Wilson’s Bill for Child Care

The Times is correct in its editorial “Crossroads for Child Care” (March 28) that the time appears right for national legislation designed to increase the supply of quality, affordable child care for working families.

However, the Act for Child Care (better known as the ABC bill), which The Times applauds, fails to meet the mark.

Notwithstanding the good intentions of its author, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), I believe the bill is misguided in several respects: it is overly reliant on the federal government; it fails to adequately address the issue of accessibility, and it simply costs too much.

The ABC bill would set up a national advisory committee for the purpose of establishing national child-care standards.

These standards would be imposed on states without regard to each state’s unique needs and could not be modified even if the standards were found too stringent to allow for special state circumstances.

Further, states would not be allowed to use federal funds to support any child-care projects that failed to meet federally-mandated requirements.

Perhaps of greater concern, parents who received federal child-care funds could not send their children to child-care providers who failed to fully comply with these national standards even though that provider currently meets all state requirements.

This one-size-fits-all approach to child care I believe wrongfully interferes with a parent’s basic right to determine the most appropriate child care for their children. Instead, each state--and not an ad hoc national committee--should have the authority to set standards based on their unique needs. The parents of children--and not Washington bureaucrats--should be able to choose what is the appropriate type of child-care service for their children.

While the ABC bill expands the power of federal bureaucrats to rule over the prerogatives of American families, it fails to provide sufficient incentives for the establishment of new programs. The net result is child-care providers, unable to cope with burdensome regulations, will close their doors with few new providers stepping in to take their place.

Finally, the ABC bill falls short on the question of accessibility. Due to the funding structure of the ABC bill, many eligible low-income families would be denied access to child-care services. About 70% of the funding provided in the bill would be directed to provide assistance to about 750,000 children nationwide.

But the demand for child-care services is far greater. To put this in perspective, a million children in California alone are in need of child-care services. The question arises: What about the other families who qualify for support? Are they just out of luck, or will the federal government be expected to approrpriate even more money?

As an alternative to the ABC bill, I have authored the KIDS in Day-Care Services Act, or the KIDS bill. This bill would establish a working partnership among the federal government, states, and the private sector. It would maintain parental choice for the selection of child-care services, encourage the establishment of new services by private industry, and provide revenues to offset the cost of assisting low-income families for child-care services.

The KIDS bill would ensure access to child care for all eligible families through the establishment of a new, refundable “children’s tax credit” for low- and modest-income families. For those families who do not earn enough to pay taxes, KIDS would also make the current dependent care tax credit refundable. Families could choose between the two credits.

Under the KIDS bill, each state, and not a federal commission, would set specific standards for services based on their unique needs. Parents would have the opportunity to determine the appropriate type of child care for their family without losing eligibility for state and federal assistance.

Realizing the demand for child-care services will increase, the KIDS bill offers tax credits and insurance funding for small businesses to encourage the establishment of on-site or near-site child-care facilities.

It also would expand the existing state Dependent Care Planning and Development block grant program to assist states in expanding child-care services.

Compared to the $10 billion price tag for the ABC bill, the KIDS bill would cost only $2 billion over the same four-year period when taking into consideration offsetting revenues.

SEN. PETE WILSON

R-California