olA ...

:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Q:ongrcssional1RcrordPROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 924 CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

VOLUME liB-PART 19

JULY 17, 1972 TO JULY 25, 1972

(PJl<7ES 23915 TO 25346)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHIN<7TON, 1972

;- i: ~

24210 CONGRESSIONAL iiEc01tD-2'SENATE:-:':,?-':-,,,-:.:,

Ju~1f 18,\ 1972EToWAH MAN RODE $20 TO U.s. CABJ:EJ1

(By James Free)WASHINGTON.-Just before the Alabama

bank was forced to close In the "bank holi­day" declared in the depths of the economicdepression in 1933, the First National Bankof Attalla cleared a final loan-for $20. .

With this modest but hard-to-get stake.Elmas E. (Red) COx bought a one-way ticketto Washington, D.C., and arrived here, fiatbroke, on a blustery March day.

He cOnsidered himself lucky and relativelyrich. for he had the promise of somethingthat milUons of able-bodied adults badlyneeded at the time;--a. job.

Cox began his career in the federal govern­ment at $100 a month. He is best known toAlabamians for his 20 years as top aide toformer Rep. Albert Rains, D-Ala.• from 1945to 1956.

For these past two years, he bas beenspecial assistant to the Comptroller of theCurrency-an 01llce that functions under theTreasury Department. And, appropriately forCox, it is the one in which he started at thebottom of the Civil Service ladder and pro­gressed to the highest, so-called "supergrade"(18) at $26,000 a year (now $36,000).

Fortunately for Red Cox. his two decadeson Capitol HU!, to a considerable extent, wererelated to his earller and later work in theexecutive branch.

His legislative boss, Rep. Rains, was anactive and most effective member of theHouse Banking and Currency Committee,which deals with many fiscal and bankingproblems.

Red, a husky, gregarious siX-footer, isknown as a man with friends In manyplaces-particularly In Congress-as a fellowwho can get things done.

His frlendllness and talent for getting alongwith people in dlIDcult situations helped himget going in the first place.

He had hoped to go to Howard College(now Samford University) after his gradu­ation from Etowah County High School. Infact, he went to Birmingh;lID to enroll, buthad to withdraw. The economic stagnationhad engulfed the Cox family, too, and hismother was ill.

So back in Attalla, Red attended classes ofthe Alabama School of Trade. "I thought Imight become an electrician," he said. "Butit didn't take. My wife says I can't even fiXan electric plug in our house, and I guessshe's right."

Before long young Cox got into somethingless technical. He became a room clerk ata local hotel, which no longer exists. One ofthe residents, When Congress was in recess,happened to be then Rep. Miles Allgood.

He llked Red, and promised to help hlmland a job in Washington. He kept thepromise.

After a few weeks with a temporary agency,Cox-thanks to Rep. Allgood-latched on toa position as file clerk .in the OIDce of theComptroller of the Currency. He remaInedwith this sub-agency of the Treasury Depart­ment until Dec. 16, 1937.

It aided in setting up the Federal DepositInsurance COrporation in September. 1933.His next job was with the Federal HousingAdministratIon, until he went to CapItol HillIn January, 1945,' to join newQr elected coil­gressman, Albert Rains, In a post nowclassl­fied as administrative assistant.

In addItion to the friends met through hiswork with' Rep. Rains, cox's acqualntance­ships were widened through his marrIage tothe former Miss Josephine Frick of Houston,Tex., who . had served a,s, secretary to Reps.Albert Thomas and Olln Teague of Texas.

When Rep. RaIns retired to private lawpractice In 1965, Cox had a number of jobolfers. One of the best came from Aerojet.General, one of the giants In the "space"program.

He chose to go back to the agency Wherehe started-the OIDce of the Comptroller ofthe Currency. "I figured It would be easIerto work with banks than to get a man onthe moon," said Red.

The present comptroller, WillIam R. Camp,Is a career man that Cox knew In the sameshop When both were new to Washington.

The Coxes live at Lake Barcroft in sub­urban Virginia. They have two sons, Barry. 8senior in civil engineering at the Universityof Alabama; and Lee, 13.

Red likes to fish, when he gets the chance.And he can do It on short notice, sInce heUves on a lake. His main recreation Is poli­tics. "I'm a damn good Democrat," he says.

ALCOHOL AND HIGHWAY SAFETYMr. PERCY. Mr. President, more than

50,000 Americans are killed on our high­ways each year. This is an alarmingdeath toll particularly when we considerthat a majority of these accidents couldbe prevented.

Alcohol has a significant infiuence onhighway accidents. Approximately one­half of all deaths on the road are aresult of the drinking driver. He causesan estimated economic loss in highwaymishaps of $8 billion annually.

The National Safety Council reportedlast month that the first 4 months of1972-

Have been among the worst for trafficsafety In the hIstory of the United States.A total of 16,320 persons have dIed natIonwidesince January 1. There were 4.440 in Aprllalone. making it the deadliest Aprll for traf-fic ever. .

Also in its report, the NSC urges thatsome portion of the Federal alcoholbeverage tax receipts be utilized to helpfinance better highway safety programs.Several States have approved new legisla­tion to allow 18-year-olds to purchaseand consume alcoholic beverages, there­fore, the revenues collected from the Fed­eral tax could exceed $5 billion in theyears to come.

