National Women's Political Caucus day care alert, July 30,1971

Primary tabs

Download: Transcript

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 View All

Show transcript

AUG 11 1971
 
 [handwritten] File under daycare, hold for investigation later
 
 July 30, 1971
 
 NATIONAL WOMEN'S POLITICAL CAUCUS DAY CARE ALERT
 
 As you know, the organizing conference of the NWPC came out
 strongly for the development in this country of a comprehensive
 system of child care services, universally available and free of
 charge to all users . As members of the NWPC national policy council
 we are writing to inform you of several developments in Congress
 which will have a dramatic effect upon the kind of child care
 system which is finally adopted.
 
 We expect that the Senate child care bill, S. 2007, will be
 reported out the week of August 2 for consideration on the Senate
 floor. We anticipate that the full House Education and Labor com-
 mittee will mark up the House day care bill, H.R. 6748, the week
 of August 2 during which time additional amendments will be offered
 and the bill's language will be put in final form for consideration
 by the full House.
 
 Enclosed are letters we have sent to Senator Mondale, Chairman
 of the subcommittee which worked on the day care legislation, and
 Senator Javits who is the ranking Republican on the committee.
 
 In our letters to the Senators, you will see that we have
 opposed the introduction of any amendment which will limit prime
 sponsorship to localities with a population of 100,000 or more,
 or any amendment  which will change the current allocation formula
 in such a way that only poverty families would be eligible for
 day care service.
 
 We have also urged the Senators to introduce an amendment to
 S. 2007 to insure that only non-profit organizations will be eligi-
 ble for federal day care monies and to oppose any language which
 seeks to limit parent participation in programs. In addition, we
 have asked them to support a higher appropriation figure.
 
 In our letter to Representative Carl Perkins, Chairman of the
 House Education and Labor Committee, we urged support for a series
 of amendments that will be offered to the House bill, H.R. 6748,
 during next week's mark up session. These ammendments (a) insure
 that only non-profit organizations will be eligible for day care
 monies, (b) provide that any locality regardless of population
 would be eligible for prime sponsorship, (c) protect current Head
 Start programs so they may not be eliminated by administrative fiat,
 (d) strengthen the role of parents in day care programs, (e) guaran-
 tee a minimum wage to workers in federally sponsored day care
 programs, (f) provide that the Bureau of Labor Statistics Lower
 Living Standard Budget shall be the standard of eligibility through-
 out the bill, and (g) provide a meaningful appropriation to carry
 out the proposed programs. The appropriations proposal we are
 supporting would provide for $5 billion in fiscal year 1972; $8
 billion in FY 1974, and $10 billion in fiscal year 1975.
 
 OVER
 
 The defeat of the amendments outlined in the letters to Senators
 Javits and Mondale and the passage of the amendments outlined in the
 letter to Chairman Perkins are crucial if we are to take even a baby
 step towards universal child care in this country. It has been esti-
 mated that it would cost about $23 billion dollars to establish a
 truly adequate child care system, and skeptics say that this is too
 much to spend on day care. However, $2 billion for the first year,
 which seems to be a politically realizable goal, will not even cover
 the 1,265,400 children who will need care under the family assistance
 plan. Our Senators and Representatives need to understand the depth
 of our concern about the level of appropriations. Sixteen hundred
 dollars, the cost per child per year for day care, is roughly equivalent
 to the cost of one foot of federal highway. Congress must decide which
 is more important: the foot of highway or a child.
 
 Since action on the child care legislation will be taken up in
 both the House and Senate next week, we urge you to contact your
 representatives immediately and encourage others to do the same.
 
 Some rules of thumb that you should be aware of when lobbying
 are as follows: Personal letters are more effective than form
 letters, letters and personal trips have more impact than telegrams
 and phone calls. In this instance, because we have so little time,
 telegrams and phone calls will have to be used in addition to letters
 and visits. Congressmen and Senators pay more attention to people
 from their own districts and states than they do to those from other
 areas, so contact your own representatives first and then those
 from other areas. On the Senate side, the legislation will be on
 the Senate floor, so all of the senators need to be contacted. On
 the House side, the bill is in full committee mark-up; therefore,
 we only need to contact the members of the House Education and Labor
 committee. They are as follows:
 
