Child Care Issues in the 109th Congress

th
Child Care Issues in the 109 Congress
Updated January 9, 2007
Melinda Gish
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Child Care Issues in the 109 Congress
Summary
Federal support for child care comes in many forms, ranging from grant
programs to tax provisions. Some programs serve as specifically dedicated funding
sources for child care services (e.g., the Child Care and Development Block Grant,
or CCDBG), while for others (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or
TANF), child care is just one of many purposes for which funds may be used. In
many cases, federal programs target low-income families in need of child care
assistance, but in the case of certain tax provisions, the benefits reach middle- and
upper-income families as well. This report provides an overview of federal child
care and related programs as they were addressed by the 109^th Congress.
The 109^th Congress inherited several child care-related agenda items from the
previous Congress(es), but resolved only a few. Efforts to reauthorize the CCDBG
and TANF block grants, as well as the Head Start program, had started in the 108th
Congress, and ultimately, in February 2006, after 12 temporary extensions, the TANF
block grant and the mandatory portion of child care funding was reauthorized for a
five-year period via the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171). Whereas bills to
reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant itself (H.R. 240 and S.
525) and the Head Start Program (H.R. 2123 and S. 2206) failed to make their way
to enactment in law, and remain on the agenda for the 110^th Congress.
Funding for many child care and related programs is provided each year as part
of the annual appropriations process for the Departments of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and Education (ED). Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations bills for those
departments (among most others) did not receive floor action in the House or Senate
during the 109^th Congress, although the 2007 fiscal year began on October 1, 2006.^th
The process extended into the 110 Congress, with a third continuing resolution (P.L.

109-383) temporarily funding government operations (through February 15, 2007)

at rates based on the FY2006 funding levels. The FY2006 appropriations (P.L. 109-
149) included funding slightly below FY2005 amounts for most child care and
related programs, as a result of an across-the-board rescission of 1% applied to most
discretionary programs. Additional targeted funding for Head Start and the Social
Services Block Grant — supplemental funding targeted specifically in response to
needs arising from the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 — was included in the FY2006
Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148).
The President’s FY2007 budget proposals in areas related to child care and early
childhood development were framed in the context of the Administration’s Early
Childhood Initiative — “Good Start, Grow Smart” — which was initially launched
in April 2002. The initiative emphasized the importance of promoting school
readiness, a key focus of the President’s Head Start reauthorization proposals. In
efforts to promote school readiness among pre-school children, there has also been
a growing emphasis on better coordination of early childhood programs, including
most of the federal programs described in this report, as well as state pre-
kindergarten programs and other state-funded efforts.
This is the final update of this report; the 109^th Congress has adjourned.

Contents
Final Developments............................................1
Third Continuing Resolution Extends Funding into FY2007 ^th
(and into the 110 Congress).............................1
Final Rule on Head Start Transportation Waivers.................1
Federal Child Care-Related Programs and Tax Provisions..............1
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)..............2
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)...............3
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)...................3
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)...........................3
Head Start................................................4^st^st
21 Century Community Learning Centers (21 CCLC)............5
Even Start................................................5
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Programs.......5
Early Reading First........................................5
Early Childhood Educator Professional Development.............6
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS)............6
Early Learning Fund/Early Learning Opportunities Act Program.....6
Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC)...........................6
Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP)....................6
FY2006 Appropriations.........................................8
President’s FY2006 request..................................8
House ...................................................9
Senate ...................................................9
President Bush’s FY2007 Budget Request.........................10
CCDBG ................................................10
TANF ..................................................10
SSBG ..................................................10
Head Start...............................................10^st
21 Century Community Learning Centers.....................11
IDEA Grants for Infants and Families and Preschool Grants.......11
Even Start...............................................11
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS)...........11
FY2007 Appropriations Process.................................11
The Administration’s Early Childhood Initiative....................13^th
Legislative Activity in the 109 Congress..........................14
Child Care and Welfare Reauthorizations......................14
Head Start Reauthorization.................................17
Other Child Care-Related Legislation.........................17
Response to Hurricane Katrina..................................17
Hearings ....................................................19

List of Tables
Table 1. Funding for Federal Child Care and Related Programs,
FY2002-FY2006 ..............................................7
Table 2. FY2006 Appropriations Compared with House- and
Senate-Passed Levels, and President’s FY2006 Request ...............9
Table 3. President’s FY2007 Funding Request Compared to
FY2007 Funding Levels Approved by Committees
in House (H.R. 5647) and Senate (S. 3708).........................12

th
Child Care Issues in the 109 Congress
Final Developments
Third Continuing Resolution Extends Funding into FY2007 (and^th^th
into the 110 Congress). The 109 Congress adjourned with the FY2007
appropriations process still under way. A third continuing resolution (CR), P.L. 109-
383, signed into law December 9, 2006, provided funding for government operations
(including the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education) through
February 15, 2007, based on the FY2006 rate.
For information on FY2007 Labor-HHS-Education the appropriations bills that
were approved by House and Senate committees, but did not receive floor action, see
the section “FY2007 Appropriations Process,” later in this report.
Final Rule on Head Start Transportation Waivers. On October 4, 2006,
a final rule was published in the Federal Register¹ authorizing, effective November
1, 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services to issue waivers to Head
Start grantees from two of the provisions of the Head Start Transportation Regulation
(45 CFR Part 1310). These two requirements are that children be secured in age- and
weight-appropriate child restraint systems, and that there be at least one monitor
onboard any bus transporting Head Start children.²
Federal Child Care-Related 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
provisions for the past five years. In many cases, other Congressional Research
Service (CRS) reports are referenced as sources for more detailed information about
individual programs. Several programs were due for reauthorization in the 109th
Congress (i.e., Child Care and Development Block Grant and Head Start), but
remained unauthorized at the end of the 109^th Congress, whereas others (TANF and
mandatory child care funding) were reauthorized in the second session. Readers

¹ Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 192, October 4, 2006, pp. 58533-58536.
² On August 28, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released Head Start:
Progress and Challenges in Implementing Transportation Regulations (GAO-06-767R), a
report conveying information provided by GAO to requesting Congressional staff on May

16, 2006. The report may be accessed at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06767r.pdf].

should be aware that this report does not attempt to cover all issues connected with
each of those reauthorizations.
Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG).³ The primary
federal grant program funding child care is the CCDBG, which was created in 1990,
and reauthorized and substantially expanded in 1996, as part of welfare reform. The
CCDBG has been due to be reauthorized since the end of FY2002, and remained an
incomplete agenda item at the close of the 109^th Congress. (See the “Legislative
Activity” section of this report for more on the unsuccessful reauthorization efforts.)
The CCDBG is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), and provides formula block grants to states, which use the grants 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 than this
federal threshold.) 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 care givers. 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 (CCDF)), and
state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) and matching requirements apply to part of the⁴
entitlement funds. 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 or 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
administrative costs.
The FY2006 Appropriations Act for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and
Education (P.L. 109-149) included roughly $2.1 billion in discretionary funding for