Since alcohol is so directly related tohighway accidents and deaths, it wouldseem reasonable to suggest that someportion of these receipts be allocated tohighway safety. I have proposed such aplan. In the bill (S. 2719) which I intro­duced last year, I recommend that asmuch as 10 percent of the Federal al­cohol tax be utilized to improve highwaysafety and get the drunk driver off thestreets. Based on the 1970 revenues, 10percent would have amounted to $475million. This figure is more than fivetimes what is currently being spent.

In May of this year I. was privilegedto testify before the Subcommittee onPublic Roads of the Senate Public WorksCommittee on my proposal. I urged thecommittee to make' highway safetyspending a higher national priority andto asSure adequate funding through theuse of the Federal alcohol tax. Otherwitnesses, including the National SafetyCouncil, also testified to. the inadequaciesof current programs and funding levels.

The problem of the drinking driver isso serious and the deaths that result sosenseless. that I believe the longer wehesitate the more irresponsible our indif­ference becomes. If we had moved earlierto implement stronger programs in the

States and assure F'ed~r~rfui1ding;forthem. perhaps many of the16.000 personswho died in the first part ,ofth1syearwould have been saved.

WINnows ON DAY CAREMr. MONDALE. Mr. President. I ask

unanimous consent to have printed inthe RECORD excerpts from "Windows onDay Care: A Report Based on Findingsof the National Council of JewishWomen." This excellent and perceptivereport was released by the .council lastweek.

I invite the attention of.Senators to thestudy because it relateS directly to legis­lation now under consideration by thesenate-the bipartisan child develop­ment bill agreed to last week by theSubcommittee on Employment. Man­power. and Poverty. and jhe day careprovisions in. H.R. 1 now before theCommittee on Finance.

The report of the council documentsthe disgraceful inadequacy of existingday care services in this country. By nowmost of us have heard the statistics: thatthere are almost 6 million chUdrenunder the age of6 whose,rnothersareworking, but only 700,000 licensed day­care slots available to serve them.

What this report adds to the pictureis the firsthandexperiencl;l ,of parentswho have desperately tried to findquality day care and have been frus­trated in this effort in one way oranother. '

Here is a description < of one of thecenters visited for the. studY :

This is an abomInable' ~enter. It ,was verycrOWded, In charge Were,sElveraluntralnedhigh school girls. No adultllpresent. No decenttoys. Rat holes clearly visible. To keep dis­cipline, the chlldren weren't allowed to talk.ThIs mass custodial center. couldn't havebeen worse.

This description' summarizes.well theproblems highlighted in the study: lackof standards for physica.l condition ofmany centers; lack of enforcement ofstandards concerning the ratio betweenchildren and staff; lack of stimulatingeducational experiences in many pro­grams; lack of trained' staff; and lackof adequate funding.

But the stUdy also includes a mostencouraging set of findings on the qualityof Headstart-the most· creative fed­erally supported preschool program."The Headstartcenters evoked warmerpraise on the part of the survey par­ticipants than any other group of. cen­ters observed," accordin'g'to the report.

Of the Headstart ceh~rs studiet1,. thecouncil found that: ", ,. , .Ninety~threepercenthadparents on

their boards. ". ".,>. .

.Eighty-three percelltemployed parerit~as .aides in theceriter. . ,,' .,... . .

Ninety-five .percent , had. medical ornursing services avallable.; .,

In addition, Headstart directors werefound to have greater training than mostdirectors or other pro~anis. t'

A 'Headstart center" in' Cthe' PacificNorthwest was. singlecl.Out 'by the' re­searchers as an example,of,.a",pr()gramof superior quality. 'qomp~re·tIiis' cie-

July 18, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 24211scription with that of.. the center I re­ferred to earlier:

The center was open from seven in themorning untU six at night. The director, pro­fessionally trained In the fleld of early chUd­hood education and with a college degree,received a salary of $10,000. Four full timenon-professiorials • . . a part time aid andfour volunteers also assisted. There were thusfewer than flve children to each adUlt. Theservice of a nutritionist, cook, nurse and so­cial worker were shared with a pUbliCschool ..• Parents were actively involved asboard members ••• There was a good play­ground as well as good indoor and outdoorspace and eqUipment. The observer was im­pressed by what she regarded as an excellentprogram.

The' importance of this finding withrespect to the quality of the Headstartprograms cannot be overemphasized. Inwhat this stUdy shows to be an otherwisedisappointing nonsystem of day care,Headstart is a promising example ofwhat good can be done. That is why thelegislation I introduced last year-whichwas vetoed by the President-and thenew bill I liave introduced In this ses­sion build upon the best elements of theHeadstart approach-the provision ofa quality program including educational,medical and social services, with parentalInvolvement, adequate training and de­cent standards, and those elements whichhave been retained in the bill reportedlast week by the Subcommittee on Em­ployment, Manpower and Poverty.

That bill speaks in many ways to therecommendations of the Council report.The Council calls for free services forpoor families and partially. SUbsidizedservices for families with higher incomes.The Council stresses that "child careprograms must provide the educational,nutritional, health, psychological and so­cial and other services necessary if chil­dren are to realize their potentials."

