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