³ For more information, see CRS Report RL30785, The Child Care and Development Block
Grant: Background and Funding, by Melinda Gish.
⁴ 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, by
Melinda Gish.

the CCDBG. (An across-the-board rescission of 1% brought the precise total to
$2.062 billion.) For FY2005, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447)
provided $2.083 billion. Mandatory (or “entitlement”) CCDBG funding beginning
in FY2003 through FY2005 was provided at the FY2002 rate ($2.717 billion for the
year), under a series of funding extensions. Ultimately, funding for a longer, five-
year period (FY2006-FY2010) was included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
a budget spending reconciliation bill (S. 1932), which was signed into law (P.L. 109-
171) on February 8, 2006. This law provides $2.917 billion annually for each of
FY2006-2010.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF, created in
the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), provides fixed block grants for
state-designed programs of time-limited and work-conditioned aid to needy families
with children. The original legislation provided $16.5 billion annually through
FY2002, and after a series of twelve temporary extensions, Congress included several
welfare provisions (and mandatory child care funding) in its spending budget
reconciliation bill (S. 1932) which was signed into law (P.L. 109-171) on February

8, 2006. The law maintains the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion for FY2006-2010.

Child care is one of many services for which states may use TANF funding. In
FY2005, HHS reports that states spent $1.3 billion in federal TANF funds for child
care within the TANF program, and $1.92 billion in state TANF and separate state
program (SSP) MOE funds. (Of that $1.92 billion in state spending, approximately
$858 million could be “double counted” as state spending toward the CCDF MOE
requirement.)⁵ 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 transfer from the FY2005 TANF allotment to the
CCDBG totaled $2.0 billion (representing 12% of the FY2005 TANF allotment).
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. For FY2005, obligations are estimated to have been
$2.066 billion, increasing to $2.174 billion in FY2006.⁶
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. The most recently

⁵ For more information on states’ use of TANF funds, see CRS Report RL32748, The
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on Financing and
Requirements for State Programs, by Gene Falk.
⁶ See CRS Report RL33307, Child Nutrition and WIC Programs: Background and Recent
Funding, by Joe Richardson.

published HHS analysis of state expenditures indicates that 10% of total SSBG
expenditures made in FY2004 ($254 million) were for child care in that year, an
increase from those made for child care in FY2003 ($165 million). Title XX is a
capped entitlement, and state allocations are based on relative population size. It
should be noted that although the SSBG has an entitlement ceiling, appropriations
may not always abide by it. For example, the ceiling in FY2001 was $1.7 billion;
however, Congress appropriated $1.725 billion for that year, despite the ceiling. The
FY2006 Appropriations Act for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education (P.L.
109-149) included identical provisions to the FY2005 appropriations: $1.7 billion
for the SSBG and states’ authority to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grants
to the SSBG. (Note: the SSBG is not a discretionary program, and thus was not
affected by the across-the-board rescission.) In addition to the regular SSBG
funding, an additional $550 million was provided in the Defense Appropriations Act
(P.L. 109-148), targeted for needs arising from the Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005.⁷
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. The Head Start Act has been due to be reauthorized
since the end of FY2003, but remained an unfinished legislative agenda item at the
close of the 109^th Congress. Funding has nevertheless been provided through the
appropriations process. Under current law, Head Start funds are provided directly by
HHS to local grantees, which must comply with detailed federal performance
standards. In its budget request for FY2006, the Administration proposed to give up
to nine states the opportunity to administer Head Start, provided they demonstrate
how Head Start will be coordinated with other preschool programs and services to
emphasize developing skills and behaviors including language development; pre-
reading skills; numeracy; and social and emotional competence, while meeting state-
established accountability standards. This proposal proved controversial in both the^th
House and Senate during the 108 Congress, and was not proposed in either the
reauthorization bill passed in the House (H.R. 2123) or the Senate bill approved in^th
committee (S. 1107) during the 109 Congress; nor did the President propose it with
his budget for FY2007.⁸
The available data show funded enrollment for Head Start in FY2005 to have
totaled 906,993 children (10% of whom were under age 3, participating in Early
Head Start). The FY2006 Appropriations Act for the Departments of Labor, HHS,
and Education (P.L. 109-149) provided $6.786 billion (post-rescission of 1%) for
Head Start, a decrease from the FY2005 funding level (post-rescission of 0.8%) of
$6.843 billion. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the Defense Appropriations Law
(P.L. 109-148) provided $90 million in Head Start funding to be used specifically for
grantees serving children displaced by last year’s Gulf Coast hurricanes, and to help
with costs of renovating Head Start facilities that were affected by the storms.

⁷ See CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of the Social Security Act),
by Melinda Gish.
⁸ For more information, see CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Issues, by
Melinda Gish.

21^st Century Community Learning Centers (21^st CCLC). The 21^st

Century Community Learning Centers program is administered by the Department
of Education and is authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), as amended in 2002 by the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110).⁹^st
Funding for the 21 CCLC program is provided to states under a formula grant, based
on states’ shares of Title I, Part A funds. States then use their allocations to make
competitive awards to local educational agencies, community-based organizations,
or consortia of public or private agencies that primarily serve students who attend
schools with concentrations of poor students or low-performing schools. The focus
of the program is to provide after-school academic enrichment opportunities for
children in these communities. The 1% rescission applied to the appropriation
provided by the FY2006 Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149) dropped the funding
level to $981 million ($10 million less than FY2005 funding).
Even Start. The Department of Education administers the Even Start program,
which provides grants for family literacy projects that include early childhood
education.¹⁰ The appropriation for FY2006 was $99 million (post-rescission), a cut
of $126 million from the FY2005 funding level of $225 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, and preschool
grants for children with disabilities.¹¹ IDEA was reauthorized during the 108^th
Congress. FY2006 appropriations (post-rescission) for the IDEA infants and toddlers
program were $436 million, and the funding level for the preschool grants program
was $381 million.
Early Reading First. The Early Reading First program, authorized by the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as amended), supports local
efforts to enhance the school readiness of young children — particularly those from
low-income families — through scientific research-based strategies and professional
development that are designed to enhance the verbal skills, phonological awareness,
letter knowledge, and pre-reading skills of preschool age children.¹² The program
provides competitive grants to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) and to
public or private organizations or agencies that are located in eligible LEAs. The
Department of Education may award grants for up to six years. The FY2006
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149) funded this program at $103 million (post-
rescission).

⁹ For more information, see CRS Report RL31240, 21^st Century Community Learning
Centers in P.L. 107-110: Background and Funding, by Gail McCallion.
¹⁰ For more information, see CRS Report RL30448, Even Start Family Literacy Programs:
An Overview, and CRS Report RL33071, Even Start: Funding Controversy, by Gail
McCallion and Wayne C. Riddle.
¹¹ For more information, see CRS Report RL31273, Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA): Early Childhood Programs (Section 619 and Part C), by Richard Apling.
¹² For more information, see CRS Report RL31241, Reading First and Early Reading First:
Background and Funding, by Gail McCallion.