Other council recommendations in­clude the expansion of Headstart andthe upgrading of standards to assure thatcenters provide quality programs.

Mr. President, I wish to place in theRECORD chapters I and IX, which de­scribe the methodology of the study andthe recommendations emanating from it.I sincerely commend it to the attentionof Senators and to members of the pub­lic who share our concerns about chil­dren and child development.

There being no objection; the chapterswere ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:CHAPTER I. THE PLAN OF THE REPORT AND

. HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDA­TIONS

This Windows on Day Care Report tells thestory of what members of the National Coun­cU of Jewish Women in 77 of their local Sec­tions saw when they examined existing daycare needs and services in their communi­ties.

To put CouncU flndings in the perspectiveof the national scene, Chapter n summarizeshighlights of what Is now known about thearrangements made by mothers who obtainday care services for their chUdren. It aisoindicates the extent to which present chUdcare facUlties throughout the country faU tomeet existing and anticipated needs.

What did the need for day care in theirown localities look like to Couuc.li membersparticipating in. the Windows on' Day CareProject? Their' flndingsare presented inChapte~m·E~apters.;tV,V, an~VIsumma-

rize what survey participants saw when theyVisited proprietary and non-profit day carecenters and day care homes.

Chapter vn reports what CouncU mem­bere learned When they talked with mothersabout their own day care needs and prob­lems.

Chapter VUI offers illustrations of whatCouncU Sections are doing In their commu­nities to help expand and improve day careservices.

Chapter IX presents recommendations foraction at the national, state and local levels.They are offered for the consideration of allwho share the CouncU's conviction that acountry as well endowed as ours can no longerIgnore the fact that millions of our young­sters are today denied the developmental op­portunities which shOUld be the birthrightof every American chUd.

A FEW mGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS

With respect to the national scene, manygroups of chUdren are urgently in. need ofdevelopmental day care services:

CHILDREN OF WORKING MOTHERS

Six mUlion chUdren under the age of sIXhave working mothers. Most of them work forcompelllng economic reasons. About a mil­lion of the children whose mothers are em­ployed are In poverty; another mllllon areIn famiUes living close to the poverty line.Most of the families of these two millionchildren would be on welfare If their mothersweren't, earners.

Only a very small percentage of the chU­dren whose mothers are employed now bene­flt from developmental day care services. Thelarge majority are cared for in their ownhomes or the homes of others and most ofthem receive only custodial care. Well underten percent are enrolled in licensed day carecenters. Of the centers visited by CouncUmembers only about L quarter provided de­velopmental care including educational,nutritional and health services, the essentialcomponents of quality care. Survey par­ticipants found that far too many chUdrenof working mothers were grossly neglectedlatch-key children on their own, chUdrenWho went with their mothers to their placesof work because no other arrangements couldbe made for them. chUdren in day care cen­ters and homes of such poor quality they maysuffer lasting Injury. The flrst flve years of achild's life are the period of the most rapidmental, personality and physical growth. De­privation in the early years can have disas­trous effects.

The number of chUdren of working moth­ers in .need of care has been rising conslder­ably more rapidly than the supply of servicesavailable.Children 01 mothers who do not work and

are in povertyA second group of children no less In need

of good day care are the two and one-halfmUlion chUdren under the age of sIX whosefamUies are in poverty and Whose mothersare not employed. Most of these chUdren areeconomically, educationally, and physicallyseriously disadvantaged. Part-day care couldgive these children the head start they sogreatly need. The many people Council mem­bers interviewed in their communities, clos­est to day care needs, agreed that we are do­ing far, far less than what we should be doingfor these chUdren.

Other children who need careThere are many others whose need for good

day care is urgent: infants, for whom littlequality care is avaUable; handicapped chU­dren whose special health and other needscould be met by competent day care special­ists but who now receive little assistance;chUdren whose mothers are ill or handi­capped; children whose mothers are stUdyingor in work training, or whose voluntary serv­Ices in the community make a vital contribu­tion. In need of day care ale all the addltlon-

al chUdren whose parents desire It for themat a price they can afford.

The acute shortage of quality day care fa­cUlties today is depriving millions of chU­dren of the opportunity to get a good startup the ladder of life. For many It will foreverdeprive them of the chance to realize theirpotentials.

Acute local shortages reportedIn their local communities participants

found mounting concern with what can onlybe called a day care crisis in most of the areasin Which the survey was undertaken. Incommunity after community the people mostknowledgeable about day care needs andexisting services told Council interviewersthat an eIght or ten fold or even greaterexpansion of qUality day care would notSUffice.

The growing day care shortage hit all In­come groups hard. That the poor sufferedespecially was obVious. Federal funds for daycare now help provide servIces for fewer than5 percent of the children of economically dis­advantaged famUies most In need.

Most parents who want quality care forchUdren are not eligible for care that Is sub­sidized and they cannot find affordable, un­subsidized qUality care. Developmental daycare services are expensive. They cost asmuch as $2,000 to $3,000 a year a child. Fewfammes can afford that. Thus millions ofparents make do with inferior and oftenharmful arrangements.