 DEMOCRATS: Carl D. Perkins (Ky); Edith Green (Ore.); Frank
 Thompson, Jr. (NJ); John Dent (Penn.); Roman Pucinski (Ill.);
 John Brademas (Ind.); James O'Hara (Mich.); Augustus Hawkins
 (Calif.); William D. Ford (Mich.); Patsy Mink (Hawaii); James
 Scheuer (NY); Lloyd Needs (Wash.); Phillip Burton (Calif.);
 Joseph Gaydos (Penn.); William Clay (Mo.); Shirley Chisholm (NY);
 Mario Biaggi (NY); Ella Grasso (Conn.); Louise Day Hicks (Mass.);
 Romano Mazzoli (Kyi); Herman Badillo (NY).
 REPUBLICANS: Albert Quie (Minn.); John Ashbrook (Ohio); Alphonzo
 Bell (Calif.); Ogden Reid (NY); John N. Erlenborn (Ill.); John
 Dellenback (Ore.); Marvin Esch (Mich.); Edwin Eshleman (Penn.);
 William A. Steiger (Wisc.); Earl F. Landgreve (Ind.); Orval 
 Hansen (Idaho); Earl s. Ruth (NC); Edwin B. Forsythe (NJ):
 Victor V. Veysey (Calif.); Jack F. Kemp (NY): Peter A. Peyser
 (NY).
 
 When you write or call, identify yourselves as members of the
 National Women's Political Caucus. We want the members of Congress to
 know that women are united, that we are monitoring their actions, and
 that we expect them to be responsive to the issues which concern us!
 
NATIONAL WOMEN‘S POLITICAL CAUCUS
 707 Warner Building
 Washington, D.C. 20009
 (202) 628-4765
 
 The Honorable Carl D. Perkins
 Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
 Suite 2181, Rayburn Building
 Washington, D.C. 20515
 
 Dear Chairman Perkins: 
 
 As members of the Policy Council of the National Women's
 Political Caucus which represents all members of the Caucus, we have
 a vital interest in the development of a comprehensive, community-
 controlled and universally available system of child care services
 in this country. It is our understanding that H.R. 6748 will be
 marked up by the full House Education and Labor Committee next week
 and that amendments will be offered which will (a) provide that any
 locality regardless of population would be eligible for prime
 sponsorship; (b) protect current Head Start programs so they may not
 be eliminated by administrative fiat; (c) insure that only non-profit
 organizations will be eligible for federal day care monies; (d) provide
 that the Bureau of Labor Statistics Lower Living Standard Budget shall
 be the standard of eligibility throughout the bill; (e) guarantee a
 minimum wage to persons employed in federally sponsored day care
 programs; (f) strengthen the role of parents in day care programs; and,
 (g) fix a childcare appropriation at $5 billion for FY '73, $8 billion
 for FY '74, and $10 billion for FY '75.
 
 We urge your support of the above listed amendments for the
 following reasons: (a) To limit prime sponsorship to localities of a
 prescribed population size would unfairly discriminate against sparsely
 populated states and would exclude the many growing population centers
 which surround metropolitan areas -- such limitation would amount to a
 direct bias against the populations of suburban, rural and small urban
 areas and thus deny growing numbers of people the opportunity to be
 direct sponsors of child development programs. Prime sponsorship
 should be determined by capability and need -- not by an artificial
 population count. (b) Local people are best able to determine whether
 or not existing Head Start programs meet local needs and these people
 should be vested with responsibility for determining that a program is
 ineffective and should be eliminated. (c) We are opposed to any bill
 which provides public day care at private gain. When there is such
 competition for funds, an amendment reserving funding eligibility to
 non-profit groups will insure that the money appropriated is used to
 the maximum effect. (d) While we advocate a national  care system
 available to all families we view the adoption of the Bureau of Labor
 Statistics‘ Standard as an important improvement over past legislation
 which restricted eligibility to those on welfare or at the poverty
 level. The vast majority of women work not by choice but because they
 must. Day care is not a luxury; it is a necessity. In fact, the lack
 of day care facilities and the high cost of day care services has
 forced many women on to the welfare roles. At a time when we are
 making every effort to encourage integration at higher levels of edu-
 cation, we cannot afford to reinforce [an] already segregated system of
 educational programs for young children. We also feel that having day
 care services available to a broader crossection of people will help to
 [ensure] that adequate appropriations are available for day care in the
 future. (e) Child care should not become a dead end institution that
 provides dead end, badly paid Jobs. Our current welfare (and child care)
 crisis has stemmed, in part, from wage and employment policies which, in
 this country, have discriminated against women by reserving higher
 paying jobs to men and by consistently offering subsistence wages for
 those tasks which have been considered ‘women's work.‘ Quality child
 care should be neither a profession for ‘women only‘ nor one which
 deserves menial salaries. (f) As mothers we favor programs which give
 us the responsibility for decisions involving the education and welfare
 
