2070, by Senator Bingaman (introduced March 22, 2002). The
Children First Act of 2002 would have increased mandatory funding for the CCDF
to $3.967 billion in FY2003 (rising to $5.967 billion in FY2007) and raised the
CCDF set-aside for quality from 4% to 12%. In addition, under S. 2070, states would
have been allowed to use Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds
from prior years to provide child care, and TANF-funded child care would have been
required to meet the same health and safety requirements and data reporting rules as
those applicable to CCDF-funded child care.
S. 2052, by Senator Rockefeller (introduced March 21, 2002). The
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of
2002 would have increased the mandatory portion of the CCDF from the FY2002
level of $2.7 billion to $3.7 billion for each of FY2003-FY2007.
H.R. 3625, by Representative Cardin (introduced January 24, 2002).
The Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act would have increased the mandatory
portion of CCDF funding by $11.25 billion over 5 years (FY2003-2007). Mandatory
funding appropriated for FY2003 would have been $3.967 billion. The bill would
have also raised the CCDF quality set-aside from 4% to 12%.
H.R. 3524, by Representative George Miller (introduced December
19, 2001). The Child Development and Family Employment Act of 2002 would
have amended and reauthorized the CCDBG Act. Provisions contained in the bill
included (but were not limited to): increasing the authorized CCDF mandatory
funding levels ($4.217 billion in FY2003, rising to $8.617 billion in FY2007) and
discretionary funding levels ($4 billion in FY2003, rising to $8 billion in FY2007);
increasing the set-aside for quality activities from 4% to 16%; expanding
requirements with regard to pre-service training for CCDBG providers; authorizing
a new program to provide funding for states to recruit and retain staff in child care;
establishing a national data system to develop statistics on the supply, demand, and
quality of child care; and creating a new grant program for states that increase their
reimbursement rates for CCDBG child care providers.
Comprehensive Child Care Legislation. The largest and most
comprehensive of child care bills introduced during the 107th Congress was the
Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001 (S. 940 and H.R. 1990), introduced by Senator
Dodd and Representative George Miller, with the support of the Children’s Defense
Fund, among other children’s advocacy groups. The Leave No Child Behind Act
(1,168 pages) featured child care-related proposals to increase funding for the
CCDBG and Head Start; to allocate 5% of total CCDBG funds in FY2003 to
improve and expand infant child care; to expand the set-aside for Early Head Start;
to require states to pay child care providers at least 100th percentile of the market rate
for care; to create a program to improve wages and skills of child care staff; to
increase the CCDBG quality set-aside from 4% to 12%; and to require all providers
receiving CCDBG, or who work in programs receiving CCDBG funding to have
training in early childhood development. Readers should not confuse S. 940/H.R.
1990 with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1), also introduced by this
Congress. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1), introduced by
Representative Boehner, and signed into law (P.L. 107-110) on January 10, 2002,
focused on amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; but also
included child care-related provisions including reauthorization language for the 21st
Another broad-reaching bill, which aimed to foster a more unified system of
early care and education was S. 2566 (Kennedy), the Early Care and Education Act.
This bill would have authorized $1 billion for FY2003 (and such sums as necessary
for FY2004-FY2007) to be used to provide incentive grants to states for developing
or enhancing systems of early child care and education. In addition, it would have
provided bonus grants (starting in the third fiscal year) to reward states that have
shown measurable progress in areas including competency of early childhood
providers, retention of providers, and school readiness of children.
Following are other child care and child care-related bills that were introduced
in the 107th Congress:
Child Care Bills with Tax Provisions. H.R. 206 (Sweeney) would have
increased the DCTC. H.R. 252 (Gilman) would have established a DCAP program
for federal employees. H.R. 253 (Gilman) would have amended the tax code,
establishing an employer tax credit for child care expenses. S. 9 (Daschle) was a
large tax bill which included proposals to increase and make refundable the DCTC,
provide a minimum credit for stay-at-home parents, and create an employer-provided
child care credit. S. 99 (Kohl) would have also provided a tax credit to employers
who provide child care assistance for dependents of their employees. S. 384 (Snowe)
would have amended the tax code to make the DCTC refundable.
