So, What About Child Care?

There are a variety of explanations for why comprehensive child-care legislation has stalled in the House of Representatives. Some say that it is an honest difference in political philosophy over the best way to ensure funding for child-care programs; other say that it is another example of the congressional turf battles that have killed too many worthwhile proposals in the past.

We suspect the holdup can be attributed to a little of each. But philosophy and egos aside, there will be no valid excuses if the House fails to agree on a coherent way to help the nation’s parents deal with the demands of providing their children with decent care while they are working.

At present there are two competing proposals, one from the House Education and Labor Committee sponsored by Rep. Augustus F. Hawkins (D-Los Angeles) and another from the House Ways and Means Committee by Thomas J. Downey (D-N.Y.). The Downey proposal is a block grant/tax credit plan, while the Hawkins bill would create a new, specific funding mechanism.

Many child-care activists who advocate the Hawkins bill say the Downey bill does not provide enough money; they worry about the degree of commitment the Ways and Means Committee has to tough standards that should be set for those who provide care for infants, toddlers and children.

Those who support the Downey bill say that there is a strong commitment to high standards in the legislation and that their bill is the only one that would provide guaranteed, ongoing funding, because child care services would be financed through an existing grant program.

At stake are a range of services that both sides agree deserve federal support--such as early childhood development and after-school programs and expansion of the respected Head Start program--plus basic child care. Nearly 60% of all women with children younger than 6 years are now in the work force. By 1995, two-thirds will be employed. As the Children’s Defense Fund reports, the image of a full-time mother with a spouse who brings home enough money for the family represents 1 in 14 American families today.

The committees’ failure to quickly reach a compromise could mean a potentially devastating setback for a comprehensive child-care program. And the continued indecisiveness opens the door for window-dressing legislation that accomplishes little, such as a tax-credit-only proposal.

The leaders in the House need to remember that only the children will suffer if substance takes a back seat to form.