of our children. We believe that the parents who serve on the Local
 Policy Councils should serve not only as advisers but also as policy
 makers. (g) The current appropriation language of H.R. 6748 to provide
 'such funds as will be necessary‘ for child care programs is meaning-
 less, especially in light of the statement offered by the Secretary of
 Health, Education, and Welfare which suggested that no funds beyond the
 current level are necessary. The $2 billion figure for FY ‘73 (as
 suggested by the Senate) will not even provide for the 1,262,1400
 children who will need care under the family assistance plan, to say
 nothing of the 5 million children under five whose mothers are already
 in the labor force. Even if one uses the Administration‘s conservative
 estimate of $1600 per child per year, it would cost over $8 billion just
 to provide day care services for this latter group. we hope that you
 and your colleagues on the House Education and Labor Committee will
 support the more realistic figures which ask for $5 billion beginning
 FY '73.
 
 We believe that all the above amendments are necessary to any
 child care system which has as its goal the establishment of quality
 programs which serve but are not limited to the poor. Further, we
 feel that such amendments will guarantee a rational and fair mechanism
 for delivering services, as well as a realistic appropriation level.
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 Bella Abzug
 Shana Alexander 
 Virginia Allan 
 Nikki Beare
 Joan Cashin 
 Shirley Chisholm 
 Mary Clarke
 Myrlie Evers 
 Betty Friedan 
 JoAnne Evans Gardner 
 Elinor Guggenheimer 
 Fannie Lou Hamer 
 LaDonna Harris 
 Wilma Scott Heide 
 Dorothy Height 
 Olga Madar
 Vivian Carter Mason 
 Midge Miller 
 Paula Page 
 Beulah Sanders 
 Gloria Steinem 
 Carole Ann Taylor 
Dear Senator Mondale:
 
 As you know, women and women's groups representing a broad crossection
 of political, economic, geographic, religious, and philosophical persuasions,
 recently joined to form the National Women's Political Caucus. One of the chief
 legislative goals of the Caucus is the establishment of a national day care system
 available to all families.
 
 It is our understanding that the Day Care and Child Development bill S. 2007
 will be presented on the Senate floor next week as part or the poverty package and
 that some member of the Senate may resurrect versions of amendments (which were
 defeated in committee) on the Senate floor. Those amendments are: (a) a proposal
 which would limit prime sponsorship to localities with a population of 100,000 or
 more (b) a proposal to change the allocation formula of the current bill in such
 a way that only poverty families would be eligible for day care services.
 
 The National Women's Political Caucus is completely opposed to amendments
 of this kind. We believe that the imposition of any population figure is unwar-
 ranted and discriminatory. There are only 156 cities in the U.S. with populations
 over 100,000. Only 27% of the population lives in those cities. Any such restric-
 tion will make suburban, rural, and smaller urban areas ineligible for prime
 sponsorship.
 
 Under the current Senate Bill S. 2007, 65% of the funds allocated for day
 care are to be reserved for those families earning under the Bureau of Labor
 Statistic's Lower Living standard Budget. ($6900 for an urban family of four).
 While we advocate a national day care system available to all women, we view the
 adoption of the BLS standard as an important improvement over past legislation
 which restricted eligibility to those on welfare or at the poverty level. The
 vast majority of women work not by choice but because they must. Day care is
 not a luxury; it is a necessity. In fact, the lack of day care facilities and the
 high cost of day care services has forced many women onto the welfare rolls. It
 seems incongruous with Administration policy to provide services for welfare women,
 but not for poor working women.
 
 The NWPC is also concerned about the inadequacy of the proposed appropria—
 tions for the day care legislation. S.2007 now provides $100,000 million for
 technical assistance in 1972 and $2 billion for Fiscal Year 1973. Two billion
 will not even provide for the 1,262,400 children who will need care under the
 family assistance plan, to say nothing of the 5 million children under five whose
 mothers are already in the labor force. Even if one uses the Adminstration's con—
 servative estimate of $1600 per child per year it would cost over 8 billion just
 to provide day care services for this latter group. Clearly 2 billion is a very
 conservative appropriation. We would hope that you and your colleagues would offer
 amendments to increase the appropriations to a more realistic level such as $5
 billion for Fiscal Year 1973.
 
 Another disturbing element is the introduction of language into the bill
 designed to limit and dilute the involvement of parents in day care programs. As
 mothers we are inalterably opposed to attempts to separate us from decisions in-
 volving the education and welfare of our children.
 