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. For each of FY2006 and
FY2005, approximately $15 million was appropriated for these grants.
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 four 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 FY2006 was $15.8 million.
Early Learning Fund/Early Learning Opportunities Act Program.
This HHS program (referred to by both names), authorized by the FY2001
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554) was last funded in FY2005 at $36
million. The FY2006 Appropriations Act includes no funding for this program.
When funded, the program provided grants to communities to enhance school
readiness for children under five, 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;
FY2003 funding was set at $34 million (despite the President’s FY2003 budget
proposal to eliminate the program) and for FY2004, P.L. 108-199 included $34
million for the Early Learning Fund.
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.¹³
Beginning in tax year 2003, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
of 2001 (P.L. 107-16) increased 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 applies to taxpayers with adjusted
gross incomes of $15,000 or less. The rate decreases by 1% for each additional
$2,000 increment (or portion thereof) in income until the rate reaches 20% for
taxpayers with incomes over $43,000. The Joint Committee on Taxation’s estimated
revenue loss for 2005 is $3 billion, and $2.2 billion for 2006.
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.¹⁴ 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

¹³ See CRS Report RS21466, Dependent Care: Current Tax Benefits and Legislative Issues,
by Christine Scott.
¹⁴ Ibid.

estimated revenue loss associated with this income exclusion is $1 billion in 2005
and $1.1 billion for 2006.
Table 1. Funding for Federal Child Care and Related Programs,
FY2002-FY2006
($ in millions)
^Program^(fed^eral^ad^mⁱⁿ^.^agen^c^y)²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶
^C^C^D^BG^-^dⁱ^s^cretⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^portⁱ^oⁿ^(H^H^S⁾^$2,100^$2,086^h^$2,087^k^$2,083^l^$2,062^m
^CCDB^G^-^eⁿ^titlem^eⁿ^t^p^o^r^tioⁿ⁽^HHS)²^,7¹⁷²^,⁷¹⁷^b^2,717^b^2,717^b^2,917ⁿ
^TA^N^F^a^(HHS)^a^aaaa
^C^hⁱ^l^d^an^{d A}^d^u^l^t^C^a^{re F}^{ood (U}^S^D^A⁾^1,831^c^1,915^c^2,056^c^2,066^c^2,174^c
^{Social Serv}^ices^B^l^ock^Gran^{t (HHS)}¹^,700^d^1,700^d^1,700^d^1,700^d^1,700^d,^p
^{Head Start (HHS)}⁶^,538^e^6,668^f^6,775^e,^k^6,843^e,^l^6,786^m,^o
²¹^st^Ce^nt^ur^y^Co^m^m^uni^t^y^Le^a^rⁿⁱ^ng^h^k^l^m
^C^eⁿ^t^ers^(ED⁾^1,000⁹⁹⁴⁹⁹⁹⁹⁹¹⁹⁸¹
^Ev^en^S^t^art^(ED⁾²⁵⁰²⁴⁸^h²⁴⁷^k²²⁵^l⁹⁹^m
^I^D^EA^Iⁿ^f^aⁿ^t^{s an}^d^Fam^{ilies (}^E^D)⁴¹⁷⁴³⁴^h⁴⁴⁴^k⁴⁴¹^l⁴³⁶^m
^ID^EA^Pres^ch^ool^G^r^an^t^s^(ED⁾³⁹⁰³⁸⁷^h³⁸⁸^k³⁸⁵^l³⁸¹^m
^E^a^r^l^y^Le^a^rⁿⁱ^{ng Fund}^/^E^L^O^A⁽^H^H^S⁾²⁵³⁴^h³⁴^k³⁶^l⁰
^Earl^y^R^eadiⁿ^g^Fⁱ^rs^t^(ED)⁷⁵⁷⁵^h⁹⁴^k¹⁰⁴^l¹⁰³^m
^Earl^y^C^hⁱ^l^d^h^{ood Edu}^cat^{or Prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^h^k^l^m
^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^(ED⁾¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵^14.5
^Child^Ca^r^e^A^c^c^e^{ss M}^e^aⁿ^{s P}^a^r^e^{nts in}ⁱ^h^k^l^m
^S^c^h^ool^(ED⁾²²¹⁶¹⁶¹⁶^15.8
^Depen^d^en^{t C}^a^{re T}^a^x^C^r^{edit (T}^reas^u^r^y⁾^2,500^g^3,200^j^3,100^j^3,000^j^2,200^j
^Depen^d^en^{t C}^a^{re A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce P}^r^og^ram^g^g^g^g^g
^(T^reas^u^r^y⁾⁶⁰⁰⁸⁰⁰⁸⁰⁰^1,000^1,100
^So^urce^{: T}^a^{ble prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^).
^{a. T}^A^{NF f}^uⁿ^d^s^{($16.5 billion}^a^nnua^l^l^y⁾^m^a^y^b^e^use^d^fo^r^c^hⁱ^l^d^c^a^r^e^,^b^u^t^a^r^e^no^t^sp^e^cⁱ^fi^c^a^l^l^y
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iated^{as su}^ch^{. HHS r}^e^p^o^r^{ts th}^{at states}^sp^en^t^$¹^.³^b^illioⁿⁱⁿ^f^e^d^e^r^a^l^T^A^NF^f^uⁿ^d^{s f}^o^r^ch^ild
^{care w}^ithⁱⁿ^th^e^T^A^NF^prog^ramⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2004 (th}^e^m^o^s^t^recen^{t data av}^{ailable). A}^l^s^o^{, th}^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰⁵
^tran^s^f^{er f}^r^om^th^e^{FY2005 T}^A^NF^allotm^en^{t to th}^{e C}^C^D^B^G^to^{taled $2.0 billion}^(repres^en^tin^g
^12%^of^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2005 T}^A^N^F^al^l^o^t^m^en^t⁾^.
^b.^F^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^T^A^N^F^an^{d t}^h^{e m}^aⁿ^d^at^ory^portⁱ^oⁿ^of^C^C^D^B^G^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2003 w}^a^s^provⁱ^d^{ed (at}
^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2002 rat}^e^s⁾^t^h^ro^{ugh a}^se^rⁱ^e^s^o^f^t^e^m^p^o^r^a^r^y^e^x^t^e^nsi^o^ns.^Fo^r^FY^{2004, f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^w^a^s^al^s^o
^provⁱ^d^{ed v}ⁱ^{a ex}^t^eⁿ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^(P.L^{. 108-}^{262 carri}^{ed f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^t^h^ro^{ugh Se}^p^t^.³⁰^,^{2004). F}^o^{r F}^Y^2005,
^P.L^.^108-³⁰⁸^ex^t^eⁿ^d^{ed f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^at^t^hⁱ^s^s^a^m^e^rat^e^t^h^ro^{ugh M}^a^r^.³¹^,^{2005. P.L}^.^109-^{4 ex}^t^eⁿ^d^ed
^fundⁱ^{ng t}^h^r^o^{ugh J}^une³⁰^,^{2005, an}^{d P.L}^.^109-^{19 ex}^t^eⁿ^d^{ed f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^t^h^ro^{ugh Se}^p^t^e^m^b^e^r³⁰^,^2005.
^{c. O}^b^lⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^(act^u^a^l^f^o^{r 2002-}^2004;^es^tⁱ^m^at^{ed f}^o^{r 2005-}^{2006), D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^re.
^d.^T^o^tal^SSB^G^{appropriation}^am^ouⁿ^t^s^h^owⁿ^.^In^{FY2004 (m}^os^{t recen}^{t data}^av^ailable),^$254^m^illion
ⁱⁿ^SSB^G^ex^pen^d^itu^res^w^a^s^f^o^{r ch}^{ild care. In}^{FY2003, th}^{e com}^p^{arable f}ⁱ^g^u^r^e^w^a^s^$165^m^illion^,
^an^{d in}^{FY2002, it w}^a^s^{$205 m}^illion^.
^{e. In}^{FY2002 an}^{d FY2004, $1.4 b}^illion^w^a^s^adv^aⁿ^{ce appropriated}^f^o^r^th^{e f}^o^llowⁱⁿ^g^y^{ear. In}^FY2005,
^{$1.389 billio}ⁿ^of^th^{e $6.843 billion}^w^a^s^ad^v^aⁿ^{ce appropriated f}^o^{r FY2006.}
^f^.^Of^th^{e $6.668 billion}^,^{$5.268 billion}^w^a^s^av^aila^ble^f^o^r^FY2003,^an^{d $1.4 billion}^w^a^s^av^{ailable in}
^FY2004.^T^h^{e $5.268 b}^illion^w^a^s^ex^em^{pt f}^r^om^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^{(or “}^o^f^f^s^ets^”^{) in}^clu^d^{ed in}^P^.^L^.^108-^7.
^H^o^w^e^v^e^r,^t^h^e^a^d^v^aⁿ^c^e^a^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^$1.⁴^b^illioⁿ^{for F}^Y^2004,ⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^dⁱⁿ^P.^L^.^108-^7,^w^a^s
^s^u^bj^ect^t^o^t^h^{e 0.59%}^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2004 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^{. 108-}^199).
^g^.^Rev^eⁿ^u^e^lo^{ss, J}^oⁱⁿ^{t Co}^m^m^{ittee o}ⁿ^T^a^x^a^tioⁿ^.
^h^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^ref^l^ect^s^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^P.L^.^108-^7.