Council findings about day care centersAll licensed proprietary and non-proflt

centers In the United States had an enroll­ment capacity In 1970 for about 625.000 chil­dren, many of whom were cared for only partday. This number Included chUdren of pre­school age, and those of school age who re­ceived care only after school. Council mem­bers visited 431 centers throughout the coun­try caring for about 24.000 children.

It was found that the great majority ofthe children cared for in the centers observedhad working mothers. Proprietary centersprimarUy served middle- and higher-Incomefamilies. The non-proflt centers largely en­rolled children from low-Income families al­though some of them did accept childrenfrom middle income famlUes which werecharged fees scaled to Income.

ChUdren from. one-parent homes headedby working mothers were a small minorityIn most proprietary centers. Most of the pro­prietary. centers visited were too expensivefor most mothers without husbands. Mostnon-profit centers gave these children toppriority. In two-thirds of such centers visitedby Council members, chlldren from one­parent homes were a sizeable majority.

About three-fourths of the day care cen­ters observed were largely segregated Insti­tutions. serving only white or predominantlywhite families, or only black or predomi­nantly black families.

Findings about proprietary centersHere are a few additional flndings about

the proprietary centers seen:The average fee charged was about $18.50

a week per child. Council members felt thatthis was all that the great majority of fam­llles served could afford to pay, yet theyrecognized that fees at this average level donot and cannot possibly bUy developmentalcare.

Because the average fee charged was lessthan half what quality care actually costs,parents got what they paid for. In more thanhalf the proprietary centers the size of classesexceeded generally accepted standards andthe adult-child ratios were far too low.

Salaries paid center directors and otherprofessional staff were, on the whole, verymuch lower than those paid elementaryschool personnel. The great majority receivedless than $4,000 a year with many paid sUb­minl.mum wage rates. With salaries so low,

24212 C6NGRESSIONAL RECORD l:..SENATEas was to be expected. the majority of thestaff were people with little or no tra1n1ngin early chUdhood education or development.

On the basis of the wide range of informa­tion collected, the proprietary centers visitedwere rated as to whether they seemed to beproviding care which might be called "supe­rior," "good," "fair," or "poor." Only one per­cent of the proprietary centers visited wereconsidered "superior." 15 percent were re­garded as "good." An additional thirty-fivepercent were essentially custodial, providing"fair" care in the sense of meeting basic phys­ical needs with very llttle, if any, by way ofdevelopmental services. Half were consideredto be rendering poor care and in some casesthis was found to be very bad indeed. ManyUlustrations in the Report demonstrate thisto the hilt.

Findings about nonprOfit centersThe non-profit centers presented, on the

Whole, a more encouraging picture. About 15percent of the non-profit centers visited wereHead Start projects; about the same per­centage were other programs Wholly financedby publlc funds. About one quarter of all non­profit centers observed were jointly financedby publlc and private funds and another onequarter were centers run by philanthropicagencies. A few were hospital based. Many ofthe remainder were church operated, usuallyrun on a fee for service basis.

On the Whole, of all centers seen, the bestof the Head Start Centers elicited the mostpraise on the part of Council members.

While Head Start and most of the otherpublicly financed programs provided serviceWithout cost or at a nominal fee, a largemajority of the other non-profit programsscaled their fees from nominal amounts up­ward, according to the income of the parent(fees averaging about $11 a week), or chargeda fiat fee (averaging about $14 a week).

While non-profit centers catered primarllyto working mothers, the majority of whomheaded their own famllles, their hours werenot as well adjusted to the needs of em­ployed mothers as might have been expected.None of those Visited were open around theclock and very few were open long enoughto meet the needs for women who got towork very early or who worked late or onweek-ends.

Quallflcations of directors of non-profitcenters were far higher than those whoheaded centers under proprietary auspices,although there was relatively little differenceas to the degree of training of other staffmembers.

Salaries paid were far better in non-profitthan proprietary centers for both profession­al personnel and aides. In a far higher pro­portion of non-profit centers than proprietaryones, adult-chlld ratios met generally ac­cepted standards; and non-profit centers wereconsiderably more llkely to provide the fullrange of services considered necessary fordevelopmental care. For these, among otherreasons, the services of the non-proflt cen­ters were, on the whole, rated much higherthan those of .the proprietary centers visited.This is understandable. Costs of services ranfar higher in the former than the latter.'Services in many pUblicly financed centerswere reported to cost well over $2,000 a yearper chlld; in some the cost exceeded $3,000.

Of all non-profit centers seen, nearly atenth were regarded as "superior," providingcare as good as any found. SomeWhat morethan one quarter were considered "good," andabout half were rated "fair," meaning thatwhlle they prOVided for basic physical needsthey were essentially custodial. Somewhatmore than a tenth were considered "poor:"Councll members felt that some of the poorcenters shouldn't have been permitted to goon functioning.

Family day care homes observedTurning to a few observations about family

day care homes, it is estimated that, in the

nation as a Whole, as many as 2mlllionchlldren may be receiving care lri homesother than their own while their mothers areaway at work. Fewer than .five percent ofthese homes, it is estimated, are licensed orsupervised.

