# Comprehensive Child Development Act *A 1971 federal child development bill introduced by Senator Walter F. Mondale of Minnesota. It reached the President as Title V of S. 2007, and President Richard Nixon vetoed it.* The **Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971** (S. 1512) was introduced in the [[United States Senate]] on April 5, 1971, by Senator [[Walter Mondale]] of [[Minnesota]] with 29 cosponsors.[^1] The bill would have rewritten Title V of the [[Economic Opportunity Act of 1964]] as a comprehensive child development program in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).[^1] Its purpose clause stated the aim "to provide every child with a fair and full opportunity to reach his full potential." It also set out a legislative framework for later expansion toward child development services available to all.[^2] The program reached President Richard Nixon as Title V, *Child Development Programs*, of S. 2007, the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971. Nixon returned S. 2007 to the Senate without his approval on December 9, 1971.[^3] The veto message quoted the purpose clause as "to provide every child with a full and fair opportunity to reach his full potential," with "full" and "fair" in reverse order. It called that purpose laudable, and it called Title V "the most deeply flawed provision of this legislation."[^3] The Senate sustained the veto on December 10.[^4] The veto message also restated the administration's own earlier "national commitment to providing all American children an opportunity for a healthful and stimulating development during the first five years of life."[^3] The documented outputs of December 1971 were a veto of the program written to that description and a Senate vote sustaining it.[^3][^4] The [[Minnesota Historical Society]] records that the measure had passed both the Senate and the House before the veto.[^5] ## Who Mondale, a Democrat who had been [[Attorney General of Minnesota]], represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1964 to 1976.[^5] He chaired the Subcommittee on Children and Youth of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and presided over the 1971 hearings on S. 1512.[^6] The joint hearings were held with the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, chaired by Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. The full committee was chaired by Harrison A. Williams Jr. of New Jersey.[^6] The 29 cosponsors listed on the introduced bill included Cranston, Humphrey, Javits, Kennedy, Mansfield, McGovern, Muskie, Nelson, Pell and Williams.[^1] In a statement placed in the hearing record, Senator Alan Cranston of California called the cosponsors "a broad bipartisan group of Senators." He named Javits and Schweiker as the ranking subcommittee minority members.[^7] On the executive side, Nixon signed the veto message. On December 9 the White House released a news briefing on the veto by Frank C. Carlucci III, Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Stephen Kurzman, HEW Assistant Secretary for Legislation.[^4] ## What S. 1512 directed the Secretary of HEW to give financial assistance to child development programs under the new Title V.[^8] Congress's stated findings in section 501 were as follows: - millions of American children were suffering avoidable harm for lack of adequate child development services; - comprehensive programs covering health, education and social services should be available as of right to every child, regardless of background; - no mother could be required to work outside the home as a condition of using the programs.[^2] Section 514 listed the permitted uses of funds. They included: - health, nutrition and prenatal services; - facilities, and the training of professional and paraprofessional staff; - after-school, summer and overnight programs; - programs keyed in the text to "minority group, Indian and migrant" children and to children from bilingual families.[^9] Cranston's statement described the bill as making the Office of Child Development in HEW the principal agency for administering the act.[^7] The veto message records that Nixon had established that office within HEW in 1969.[^10] ## When - **April 5, 1971:** S. 1512 was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.[^1] - **May 13 and 20, 1971:** joint subcommittee hearings were held on S. 1512 and related bills (S. 706 and S. 530). The May 13 session opened at 10 a.m. in room 412 of the Old Senate Office Building, with Mondale presiding.[^6] - **December 9, 1971:** Nixon vetoed S. 2007. The message was transmitted to the Senate on December 10.[^3][^4] - **December 10, 1971:** the Senate sustained the veto.[^4] The American Presidency Project dates the message December 9, the date of the veto. The *Public Papers of the Presidents* dates it December 10, the date of its release.[^4] ## Why The bill's stated reasons are in its findings and purpose clause. The purpose clause gave special emphasis to preschool programs for economically disadvantaged children and to children of working mothers and single-parent families. It also called for decisions on programs and funding to be made at the community level, with parents fully involved.[^2] Cranston told the subcommittees that the bill had "the support of a broad coalition of education, child development, and civil rights organizations."[^7] The veto message set out nine numbered objections. Among them: - the need for such a program and its desirability had not been demonstrated; - it duplicated day care in the administration's H.R. 1 proposal; - the States "would be relegated to an insignificant role"; - it would commit federal authority "to the side of communal approaches to child rearing over against the family-centered approach."[^10] The message called the program "a long leap into the dark." It also stated agreement with supporters who called it "the most radical piece of legislation to emerge from the Ninety-second Congress."[^10] ## How The bill made the following eligible to be prime sponsors: any State; any city, or any county with city-like powers; combinations of localities; and federally recognized Indian reservations.[^11] Public or private nonprofit agencies could also qualify, but only where a locality had not applied or was not performing, or for migrant programs and model projects.[^11] Governors could review and comment on applications from bodies other than the State. A sponsor whose designation was refused or withdrawn could petition a federal court of appeals within sixty days. Review by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] was available on certiorari.[^11] Each prime sponsor was to establish a Child Development Council and neighborhood Local Policy Councils. Parents of eligible children were to elect the members of the Local Policy Councils.