Bills Relating to Quality of Care, Curricula, and Health and Safety.
H.R. 116 (Holt) would have established a program to promote child literacy by
making books available through early learning and other child care programs. H.R.
251 (Gilman) aimed to promote child care quality and safety in federal child care
facilities. H.R. 367 (Nadler) proposed to promote the health and safety of children
by requiring the posting of Consumer Product Safety Commission child care center
safety standards in child care centers. H.R. 2034 (Roybal-Allard) would have
authorized the Department of Housing and Urban Development to make grants to
evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards at licensed child daycare facilities. S.
1000 (Reed) and H.R. 2097 (Bishop) were companion bills that would have provided
incentive grants to states to improve the quality of child care through increased
payment rates to providers. H.R. 2787 (Meek) would have amended the CCDBG
Act, requiring states to use 5% of their CCDBG funding to increase the availability
and quality of care for children with disabilities. H.R. 4164 (H. Wilson) would have
increased the CCDF quality set-aside from 4% to 8%, and would have required that
at least 50% of the quality set-aside funds be used to pay costs incurred by eligible
child care providers to obtain accreditation. S. 2671 (Edwards) would have amended
the CCDBG Act to provide for child care quality improvements for children with
disabilities or other special needs.
Bills Relating to Child Care Providers. S. 814 (Dodd) and H.R. 1650
(George Miller) were companion bills that proposed to establish a child care provider
retention and development grant program, and a child care provider scholarship
program. The bill was referred to as the Focus on Committed and Underpaid Staff
for Children’s Sake (FOCUS) Act. Also proposing to establish a child care provider
scholarship program was H.R. 1390 (DeFazio). H.R. 1743 (Blagojevich)/S. 123
(Feinstein) would have amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend to Head
Start teachers loan forgiveness for certain types of student loans. H.R. 4539 (H.
Wilson) would have amended the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG) Act to require that states reimburse child care providers at the state’s
average market rate, as determined by annual market rate surveys.
Child Care (and Pre-Kindergarten) Availability and Access
Legislation. H.R. 286 (McCarthy) would have provided for the construction and
renovation of child care facilities. H.R. 555 (Morella) proposed to provide greater
access to child care services for federal employees. S. 371 (Reed) would have
established and expanded “child opportunity zone” family centers in public
elementary schools and secondary schools. H.R. 1476 (Kind) would have established
or expanded pre-kindergarten early learning programs. H.R. 3912 (Kucinich) and
H.R. 1649 (Andrews) would have both provided grants to states to establish, expand,
or enhance pre-kindergarten programs for children ages 3-5. The FY2002 Treasury,
Postal Service and General Government Appropriations bill (H.R. 2590/ P.L. 107-
67), contained provisions to maintain the federal pilot project for federal day care
centers, the purpose of which is to improve the affordability of child care for lower
income personnel in Executive agencies. S. 1286 (Carnahan) would have provided
a permanent authorization for that federal program. S. 1217 (Dodd), the Child Care
Facilities Financing Act, would have authorized $50 million annually for FY2002-
FY2006 to assist non-profits in providing financial and technical help buying,
building and improving child care facilities. S. 1004 (Jeffords), the Child Care
Construction and Renovation Act, would have allowed CCDBG funds to go for
center construction, created a $30 million fund for mortgage insurance for
rehabilitated or new child care facilities, and would have authorized $10 million
annually in FY2002-FY2006 for technical assistance grants and grants to providers
to improve and expand child care centers and homes.
Multi-Purpose Child Care Legislation. Companion bills H.R. 265 and S.