Councll members, seeing family day carehomes at their best felt they sometimesoffered development opportunities fully equalto that available in superior centers. Whilenine percent of the homes observed werethought to be prOViding "superior" care, 28percent were regarded as "good." Half werecustodial in nature prOViding no educationalor other services beyond the mere meetingof physical needs. An additional 11 percentwere regarded as "poor" or very poor. Someof the latter prOVided the worst horror storiesencountered.

What mothers had to sayThe interviews with mothers reported by

Survey participants were partiCUlarly inter­esting. A large proportion of the mothersreceiving welfare assistance with WhomCouncil members talked said they hadsearched to no avall for free or low cost carefor their chlldren in order to be able to lookfor work. Mothers in work training programsoften said the free or low cost care being pro­vided their chlldren wouldn't be availableonce they found employment. They didn'tsee how they could take jobs since the costof chlld care would bring their earnings be­low welfare levels.

Working mothers comprised a large major­ity of the women interviewed. Most of themshared day care related problems includingfinding good enough care at a low enoughprice, arranging for transportation, and find­ing faclllties open early and late enough toaccommodate Job schedules. While a fewmothers received free care, fees for othersranged from $2 to $100 a week, with theirweekly outlays averaging $15.

Of all child care arrangements used by themothers interviewed, center care evoked toewarmest response particularly because it wasmore apt than other types of service to in­clude educational components.

Among the mothers not at work who wereinterviewed some said that were it not forday care dltnculties they would be at work,or in study or work training programs.Others said they did not wish to join thelabor force believing their young childrenneeded their full time attention.

What council members are aoingSection reports included accounts of what

members were doing to expand and improveday care in their communities. At present,131 of the Councll's 176 Sections are active inday care, many in more than one way..Anumber of other Sections. are consideringvarious day care projects. At least 32 Sec­tions are now sponsoring or co-sponsoringday care centers. An additional '68 Sectionsare trying to set up cen'ters, some of whichare on the verge of opening; others are look­ing into the possiblllty of doing so. TwelveSections which had initiated day care cen­ters have turned them over to others to run.Thirty Sections contribute volunteers on aregUlar basis to day care centers sponsoredby others. At least 23 Sections contributeservices to day care centers other than pro­Viding regular volunteers. In the areas ofcoordinating and/or stimulating day carein their communities or states, 26 Sectionsare or have been specifically concerned withthe 4-C Program (Community CoordinatedChlld Care). Some 38 Sections have beentaking a leading part in helping to coordi.;nate. and stimulate day care in their areasthrough 'programs other than the '!l-C Pro­gram. Five Sections are or have been activein efforts to expand and improve familyday care and three in the training of daycare center workers.

A significant contribution to the Sections'work in the day care field emerged from the

work undertaken to DlItlie' .'th1J l1iepor\;'pos;,Psible. Many COuncil members reported thatthis had enlarged tlJ,e!r understanding ~of

day care 'needs in'tb.eir loca.llties and hadstimulated •• them to seek addltionalmeansto help meet them.' For many it. opened upnew, constructive .roles in various day careactivities. For all it deepened the convictionthat ours, the richest of all nations can andmust rise to the day care challenge .thatconfronts us.

HIGHLIGHTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1.. Comprehensive developmental chlld daycare.. services should be available to all fam­lUes who wish their chlldren to benefit fromthem.

2. Federal appropriations of at least $2 bil­lion are recommended for fJ.scal year 1973,rising by $2 bllllon annually well into the1970's, to expand and improve quality daycare services. Program funds should be allo­cated only to public and private non-profitprograms and to the upgrading of family daycare homes.

3. Day care shOUld be prOVided withoutcharge for children in low income fam1lles,with fees scaled to income for others. Eco­nomically disadvantaged chlldren shouldhave priority.

4. Head Start programs should be con­tinued and expanded.

5. Day care shOUld not. be regarded as a"welfare" service. It is needed by families atall income levels. All publicly aSsisted daycare programs 'should be integrated racially,ethnically, and With respect to eocio-eco­nomic groupings.

6. State and local matching funding re­quirements should be reduced to 10 percentand waived as necessary.

7. Existing appropriations under Title IVof the Social SecurIty Act and other exist­ing programs should continue' uncurtalled.

8. All Federal day care programs should becoordinated. ConsIderation should be given tothe extent to Which funds under these pro­grams might flow to the States and localitiesthrough a single channel.

9. A clearinghouse should be established inthe Offlce of Chlld Development of the De­partment of Health, Education and Welfareto provide state and local groups informationas to the sources of all Federal funds avail­able for day care services and procedures tobe follOWed in applying for them.

10. Neither work training nor employmentshould be a mandatory requirement for pUb~lie assistance eligib1llty of .mothers. The rightto choose whether to. work or .to take careof their own children is one to Which' all

·mothers are entitled. . . '. ...,. 11. With respect to thedel1very of expand­,ed day care services, we recommend the es­tablishment at the local governmental levelof an Offlce of. Child Development,oritseqUiValent, Where such an. agency does notnow exist, to coordinate the full range of pub­licly assisted chlld care and related famUyservice programs. We also recommend theestabl1shment .' cif representative;' loCal childand family service policy councils, With a •high degree of parental participation. It isrecommended that Federal funds be allocatedto help support these functions. This mecha­nism would prOVide a useful means forutll­lZing'those local 4--0 (Community Coordi­nated Child Care) Committees which meetaccepted criteria;

A similar mechanism is recommended atthe State governmental level.