^i.^T^h^{is am}^o^uⁿ^t^ex^clu^d^{es $}³^m^illioⁿⁱⁿ^uⁿ^o^b^lig^ated^f^uⁿ^d^{s tr}^an^sf^er^r^e^d^to^th^e^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^acco^uⁿ^t^to^h^e^lp^o^f^f^s^{et a $}³^.⁷^m^illioⁿ^rescissioⁿⁱⁿ^ad^mⁱⁿⁱ^strativ^e^an^d^related^ex^p^eⁿ^s^{es p}^u^rsu^aⁿ^t
^t^o^s^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{803 of}^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2002 S}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^.
^j^.^Rev^eⁿ^u^e^lo^s^s^,^J^oⁱⁿ^{t Co}^m^m^{ittee o}ⁿ^T^a^x^a^tioⁿ^.^No^{te: T}^h^{e Eco}ⁿ^o^m^{ic Gr}^o^w^th^an^d^T^a^x^Relief
^R^econ^c^iliation^A^c^{t of}^{2001 (EGT}^R^R^A⁾^rais^{ed th}^{e lim}^{it on}^ex^pen^s^es^allow^e^{d f}^o^{r th}^{e credit,}
^begⁱⁿⁿⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^a^x^y^{ear 2003.}
^k^.^T^h^es^{e di}^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^prog^ram^s^w^e^{re s}^u^bj^ect^t^o^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^0.59%ⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ
^P.L^.^108-^199.^F^o^{r t}^h^{e l}^a^rg^{er prog}^ram^s^{, t}^h^{e l}ⁱ^s^t^e^{d am}^ouⁿ^t^ref^l^ect^s^t^h^{e res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{, w}^h^ereas^f^o^{r t}^h^e
^s^m^{aller prog}^ram^s^{, th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^r^o^un^din^gⁱⁿ^th^{e table m}^a^s^k^s^th^{e decreas}^{e in}^th^{e actu}^a^l
^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.
^l^.^T^h^e^omⁿⁱ^bu^s^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^{. 108-}^{447) i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed an}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^board^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^0.8%
^f^o^{r th}^es^{e dis}^c^retion^a^ry^prog^ram^s^{. T}^h^{e n}^u^m^bersⁱⁿ^th^{e table ref}^l^{ect th}^{e of}^f^s^{et. (For th}^{e s}^m^aller
^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^{, th}^{e u}^s^{e o}^f^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^th^{e tab}^l^{e m}^a^s^k^s^th^{e decreas}^{e in}^th^{e actu}^a^{l appropriation}^.⁾
^m^.^T^h^{is am}^o^uⁿ^t^r^e^f^l^{ects th}^{e 1}^%^acr^o^ss-^th^e-^b^o^a^r^d^r^e^sc^issioⁿ^th^{at ap}^p^{lies to}^dⁱ^scr^e^tioⁿ^a^r^y^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s
ⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^(P.L^{. 109-}^149).
ⁿ^.^P^.^L^.^109-^{171 prov}^ides^{$2.917 b}^illion^f^o^r^m^aⁿ^d^atory^ch^ild^{care f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^each^of^fⁱ^s^{cal y}^ears^2006-
^2010.
^{o. Of}^th^{e $6.786 billion}^(pos^t-^re^s^c^is^sⁱ^on^{), $1.386}^billion^becam^{e av}^{ailable in}^{FY2007. In}^addition
^t^o^t^h^e^am^ouⁿ^t^s^h^owⁿⁱⁿ^t^h^{e t}^a^bl^{e, t}^h^{e D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^(P.L^.^109-¹⁴⁸⁾^provⁱ^d^ed^$90
^m^illioⁿⁱⁿ^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^{l f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^Head^Star^{t, to}^b^e^u^s^ed^sp^ecifⁱ^cally^f^o^r^g^r^an^{tees ser}^vⁱⁿ^g^ch^ild^r^eⁿ
^dis^p^{laced by}^las^t^y^ear’^s^Gu^lf^C^o^as^t^h^u^r^rican^es^{, an}^{d to h}^e^{lp w}^ith^cos^t^s^of^ren^o^v^a^tin^g^{Head Start}
^f^{acilities th}^{at w}^e^r^e^af^f^ected^b^y^th^{e sto}^r^m^s^.
^{p. In}^addition^{to th}^{e $1.7 billion}^appropriatedⁱⁿ^th^e^L^a^bor,^{HHS, Edu}^cation^law^(P^.L^{. 109-}^148),^th^e
^Def^eⁿ^s^{e A}^ppropriation^s^A^c^{t (P}^.L^{. 109-}¹⁴⁹⁾^prov^ided^$550^m^illionⁱⁿ^SSB^{G f}^uⁿ^d^s^,^s^p^ecifⁱ^cally
^t^a^rg^et^{ed f}^o^{r n}^eeds^ari^sⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e G}^u^l^f^C^o^as^t^H^u^rri^can^es^of^2005.
FY2006 Appropriations
Following a lengthy appropriations process that included three continuing
resolutions¹⁵ and consideration of two conference reports,¹⁶ a bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education (H.R. 3010) was
ultimately signed into law (P.L. 109-149) on December 30, 2005.
Table 2 shows how the funding levels included in the conference agreement
(and ultimately approved and signed into law), compare to the levels requested by the
Administration and approved in the House and Senate versions of H.R. 3010,
discussed below. An across-the-board rescission of 1% was applied to discretionary
programs funded under P.L. 109-149, and the numbers in the table reflect that.
President’s FY2006 request. On February 7, 2005, President Bush released
his budget request for FY2006, which proposed to fund most, but not all, child care
and related programs at the same rounded levels provided in FY2005. Exceptions
included Head Start, for which a $45 million increase was proposed, and Even Start
and the Early Learning Fund, both of which the Administration proposed to
eliminate. Table 2 provides the Administration’s proposed funding levels for child