18 (DeLauro and Daschle) proposed to address multiple child care issues. The bills
would have increased authorized funding for the CCDBG and Head Start; increased
and modified the DCTC, allowing a minimum credit for stay-at-home parents and
advance payment of the credit; and allowed a business credit for employer-provided
child care. H.R. 1201 (Schiff) would have allowed an unspecified amount of Head
Start money for reading-readiness grants within the program. The bill would have
also authorized specified amounts ($9.2 billion in FY2002 and over $11 billion in
FY2003) for Head Start, and would have increased eligibility to 150% of poverty
guidelines for grantees who have attempted to serve all poverty cases. H.R. 1118
(Mink) would have established comprehensive early childhood education programs,
staff development programs, and model federal government early childhood
Hearings. On May 16, 2002, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on
“Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families,” which included
testimony from Senator Dodd on the issue of how to improve and expand the nation’s
child care system, specifically addressing S. 2117, the Access to High Quality Child10
Care Act he cosponsored with bipartisan support.
On April 9, 2002, the House Education and Workforce Committee held a
hearing, “Working Toward Independence: The Administration’s Plan to Build upon
the Successes of Welfare Reform” which featured testimony pertaining to child care
funding in the context of welfare reform.
On March 19, 2002, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Subcommittee on Children and Families and the Senate Finance Subcommittee on
Social security and Family Policy held a joint hearing, “Child Care: Supporting11
On March 15, 2002, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held
a hearing, “Child Care: Helping Parents Work and Improving the Well-being of12
On February 27, 2002, the House Education and Workforce Committee’s
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness held a hearing, “Assessing the Child
Care and Development Block Grant.” Topics addressed by witnesses included the
adequacy of program funding and quality.13
On February 12, 2002, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee held a hearing on “Early Education: From Science to Practice.”
Witnesses included academics specializing in child development (including Edward
Zigler, one of Head Start’s “founders”), as well as a panel of practitioners,
representing early childhood-related programs and foundations.14
On January 24, 2002 First Lady Laura Bush testified before the Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as the sole witness for the committee’s
hearing “Early Learning: Investing In Our Children, Investing In Our Future.”
On July 31, 2001, the House Subcommittee on Education Reform held a hearing
on early childhood education. Witnesses included representatives from the Head
Start and early childhood academic communities, as well as recently confirmed
Under Secretary Eugene Hickok from the Department of Education, and Department
13 Testimony from the hearing is available on the Education and Workforce Committee’s
14 Testimony from the hearing is available on the HELP Committee’s website:
[http://labor.senate.gov/ Hearings-2002/feb2002/021202awit/021202awit.htm] .
of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade
On March 27, 2001, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)
Committee held a hearing on international early education and child care to examine
how the United States compares.
White House Summit on Early Childhood. On July 26, 2001 First Lady
Laura Bush, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, and U.S. Secretary of Education Rod
Paige co-hosted a two-day White House Summit on Early Childhood Cognitive
Development. The summit featured research and recommendations from early
childhood learning specialists and was described by Secretary Paige as the first step
in a long-range and widespread effort to promote research-based cognitive
development activities for preschool-age children. During the summit, Secretary
Paige announced plans to create a new federal task force of senior education and
health and human services department officials. This group will be charged with the
task of putting research and recommendations presented during the summit to work
in government programs for children.
Administration’s Early Childhood Initiative. On April 2, 2002, the
President announced the Administration’s Good Start, Grow Smart early childhood
initiative, which builds on themes developed at the First Lady’s Summit on Early
Childhood Cognitive Development held in July 2001.15 The initiative proposed to
develop a new accountability system for the Head Start program, through which
standards of learning in early literacy, language, and numeracy would be assessed.
It also called for a national training program for Head Start teachers. Furthermore,
the initiative proposed that states develop criteria for the delivery of quality early
childhood programs outside the boundaries of the Head Start program. The
additional federal funding proposed as part of the initiative totals $45 million to
establish a research collaborative between the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development and the Department of Education to identify effective pre-
reading and language curricula and teaching strategies.