12.' Concerted effort 'isneected in 8011 com-munitiesto: .. ' ..' '.•... "•..... ". ;, ..

Survey needs for comprel:1ensive,child careservices. ., .' '."'. .'

Prepare localpl~n:s!oi:meeting needs.Eliminate overlapping elforts.'. .•Expand care for inrants and toddlers, for

bUingual children, for handi\lapped ch~ldren,

and for other children wIth special needs.-Provide' early morning, late day and night

July 18, 197,~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~ SENATE 24213care for children of mothers. whose workinghours require such services.

Expand day care services in the neIghbor­hoods where children live.

Expand transportation services relating today care.

Cluster day care centers to effect Improvedcommon· services.

Satellite day care homes around day carecenters.

Provide day carE! jobs for parents and oth-ers with provisIon· for career ladders. •

Expand training opportunities for day careworkers. both professional and non-profes­sionaL

Encourage 'volunteer participation in daycare programs and training opportunities.

Ellmlnate· substandard wage scales and ex­cessively long· hours of day care personneland makE! professional salaries commensur­ate with those in elementary education.

Improve statE! and local licensing statutesand procedures and improve the quality ofenforcement and its effectiveness.

Assure better continuity between day careand elementary education.

Expand all types of quality care in thecommunity, public and private.

Develop educational programs for parentsrelating to day care needs and availableservices.

Include in the high school curriculumcourses in family life and child develop­ment that prOVide opportunities for volun­teer service in day care centers.

Educate the public as to the magnitudeof day care needs and the soundness of alarge scale public investment in compre­hensive child care and related familyservices.

CHAPTER IX. RECOMMENDATIONS

THE GOAL

Our ultimate goal as a nation should beto make available comprehensive, develop­mental child care services to all fammes thatwish to use them. These services should beprovided without charge to low Income fam­111es (defined as fam111es of four with in­comes of less than $4,320 a year), and tofamilies with incomes above that level forfees on a sliding scale based on family in­come.

The diversity of need for child care serv­ices should be recognized. Full-day develop­mental child care services should be greatlyaugmented for the preschool children ofmothers who are employed and mothers inwork training and study programs. Priorityshould be given to children of mothers whohead their families, and to other children ineconomically disadvantaged fam111es. Part­day services of a developmental quality needto be greatly expanded for other childrenwhose mothers are not employed and whoseparents wish them to benefit. Here, too, eco­nomically disadvantaged children shouldhave priority.

This report focuses on the need for daycare. services for children of preschool age.Our recommendations, are, therefore, ad­dressed largely to the needs of those chil­dren, although we recognize fully that aneven larger number of school age childrenwhose mothers are employed are in no lessurgent need of care before and after schooL

FEDERAL LEGISLATION CALLED FOR

1. We recommend that SUfficient Federalfunds be authorized for fiscal year 1973 toprovide developmental day care services on afull day basis for an additional 200,000 chil­dren, one half of them to be fully subsidized,and one half to be partially subsidized, Withfees scaled to income; and, on a part-daybasis, for an additional 200,000 children, one-

. half to be fully and one-half to be partiallyI Subsidized. ."." :- Itmust be recognized that comprehensive~Child-care services cost money; they cannotcbe skimped if they are to prOVide adequately

the range of services essentially to the men~

tal, emotional, and physical development ofchildren. Child care programs must prOVidethe educational, nutritional, health. psycho-

. logical, social, and other services necessaryif children are to realize their potentials.

In hearings in January 1971 before theSena.te Committee on Labor and Public Wel­fare on S. 1512, the Comprehensive ChildDevelopment Act (SUbsequently passed byboth Houses of Congress but later vetoed byPresident Nixon), Dr. Edward Zigler, Direc­tor of the Office of Child Development, De­partment of Health, Education and Welfare,submitted estimates O)f the costs of groupcare. The cost of full-day group C3re of"acceptable quality" was placed at $1,862per child, per year and of "desirable quality" ­a~ $2,320 per child, per year, based on 1967cost data. By the end of 1971, those costes~imates, adjusted for subsequent pricerises, would have, been $2,292 and $2,856,respectively.

A stUdy funded by the Office of EconomicOpportunity examined the costs of 20 qual­ity child care centers and day care homessponsored by Head Start affiliates, other pub­licly financed agencies, a.nd by private pro­prietary and private non-profi~ groups. Itplaced costs, as of November 1970, at anaverage of about $2,350 per chil:! per year fora program for 25 children, at ~2,250 for 50children, and at $2,200 for 75 chUdren. Thesefigures would have been $2,442, $2,340, and$2,285 respelltively at December. 1971 prices.

Assuming apprOXimate costs of $2,300 perchild, per year for full-day, fully sub­sidized child care and $1,200 for part-dayfully subSidized care, and then adjustingthose figures for the fees scaled to incomethat some parents might be expected to pay,a Federal outlay of at least $700 millionwould be reqUired to provide direct servicesfor 400,000 children of preschool age, on thebasis recommended.