¹⁵ The first continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 68/P.L. 109-77) extended funding through
November 18, 2005. The second (H.J.Res. 72, P.L. 109-105) continued the funding through
December 17, 2005), and the third (H.J.Res. 75, P.L. 109-128) through December 31, 2005.
¹⁶ On November 17, 2005, the House failed to approve the first Conference Report (H.Rept.
109-300) on H.R. 3010. A second Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-337) was subsequently
approved by the House on December 14, 2005 (by vote of 215-213), and by unanimous
consent in the Senate on December 21, 2005. Head Start provisions in the two did not
differ.

care and related programs for FY2006. (The President’s proposed funding levels for
FY2007 were released February 6, 2006 and are discussed later in this report.)
House. On June 24, 2005, the House amended and passed H.R. 3010, a bill
to make FY2006 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education. House-proposed funding levels for FY2006 matched the
levels requested in the President’s FY2006 budget, with the exception of the Head
Start and Even Start programs, which the House proposed to fund at higher levels
than proposed by the President.
Senate. On July 14, 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved and
reported its own version of H.R. 3010 (S.Rept. 109-103). Proposed funding levels
mirrored those proposed in the House bill, with the following exceptions: Head Start
funding was proposed at a level $25 million less than in the House bill; Even Start
would have been eliminated (as proposed by the Administration); and the IDEA
Infants and Toddlers Program would have been provided with $3 million more than
proposed in the House version.
Table 2. FY2006 Appropriations Compared
with House- and Senate-Passed Levels,
and President’s FY2006 Request
($ in millions)
^Hou^s^e-^a
^Pres^ident’s^pa^sse^d^Sena^t^e^-^P.L^.^109-149
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^H.R.^pa^ssed^(Con^{f. Rep}^o^rt
^Program^Request³⁰¹⁰^H.R^.³⁰¹⁰^109-337)
^C^C^DB^{G d}ⁱ^scretioⁿ^a^ry^(HHS⁾^$2,083^$2,083^$2,083^$2,062
^SSB^G^(HHS⁾^1,700^1,700^1,700^1,700
^{Head Start}^(HHS⁾^6,888^6,899^6,874^6,786
²¹^st^CCLC^(ED)⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁸¹
^Ev^en^Start^(ED)⁰²⁰⁰⁰⁹⁹
^I^D^EA^Iⁿ^f^aⁿ^t^{s an}^d^Fam^ilies^(E^D)⁴⁴¹⁴⁴¹⁴⁴⁴⁴³⁶
^IDEA^P^r^es^ch^ool^(ED)³⁸⁵³⁸⁵³⁸⁵³⁸¹
^E^a^r^l^y^Le^a^rⁿⁱ^{ng Fund}^(HHS⁾⁰⁰⁰⁰
^Earl^y^C^hⁱ^l^d^h^{ood Edu}^cat^or
^Prof^es^sⁱ^on^al^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^(ED⁾¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵
^Earl^y^R^eadiⁿ^g^Fⁱ^rs^t^(ED)¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁴¹⁰³
^C^h^{ild C}^a^{re A}^cces^s^Mean^s
^P^a^r^e^nt^{s i}ⁿ^Sc^ho^o^l^(CA^M^P^I^S)^(ED)16161616
^Source:^T^a^{ble prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.
^{a. A}ⁿ^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^1%^w^a^s^applⁱ^e^{d t}^o^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^prog^ram^s^f^uⁿ^d^{ed u}ⁿ^d^{er P.L}^.
^109-^{149, a}ⁿ^d^t^h^e^s^eⁿ^u^m^b^e^r^s^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^t^h^a^t^r^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^.^F^o^r^t^h^e^s^m^a^l^l^e^r^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s⁽ⁱ^.^e^.^E^a^r^l^y
^C^hⁱ^l^d^h^{ood Edu}^cat^{or Prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^an^{d C}^A^MPIS^{) t}^h^e^use^o^f^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^m^a^s^k^s^t^h^e
^decreas^{e in}^th^{e appropriation}^.

President Bush’s FY2007 Budget Request
On February 6, 2006, President Bush released his budget request for FY2007,
which proposed to fund most, but not all, child care and related programs at the same
levels provided in FY2006. The exceptions included the Social Services Block
Grant, which he proposed be cut from $1.7 billion to $1.2 billion, and the Even Start
program, which the Administration proposed to eliminate. Table 3 provides the
Administration’s proposed funding levels for child care and related programs
compared to the levels approved in House and Senate committees in 2006. Note that^th
the FY2007 appropriations process was still under way at the close of the 109
Congress, with funding being provided (through February 15, 2007) under a third
continuing resolution (P.L. 109-383) at the programs’ FY2006 rate. Supplemental
funding, like that provided to Head Start and SSBG to target needs arising from the
2005 Gulf hurricanes, is not considered in determining the rate for FY2007. (See
“FY2007 Appropriations Process,” later in this report).
CCDBG. The President proposed to maintain both the discretionary and
mandatory portions of funding for the child care block grant (referred to in
combination as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)) at the same levels
provided for FY2006: $2.062 billion and $2.917 billion, respectively. The budget
proposal did not include a plan for maintaining current service levels. According to
budget documents, the number of children projected to receive child care services
funded through CCDF, TANF (transfers and direct child care spending) and the
SSBG will decrease by 300,000 over the next five years (from 2.1 million estimated
to be served in FY2006, to 1.8 million in FY2011.)¹⁷
TANF. The President proposed to maintain TANF in FY2007 at the level
agreed upon in the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171), which provides $16.5
billion annually for FY2006-2010. These funds may continue to be used for child
care, at states’ discretion. The President’s budget also proposed to maintain states’
authority to transfer up to 10% of their TANF grants to the SSBG.
SSBG. The SSBG, a potential source of funding for child care, would have
experienced a cut under the President’s proposal. The President proposed to provide
$1.2 billion for the SSBG in FY2007, a decrease of $500 million from the $1.7
billion provided in the FY2006 HHS Appropriations Act. The Administration
contended that “while SSBG provides State flexibility, as the Congress intended, it
fails to ensure that funds are directed towards activities that achieve results.” In
addition, it argued that “the purposes of SSBG overlap substantially with other
categorical and flexible Federal social service programs.” (Note: the FY2006
Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) provided an additional $550 million in
special SSBG hurricane relief funding for FY2006, which was largely directed
towards the affected Gulf states.)
Head Start. The President proposed to maintain Head Start funding at a level
of $6.786 billion (the same amount included — post-rescission — in the FY2006
HHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149)). In its Justification of Estimates for the

¹⁷ Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States, FY2007, p. 363.