[^12] Funding depended on a comprehensive plan approved by the Secretary. Under the plan: - economically disadvantaged children were to be served without charge; - other families were to pay on a fee schedule based on ability to pay; - enrollment was, where feasible, to draw children from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds.[^13] ## How much Section 512 authorized $2,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973; $4,000,000,000 for fiscal 1974; and $7,000,000,000 for fiscal 1975.[^8] The veto message said that spending "two billions of dollars" could not be justified. It also cited the prospect of costs that "could eventually reach $20 billion annually."[^10] The message set out the administration's alternatives: - existing federal day care support through Head Start and the Social Security Act of "more than half a billion dollars a year"; - an H.R. 1 request for "$750 million annually in day care funds," including $50 million for building facilities; - an increase in child nutrition support from less than $600 million to more than $1.2 billion since 1969.[^14] At the May 13 hearing, Cranston described an earlier Senate floor amendment for full Headstart funding at the $398 million authorized level. The amendment passed 44–32, and the conference committee then approved $360 million.[^7] ## How many After setting aside funds for children of migrant agricultural workers, children on Indian reservations, and model projects (capped at 5 per cent), section 513 divided the remainder among the States as follows:[^15] | Share of remainder | Basis of allotment | |---|---| | 50 per cent | economically disadvantaged children | | 25 per cent | children under six | | 25 per cent | children of working mothers and single parents | Each plan had to reserve no less than 65 per cent of the remainder of its apportionment for economically disadvantaged children.[^13] Child Development Councils had the following composition rules: - at least half the members were to be elected from Local Policy Councils; - at least one-third were to be economically disadvantaged parents; - at least one appointed member was to be a child development specialist.[^12] The veto message gave several further counts. It said that making communities over 5,000 population eligible invited "as many as 7,000 prime sponsors," compared with fewer than 1,200 Head Start grantees. It also said that only 8 States required kindergarten.[^10] The message counted food stamp participation as rising from 3.6 million to 10.6 million people since 1969.[^14] The program was distinct from the [[Food Stamp Program]]. ## In the Minnesota record ### Who Governor [[Orville Freeman]] appointed Mondale Minnesota attorney general in May 1960, and Mondale held that office until 1964.[^5] Governor [[Karl Rolvaag]] appointed him to the Senate seat left by [[Hubert Humphrey]]'s election as Vice President.[^5] After 1968, Mondale sought seats on the Labor and Public Welfare Committee and its Subcommittee on Children and Youth.[^5] He later served as [[Vice President of the United States]] from 1977 to 1981. He was the [[Democratic Party (United States)]] nominee for President in 1984.[^5] ## Notes [^1]: U.S. Senate, *S. 1512, Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971*, as introduced, printed in *Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971: Joint Hearings*, Part 1 (April 5, 1971) — introduction by Mondale with 29 cosponsors, referral, title, and amendment of Title V of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^2]: U.S. Senate, *S. 1512*, sec. 501 (April 5, 1971) — statement of findings and purpose. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^3]: Richard Nixon, *Veto of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971* (December 9, 1971) — return of S. 2007 without approval; Title V purpose quoted; prior administration commitment. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/veto-the-economic-opportunity-amendments-1971 [^4]: The American Presidency Project, note to *Veto of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971* (December 9, 1971) — transmittal on December 10; Senate sustained the veto on December 10; Carlucci–Kurzman briefing; dating note. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/veto-the-economic-opportunity-amendments-1971 [^5]: Minnesota Historical Society, *Walter F. Mondale Biography* (n.d.) — Mondale's party, offices and appointments, committee assignments, and the child care measure passed by both houses and vetoed. https://www.mnhs.org/mondale/biography [^6]: U.S. Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, *Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971: Joint Hearings*, Part 1 (May 13 and 20, 1971) — committee and subcommittee rosters, bills considered, and opening of the May 13 session. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^7]: U.S. Senate, *Joint Hearings*, Statement of Hon. Alan Cranston (May 13, 1971) — bipartisan cosponsorship, coalition support, Office of Child Development, and Headstart funding figures. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^8]: U.S. Senate, *S. 1512*, secs. 511–512 (April 5, 1971) — program authorization and authorized appropriations for fiscal 1973–1975. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^9]: U.S. Senate, *S. 1512*, sec. 514 (April 5, 1971) — uses of federal funds. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^10]: Richard Nixon, *Veto of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971* (December 9, 1971) — the nine stated objections, cost figures, prime-sponsor and kindergarten counts, and the 1969 Office of Child Development. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/veto-the-economic-opportunity-amendments-1971 [^11]: U.S. Senate, *S. 1512*, sec. 515 (April 5, 1971) — eligibility of prime sponsors, gubernatorial review, and judicial review. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^12]: U.S. Senate, *S. 1512*, sec. 516 (April 5, 1971) — Child Development Councils and Local Policy Councils. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^13]: U.S. Senate, *S. 1512*, sec. 517 (April 5, 1971) — comprehensive child development plans, 65 per cent reservation, fees, and enrollment mix. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf [^14]: Richard Nixon, *Veto of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971* (December 9, 1971) — administration's day care and nutrition figures and the H.R. 1 request. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/veto-the-economic-opportunity-amendments-1971 [^15]: U.S. Senate, *S. 1512*, sec. 513 (April 5, 1971) — reservations and allotments among the States. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1/pdf/CHRG-92shrg63121Op1.pdf