We recommend, in addition, that outlaysfor Head Start programs, Which are esti­mated to total about $350 million in fiscal1972, be expanded to at least $500 milllon infiscal year 1973.

We recognize that the suggef,ted expan­sion of serviceS-Which in our judgment is amodest target-would reqUire outlays foradministrative costs, training, technical as­sistance, planning and coordination, fam­ily participa.tion and involvement services tofammes, construction and renovation of fa­c111ties, establishment of a mortgage in­surance system, and research, among otheressential purposes. We believe that an ap­propriation of $1.5 billion for fisco.l year 1973to expand developmental child care servicesfor preschool children only would be in­sufficient to attain the suggested goals. Even~ $2 bllllon Federal appropriation for fiscal1973 for developmental child care servicesfor children of preschool and school age, be­fore- and after-schOOl, would hardly sUffice.SlJch an amount is the least that shOUld beappropriated.

Program funding should be llrn1ted topubllc and private non-profit programs andto activities directed toward the upgradingo' family day care homes.

We recommend that Federal legislation forthe expansion and improvement of child careservices drop the preva1l1ng requirement forstate and local matching at 70/30 or 76/25levels, and instead place matching on a 90/10basis, with procedures to wai"e the 10 per­cent state and local matching requirementas necessary.

If programs are to be increased to reachthose most urgently in need of developmentalchild care, Federal outlays should rise by aleast $2 billion more every year, to $4 billionin fiscal 1974, and $6 bUlion in fiscal 1975,and so on well inti> the 19705.

Given the clearly demonstrated magnitUde. of need, as we have seen it in our commu-

nities, we Cannot afford to do less. The sug­gested $2 billlon authorization for fiscal 1973would represent less than one fifth of onepercent of the value of our total output ofgoods and services. It would be equivalentto less than a fifth of what is spent eachyear for tobacco, and less than one eighthof what is spent for alcoholic beverages. Wecan afford this modest $2 bUlion investmentin our children. We cannot afford the con­tinued neglect of children-neglect we candocument throughout the United States­the cost, of which is huge in both human andeconomic terms.

PRESENT FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS SHOULD

BE SUSTAINED

2. It is our recommendation that the ap­propriation suggested above be a supplementto present outlays for other Federally sup­ported day care programs. We strongly rec­ommend that funding under Title IV-A re­main open-ended, as at present.

INTEGRATION IS VITAL

3. Day care should not be regarded as a"welfare" service, any more than public ed­ucation. Day care is a service needed andwanted by famllies at every income level.We strongly recommend efforts to assurethat all publicly assisted child care programsbe integrated racially, ethnically, and interms of socio-economic groupings.

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION

4. We recommend that the Office of ChildDevelopment of the Department of Health,Education and Welfare be designated as theagency to be responsible at the Federal levelfor the administration of the suggested newprograms. We also recommend the establish­ment of a National Policy Council composedof representatives of pare:lts, members ofpublic and private agencies involved in theprOVision of day care services, and other ac­knowledged leaders in the fields of earlychqdhood education, health and develop­ment.

It is Vital that eXisting Federal programswhich provide funds for a multiplicity ofuncoordinated child care programs be effec­tively coordinated. The present lack of coordi­nation stimulates grantmanship at the locallevel. A good grantsman may tap Federalfunds from many agencies, each unaware ofthe allocations of others, while some com­munities, no less urgently in need, may re­ceive little or no funding.

There is need for more than a clearing­house to apprise each agency of the actionsof others. Federal funds for child care servicesshould fiow to states and localities in accord­ance with sound state and local plans for ac­tion. There is need, too, for consideration ofthe extent to which Federal funds 'for childcare services might be provided to the statesand localities through a single channel.NEEDED-A CLEARINGHOUSE OF INFORMATION ON

FUNDING

5. Pending the development of a more effec­tive coordination mechanism at the Fed­eral level, the Office of Child Developmentshould provide a clearinghouse in the Fed­eral Government to serve as a single, centralpoint for information on the sources of fundsand the procedures that local groups andagencies might follow in applying for them.

REVIEW OF paESENT ALLOCATIONS NEEDED

6. We recommend that an intensive review'be made of the present use of Title IV-Afunds. The reView should be made by a com­mittee appointed by the Secretary of Health,Education and Welfare, with a representa­tive membership. As discussed in Chapter IVof this report, releases of the Department in­dicate that of the $300 million in Federalfunds allocated in fiscal 1971 to the statesand localities for day care under Title IVof the Social Security Act, nearly 60 percentof the total prOVided child care serv'ices inhomes of welfare-assisted mothers; about 30

24214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -··SENATEhood. steps must be taken .to provide moreadequately, .. transportation as,· an essentialcomponent'of child care service.

Bole 01 the day care center in thecommunity

We need to enlarge concepts of the role ofthe day care center in the community. Thiswas well put by a committee appointed at aconference called by the Office of Child De­velopment. in cooperation with the Office ofEconomic Opportunity. in the summer of1970. This committee was chaired by Dr. UrleBronfenbrenner. distinguished professor ofpsychology and child development at CornellUniversity. The committee's "Statement ofPrinciples-Day Care USA." published by theOfil.ce of ChUd Development, said:

"The day care center should become thefocus of social and service programs involv­ing fammes. neighbors, local businesses. civicorganizations. and any other agencies in thecommunity. This enables the entire com­munity to become aware of and actively con­cerned with the children in its midst. Theday care program has the responsibl1lty ofserving as a bridge to the larger communityin which the child lives."