Appropriations Committees, the Administration (HHS) contended that by allowing
a greater portion of Head Start funds to be shifted away from training and technical
assistance and into direct service grants, the number of children estimated to be
served by Head Start (and Early Head Start) would increase to approximately

917,000 (an increase of roughly 10,000 children from FY2006 estimates).¹⁸

21^st Century Community Learning Centers. The President recommended
that the 21^st CCLC program be funded in FY2007 at the same level as in FY2006:
$981 million. The Administration contended that the request would enable districts
to provide after-school learning opportunities to more than 1.3 million students in

2,900 after-school programs.

IDEA Grants for Infants and Families and Preschool Grants. The
President proposed to maintain the same level of funding for these grants as provided
in FY2006: $436 million for grants to infants and families, and $381 million for
preschool grants. The Administration stated that the budget request for infants and
families grants would provide support to 57 state agencies serving approximately
315,400 infants and toddlers with disabilities, and their families. It contended that
the request for preschool grants would provide an estimated $502 per child for
approximately 759,000 children.
Even Start. For the third year in a row, the Administration proposed to
eliminate the Even Start program, which, despite the previous year’s Presidential
request, was funded at a level of $99 million in FY2006, making steps towards
eliminating much but not all, of the program.¹⁹ The FY2007 request — for no
funding — would complete the process. The President has argued that limited
resources are better spent in early childhood programs such as Reading First and
Early Reading First, which, according to the Administration “are better structured
to implement proven research and to achieve the President’s literacy goals.” (The
FY2007 budget request proposed no increase for Early Reading First ($103 million
program) or Reading First ($1 billion program).
Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS). The President
proposed to continue funding the CAMPIS program at the same level as in FY2006
(post-rescission), which is $15.8 million. The Administration estimated that the
FY2007 request would fund 181 existing projects.
FY2007 Appropriations Process
The FY2007 appropriations process, still under way at the close of the 109^th
Congress, has consisted of a series of continuing resolutions, the third of which (P.L.

109-383) is to provide funding through February 15, 2007, at the FY2006 annual rate.

The 2006 fiscal year concluded with Congress failing to pass most of its
appropriations bills for FY2007, including a bill making appropriations for the

¹⁸ For more details on the President’s FY2007 Budget proposals for Head Start, see CRS
Report RL30952 Head Start: Background and Issues, by Melinda Gish.
¹⁹ For more discussion regarding the proposal to eliminate the Even Start program, see CRS
Report RL33071 Even Start: Funding Controversy, by Gail McCallion.

Departments of HHS, Labor, and Education. Therefore, in order to continue funding
government operations into FY2007, Congress passed the first of three continuing
resolutions (CR), attaching it to the Defense Appropriations Conference Report
(H.Rept. 109-676), and it was signed into law (P.L. 109-289) on September 29, 2006.
As of this writing, a third CR (P.L. 109-383) provides funding through February 15,
2007, at programs’ FY2006 rate. (Supplemental funding, like that provided to Head
Start and SSBG to target needs arising from the 2005 Gulf hurricanes, was not
included in determining the FY2006 rate for the FY2007 appropriations.)
While neither the House nor Senate passed a bill in the 109^th Congress making
FY2007 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, their respective Appropriations Committees did pass bills. The
House committee reported H.R. 5647 (H.Rept. 109-515) on June 20, 2006, and the
Senate committee reported S. 3708 (S.Rept. 109-287) one month later. The
committees’ proposed funding levels for child care and select related programs are
shown in Table 3, alongside the funding levels requested by the President.
Table 3. President’s FY2007 Funding Request Compared to
FY2007 Funding Levels Approved by Committees
in House (H.R. 5647) and Senate (S. 3708)
($ in millions)
^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e
^Pres^ident’s^C^o^mmi^t^t^e^e^-^C^o^mmi^t^t^e^e^-
^request^pa^ssed^pa^ssed
^Program^FY²⁰⁰⁷^(H.R^{. 5647)}^(S^{. 3708)}
^C^C^D^B^G^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^(H^H^S⁾^$2,062^$2,062^$2,062
^S^S^B^G^(H^H^S⁾¹^,200^1,700^1,700
^H^{ead S}^t^art^(H^H^S⁾⁶^,786^6,789^6,789
²¹^st^C^C^L^C^(ED⁾⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹
^Ev^en^{Start (ED)}⁰⁷⁰⁰
^I^D^EA^Iⁿ^f^aⁿ^t^{s an}^d^Fam^{ilies (}^E^D)⁴³⁶⁴³⁶⁴³⁶
^ID^EA^Pres^ch^ool^(ED⁾³⁸¹³⁸¹³⁸¹
^Earl^y^C^hⁱ^l^d^h^{ood Edu}^cat^or
^Prof^es^sⁱ^on^al^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^(ED⁾¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵
^Earl^y^R^eadiⁿ^g^Fⁱ^rs^t^(ED⁾¹⁰³¹⁰³¹⁰⁰
^Child^Ca^r^e^A^c^c^e^{ss M}^e^aⁿ^{s P}^a^r^e^{nts in}
^S^c^h^ool^(C^A^M^PIS⁾^(ED⁾¹⁶¹⁶¹⁶
^Source:^T^a^{ble prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^).