 Finally, the NWPC hope that the Senate bill can be amended to prohibit
 [profiteering] in the day care field. When there is such competition for funds, we
 ought to insure that the money appropriated is used to maximum effect. We there-
 fore urge that only non-profit groups be eligible for funding.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 NATIONAL POLICY COUNCIL 
 NATIONAL WOMEN'S POLITICAL CAUCUS
 
 The Honorable Bella S. Abzug
 Shana Alexander 
 Virginia Allan 
 Nikki Beare
 Joan Cashin 
 The Honorable Shirley Chisholm 
 Mary Clarke
 Myrlie Evers 
 Betty Friedan 
 JoAnne Evans Gardner 
 
-2-
 
 Elinor Guggenheimer 
 Fannie Lou Hamer 
 LaDonna Harris 
 Wilma Scott Heide 
 Dorothy Height 
 Olga Madar
 Vivian Carter Mason 
 The Honorable Midge Miller 
 Paula Page 
 Beulah Sanders 
 Gloria Steinem 
 Carole Ann Taylor 
Dear Senator Javits:
 
 As you know, women and women's groups representing a broad crossection
 of political, economic, geographic, religious, and philosophical persuasions,
 recently joined to form the National Women's Political Caucus. One of the chief
 legislative goals of the Caucus is the establishment of a national day care system
 available to all families.
 
 It is our understanding that the Day Care and Child Development bill S. 2007
 will be presented on the Senate floor next week as part of the poverty package and
 that you are considering offering an ammendment which would limit prime sponsorship
 to localities with a population of 100,000 or more and an amendment which would  
 change the allocation formula of the current bill in such a way that only poverty 
 families would be eligible for day care services.
 
 The National Women's Political Caucus is completely opposed to amendments
 of this kind. We believe that the imposition of any population figure is unwar-
 ranted and discriminatory. There are only 156 cities in the U.S. with populations
 over 100,000. Only 27% of the population lives in those cities. Any such restric-
 tion will make suburban, rural, and smaller urban areas ineligible for prime
 sponsorship. Prime sponsorship should be based on capability and need -- not by
 an artificial population [count].
 
 Under the current Senate Bill S. 2007, 65% of the funds allocated for day
 care are to be reserved for those families earning under the Bureau of Labor
 Statistic's Lower Living standard Budget. ($6900 for an urban family of four).
 While we advocate a national day care system available to all women, we view the
 adoption of the BLS standard as an important improvement over past legislation
 which restricted eligibility to those on welfare or at the poverty level. The
 vast majority of women work not by choice but because they must. Day care is
 not a luxury; it is a necessity. In fact, the lack of day care facilities and the
 high cost of day care services has forced many women onto the welfare rolls. It
 seems incongruous with Administration policy to provide services for welfare women,
 but not for poor working women.
 
 The NWPC is also concerned about the inadequacy of the proposed appropria-
 tions for the day care legislation. S.2007 now provides $100,000 million for
 technical assistance in 1972 and $2 billion for Fiscal Year 1973. Two billion
 will not even provide for the 1,262,400 children who will need care under the
 family assistance plan, to say nothing of the 5 million children under five whose
 mothers are already in the labor force. Even if one uses the Adminstration's con-
 servative estimate of $1600 per child per year, it would cost over 8 billion
 just to provide day care services for this latter group. Clearly 2 billion is a
 very conservative appropriation. We would hope that you and your colleagues 
 would offer amendments to increase the appropriations to a more realistic level--
 at least $5 billion for Fiscal Year 1973.
 
 Another disturbing element is the introduction of language into the bill
 designed to limit and dilute the involvement of parents in day care programs. As
 mothers we are inalterably opposed to attempts to separate us from decisions in-
 volving the education and welfare of our children.
 
 Finally, the NWPC hopes that the Senate bill can be amended to prohibit
 profiteering in the day care field. When there is such competition for funds, we
 ought to insure that the money appropriated is used to maximum effect. We there-
 fore urge that only non-profit groups be eligible for funding.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 NATIONAL POLICY COUNCIL 
 NATIONAL WOMEN'S POLITICAL CAUCUS
 
 The Honorable Bella S. Abzug
 Shana Alexander 
 Virginia Allan 
 Nikki Beare
 Joan Cashin 
 The Honorable Shirley Chisholm 
 Mary Clarke
 Myrlie Evers 
 Betty Friedan 
 JoAnne Evans Gardner 
-2-
 
 Elinor Guggenheimer
 Fannie Lou Hamer
 LaDonna Harris
 Wilma Scott Heide
 Dorothy Height
 Olga Madar
 Vivian Carter Mason
 The Honorable Midge Miller
 Paula Page
 Beulah Sanders
 Gloria Steinem
 Carol Ann Taylor