The Administration’s Early Childhood Initiative
Good Start, Grow Smart: The Bush Administration’s Early Childhood
Initiative, was first announced by the President in April of 2002 and has been
reflected in budget proposals and program initiatives since that date. Not all the
proposals have been adopted, however. Good Start, Grow Smart focuses on three
overall areas: (1) strengthening Head Start; (2) partnering with states to improve
early childhood education; and (3) providing information to teachers, care givers, and
parents. In the President’s FY2004 budget, he proposed to transfer the Head Start
program to the Department of Education, as well as to provide states with the option
to administer the program. The Head Start reauthorization bill passed by the House
during the 108^th Congress (H.R. 2210) did not include the proposal to transfer the
program to ED, but did include provisions to allow a maximum of eight states to
administer the program (provided they meet designated requirements). The Head
Start reauthorization bills of this (109^th) Congress (H.R. 2123 and S. 2206)
emphasized increased coordination among early childhood programs, but neither
proposed either a departmental transfer of the program or state demonstration
projects.
The Administration has moved ahead with two other efforts that are in keeping
with the Good Start, Grow Smart initiative, but that did not require legislative
changes to the Head Start Act. One is the Strategic Teacher Education Program, also
known as Project STEP, described by the Head Start Bureau as “a comprehensive,
multi-faceted, sequential professional development endeavor to ensure teachers use
research-based strategies to implement early and emergent literacy.” As part of this
development, during summer and fall 2002, 3,000 Head Start staff and 100 state child
care administrators received 32 hours of training in strategies to support children’s
emerging literacy. Those who were trained are expected to serve as “mentor
coaches” for staff within their respective Head Start programs.
The second effort is the development and implementation of a national reporting
system that can be used to assess the effectiveness of Head Start programs in
achieving successful outcomes for children in terms of school readiness —
particularly the areas of literacy and number knowledge. This national reporting
system was implemented starting in the fall 2003, and assesses Head Start 4- and 5-
year-olds twice a year on educational performance measures — using indicators that
were included in legislation as part of the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start.

Legislative Activity in the 109^th Congress
Child Care and Welfare Reauthorizations.²⁰ Both the CCDBG and
TANF were due to be reauthorized at the end of FY2002, and on February 8, 2006,
following 12 temporary extensions, the Deficit Reduction Act was signed into law
(P.L. 109-171), finally reauthorizing TANF and the mandatory portion of child care
funding for FY2006-2010. Essentially, select provisions pertaining to welfare and
child care reauthorizations were adopted from broader, free-standing reauthorization
legislation (H.R. 240) into the Deficit Reduction Act (S. 1932).
With respect to child care, the budget reconciliation act (S. 1932/P.L. 109-171)
increases mandatory child care funding by $200 million annually for FY2006-
FY2010, raising total annual mandatory funding from $2.717 billion to $2.917 billion
(i.e. a $1 billion increase over five years). This provision was initially included in
the welfare and child care reauthorization bill introduced in the House (H.R. 240).
Though less than the proposed increase of $6 billion over five years included in the
Senate committee-passed welfare reauthorization bill (S. 667), the $1 billion reflected
twice the amount proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee in its initial
budget reconciliation recommendations ($500 million over five years) to the Budget
Committee. However, the reconciliation measure does not include a reauthorization
of the CCDBG Act itself (i.e. the program rules and the authorized level of
discretionary child care funding), which was addressed by H.R. 240 and S. 525 (as
passed by the Senate HELP Committee, but never considered by the full Senate).
Brief summaries of those bills can be found below.
H.R. 240, by Representative Pryce (Approved by Ways and Means
Subcommittee, March 15, 2005; Amended and Approved by Education
and Workforce Committee, October 20, 2005). The Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005 resembled the welfare and child care
reauthorization bill passed by the House in the 108^th Congress, with respect to the
bill’s child care provisions. H.R. 240 would have set mandatory child care funding
at $2.917 billion in each of FY2006-FY2010, for an increase of $1 billion over five
years above current funding. This is the one child care provision that was adopted by
the Deficit Reduction Act (S. 1932/P.L. 109-171). The authorized level for the
discretionary portion of CCDBG funding would have been increased by $200 million
annually beginning in FY2006 ($2.3 billion), reaching $3.1 billion in FY2010.
This bill would also have increased the child care 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

²⁰ For more information on welfare reauthorization, including the child care component, see
CRS Report RL33418, Welfare Reauthorization in the 109^th Congress: An Overview, by
Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears and CRS Report RS22369, TANF,
Child Care, Marriage Promotion, and Responsible Fatherhood Provisions in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), by Gene Falk.

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. Lastly, the
bill would have required that aggregated statistics on child care supply, demand, and
quality be included in biennial reports to Congress. (It should be noted that two
committees have jurisdiction over child care: the Education and Workforce
Committee maintains jurisdiction of the CCDBG Act itself, which includes the
program rules and the authorization for discretionary funding, while the Ways and
Means Committee has responsibility for the mandatory child care funding stream that
supports CCDBG programs. The mandatory funding is included in Section 418 of
the Social Security Act, within the same title (Title IV) that includes the TANF
program. (As noted earlier, TANF funds may also be used by states to support child
care.)
Amendments to H.R. 240, by the Education and Workforce Committee. H.R.

240 as approved by the Education and Workforce Committee on October 20, 2005,

adopted two CCDBG-related amendments (offered by Representative Fortuño). The
first would require states to certify in their state plans that they will provide
information to parents on the IDEA Part C program, as a way to foster coordination
between the program and CCDBG. The second amendment called for states to
collect and report information on the ethnicity and primary language of children
receiving CCDBG services and also would add a definition of limited English
proficiency to the law.
Failed Amendment to H.R. 240, by the Ways and Means Human Resources
Subcommittee. On March 15, 2005, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human
Resources debated H.R. 240, and ultimately approved it (8-4), with solely Republican
support. Child care funding remains a contentious issue, and Representative Stark
offered an amendment to increase mandatory child care funding by $11 billion over
five years (as opposed to the $1 billion included in the bill), but it was rejected.
H.R. 751, by Representative McDermott (Introduced February 10,
2005). The Work, Family, and Opportunity Promotion Act included provisions to
reauthorize TANF, and proposed to increase mandatory child care funding by $11
billion over five years. This bill did not receive committee action.
On the Senate side, bills (S. 105 and S. 6) to reauthorize welfare and aspects of
child care were introduced early in the Congress, but did not receive committee
action. On March 9, 2005, both the Finance Committee and the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved and ordered reported bills (S. 667
and S. 525) to reauthorize welfare and child care respectively, described below. Note
that in the Senate, the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the mandatory child
care funding (and TANF), and the HELP Committee holds responsibility for the
CCDBG Act. As mentioned earlier, a mandatory child care component ($1 billion
over five years) was included in the budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932), signed into
law (P.L. 109-171) on February 8, 2006.
S. 667, Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for
Everyone (PRIDE) Act of 2005 (Finance Committee Ordered Reported
March 9, 2005). The Senate Finance Committee approved and ordered reported,
with bipartisan support, a bill (S. 667) referred to as the Personal Responsibility and

Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act of 2005. The bill, which would
have reauthorized TANF through FY2010, proposed to maintain the TANF block
grant at its FY2005 level and to provide an additional $6 billion in mandatory child
care funding over five years. The bill also proposed to provide an additional $1
billion over five years to the Social Services Block Grant. The allowable transfer
from TANF to the SSBG under this bill would have been maintained at 10%.
S. 525, The Caring for Children Act of 2005 (HELP Committee
Ordered Reported, March 9, 2005). This bill, introduced by Senator Alexander
on March 3, 2005, closely resembled the CCDBG reauthorization bill reported out
of the HELP Committee last Congress (S. 880). As was the case with the earlier bill,
the HELP Committee approved S. 525 with bipartisan support.
Major provisions would have authorized CCDBG discretionary funding at a
level of $2.3 billion for FY2006, rising in $200 million increments up to $3.1 billion
for FY2010; increased the percentage of funds that must be used for quality activities
(newly specified in the proposal) from at least 4% to at least 6%; instructed states to
use not less than 70% of funds remaining after quality and administrative set-asides
for direct services (as defined by states); added three new goals to the act: (1)
improving the quality of child care, (2) promoting school preparedness through
developmentally and age-appropriate activities in child care, and (3) promoting
parental and family involvement in the education of young children in child care
settings; eliminated the federal eligibility maximum limit of 85% of state median
income (SMI); required states to describe in their state plans how they would
coordinate with other early childhood programs such as Head Start, state pre-
kindergarten, and IDEA to expand accessibility to and continuity of care; required
states to conduct statistically valid market rate surveys within two years preceding
their state plans, and to set rates in accordance with the results (without reducing the
number of children served); expanded data collection requirements; and required
states beginning in FY2006 to submit a plan addressing the quality of child care
services provided. Title II of the bill contained provisions to enhance security at
child care centers in federal facilities, and Title III established a small business child
care grant program, through which competitive grants would have been awarded to
states for establishment and operation of employer-operated child care programs. (S.

525 would have authorized $50 million over five years for this purpose, whereas S.

880 would have authorized $30 million. S. 525 also proposed to change the CCDBG
allocation for tribes from “not less than 1% and not more than 2%” to a concrete
“2%.”)
S. 105, by Senator Talent (Introduced January 24, 2005). This Senate
version of the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005
contained the same child care provisions as are proposed in H.R. 240 (see above).
S. 6, by Senator Santorum (Introduced January 24, 2005). Among tax
and TANF reauthorization provisions, the Family and Community Protection Act of
2005 (S. 6) included an additional $1 billion over five years in mandatory child care
funding.

Head Start Reauthorization. The Head Start program has been due to be
reauthorized since the end of FY2003. On September 22, 2005, the House passed
H.R. 2123 (by a vote of 231-284). The Senate did not bring a bill to the floor during
the 109^th Congress, but the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)
Committee did approve and report S. 1107/ S.Rept. 109-131. Summaries of major
provisions in the two bills (H.R. 2123, as passed by the House; and S. 1107, as
approved (by voice vote) by the full HELP Committee in the Senate) can be found
in CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Issues, by Melinda Gish.
Other Child Care-Related Legislation. Other bills related to child care
that were introduced in the 109^th Congress include H.R. 335 (Lynch), a bill to amend
the CCDBG Act to increase availability and quality of child care by creating
incentives for people age 55 and over to become child care providers; S. 15
(Bingaman), a bill that includes several provisions to amend both the Head Start Act
and the CCDBG Act to expand access to programs and to improve program quality;
S. 32 (Dayton), a bill authorizing the Secretary of Defense to fund child care for
active duty military without access to a military child development center; and S. 233
(Roberts), a bill providing grants for building a child care training infrastructure and
for encouraging employer-provided child care.
Response to Hurricane Katrina
Following Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) issued a series of information memoranda alerting Head Start grantees and
state child care administrators to various efforts being made to assist their respective
programs in helping children and families affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Specifically, the Head Start Bureau urged all its grantees to provide Head Start
services to any displaced children and families in their communities as a result of the
hurricane. On September 12, 2005, HHS announced that $15 million was available
for helping cover costs over a 30-day period. Grantees were instructed to treat any
preschool-aged child whose family had been displaced from their home as income-
eligible, with or without documentation. The Head Start Bureau anticipated that
programs serving newly enrolled displaced children might struggle to meet certain
Head Start regulations, and issued guidance for requesting waivers in those areas.
Moreover, the Bureau encouraged grantees to contact their regional federal offices
with any concerns arising from serving evacuated families. The regional offices were
asked (by HHS) to collect data (on a daily basis) from their respective grantees
regarding the number of evacuee children being served by their program(s), and
whether these children were new to Head Start, or, instead were previously enrolled
in a Head Start program in the community from which they were displaced as a result
of Hurricane Katrina. For copies of documents prepared by HHS relating to Head
Start’s role in responding to children and families affected by Hurricane Katrina, as
well as procedures for addressing damaged facilities, see the following website:
[ h ttp://www.headstartinfo.org/ hurricane_rir.htm] .
Moreover, the Defense Department’s Appropriations Act for FY2006, signed
into law (P.L. 109-148) on December 30, 2005, included $90 million in additional
funding for Head Start, to be used specifically for grantees serving children displaced
by last year’s Gulf Coast hurricanes, and to help with costs of renovating Head Start

facilities that were affected by the storms. Those funds were not allocated according
to the standard Head Start formula due to the targeted purpose of the funding. The
Head Start Bureau took action to assess and address the needs of Head Start grantees
in response to the hurricanes, collecting data for determining allocation of the $90
million.
The Defense Appropriations Act also included SSBG funding in the amount of
$550 million for use in covering expenses related to the consequences of last year’s
hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. (Expenses could potentially include child care
costs.) The Defense Appropriations Act expanded the potential services for which
the additional $550 million could be used, to include “health services (including
mental health services) and for repair, renovation and construction of health facilities
(including mental health facilities).” The allocation of funds was based on Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) registrant data from hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma, with registrants from Hurricane Katrina receiving double-
weighting. The news release regarding the allocation of funds can be accessed at
[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/hurricane_relief.html]. The bulk of the
funds were allocated to the states of Louisiana (40%), Mississippi (23%), Texas
(16%), Florida (10%), and Alabama (5%). A table showing all states’ allocations can
be accessed at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2006/SSBG_funds.htm].
The Child Care Bureau of HHS issued guidance regarding ways in which state
child care administrators may use their Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG) funds to help respond to needs resulting from the hurricane. No additional
emergency grant funds have been provided, but state administrators have been made
aware of various options for their use of funds, for example, making funds previously
reserved (at a minimum 4% level) for “quality activities” available for use in
providing emergency child care for displaced families. Likewise, states are reminded
that they may amend their state CCDBG plans to redefine eligibility conditions (e.g.,
redefine “working”) or priority rules and broaden them to be more inclusive of
displaced families. For the full information memorandum sent to the state CCDBG
lead agency administrators, see [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/
current/im0503/im0503.htm] .
On July 11, 2006, HHS Secretary Leavitt granted waivers that lifted state
matching requirements on a portion of child care funding, allowing Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas to access $60 million in federal funds without making the
state matching contribution normally required of CCDF mandatory child care funds.
The authority for the waivers was provided in the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148). As a result of the waivers, Louisiana was eligible
for $27 million; Mississippi, $2 million; and Texas, $31 million.

Hearings
On March 15, 2005, the House Education and Workforce Committee’s
Subcommittee on 21^st Century Competitiveness held a hearing titled “Welfare
Reform: Reauthorization of Work and Child Care.”
On September 27, 2006, the House Education and Workforce Committee’s
Subcommittee on Education Reform held a hearing titled “Perspectives on Early
Childhood Home Visitation Programs.”