We share these concepts and hope they willbe more generally accepted.

There is need for intensive exploration ofthe possiblUties for clustering day care cen­ters. or grouping them into area systems.Economies and improved services couldemerge in many instances from shared pro­fessional direction, staff interchange, com­mon or cooperative purchasing, and othercentral services.

Day Care HomesAnother challenge relates to the dlfil.cult

problem of how standards of famUy day carehomes might best be improved. As has beendiscussed in Chapter VI, perhaps fewer thanfive percent of the immense number of daycare homes are licensed or supervised. Theyare too numerous and too small in scale tobe brought universally into compliance. evenif more of them could be brought within thelicensing system. Too vast an army:of in­spectors would be required. While we rec­ommend that efforts be continued to licensea larger proportion of family day care homes,there are many steps communities mighttake in the meantime to help upgrade thequality of these facUities. They include es­tablishment of free or low cost courses inearly childhood education and developmentin local community colleges and other edu­cational institutions which day care homeoperators might be encouraged to take. Spe­cial child care centers should be establishedwhich might work in conjunction .withsatellite family day care homes in the neigh­borhood, at the option of the operators. Thecenters could provide workshops and filmpresentations and serve as lending lIbrar1~

and lenders of educational materials. toys:and equipment. ChUdren in the homes mightcome to the centers for a number of hours aweek to participate in group activitieS underskUled •direction. Operators might visitclasses. Center staff might visit family daycare homes. at their operators' request. toconsult and advise.

Day Care .fobs for patents and othersThe quality of child care. services could be

further enhanced through' the large scaleexpansion of training opportunities· for par­ents and . others who desire them. boththrough on-the-jOb experience and/orthrough academic courses, to eliable them tobecome day care aides; with ample provisionfor career ladders to further' their advance.

Wage • scales..'fndhoursAnother essential element in the upgrad­

ing of day care services is the eliminationof substandard wage scales .and excessivelylong working hours. No Federal funds shouldbe allocated for programs in which day care

Local coordination is. we believe. essentialto the accomplishment of many Vital tasks. Itis highly desirable in most communities thatcomprehensive surveys be conducted of localchild care service needs. and of the availa­bility and location of existing centers andhomes in relation to those needs. Thereshould be coordinated planning for facUityand service expansion. Especially needed, iflarger amounts of chUd care service fundswere to become available, would be coordi­nate:! determination of where and how andfor whom these funds could best be used.There are many other common purposes atthe local level which can best be advancedthrough the coordinated efforts of all agen­cies involved. public and private.

Because effective coordination of all childcare programs is vital, it should be encour­aged and supported. It is not enough to pro­vide, as has been proposed In some recentchild care bills, that local governmental or­ganizations (prime sponsors) and ChUd De­velopment Councils coordinate and moni­tor only such new programs as the legisla­tive proposals would authorize.

It is recommended that a small proportionof all Federal funds for chUd care and pre­school educational services be earmarked forallocation to those communities which estab­lish in their governmental structures an Of­fice of Child Development. or its equivalent.as an intragovernmental mechanism for thecoordination of the fUll range of chUd careand development. early education services.and related family service programs. Also asa requirement for such allotments, we rec­ommend the establishment of local chUdand family service policy councils made upof representatives of parents Who shouldconstitute one third to one half of the mem­bers; of members of public and privateagencies and organizations concerned; andof qualified community leaders. Neither thegovernmental unit nor the polley councilshould be identified as "welfare" oriented.

The establishment of such an agency andpoliCy councU could prOVide a much,needed coordination mechanism with respectto the fUll range of public funds. Federal,state and local. This would offer an oppor­tunity to use existing 4-C organizations tothe extent they meet the ellgib1l1ty require­ments agreed upon. or they could be modi­fied to do so. In other localities where 4-Ccommittees or their eqUivalents do not existor cannot be built upon, the suggested Fed­eral allotments for coordination would serveas an Incentive for establishment of coordi­nating policy councUs. It is suggested thatthese councils should be polley making andnot operational bodies With respect to theactual delivery of services.

State prime sponsors and policy councilsare slmUarly desirable. There are essentialcoordination, planning and policy functionsto be exercised at the state level.

EXPANDING AND IMPROVING SERVICES

10. We recommend the development or ex­pansion of free or low cost training programs.Staff members of private and public centersand day care home operators can be encour­aged to participate through a point accredi­tation system or similar mechanism. Thecourses should also be open to parents, espe­cially those who are Child DevelopmentCouncil or project board members. '

Concerted efforts are needed to assure theavailabl1lty of day care services for the chil­dren of employed mothers who work at nightor at early morning or late day hours, for in­fants and toddlers, for bilingual children, forhandicapped children, and for other chlldrenWith special needs.

It is important that comprehensive daycare services be available in the neighbor­hood. Mothers strongly prefer not to trans­port small children long distances. Pendingavallabl1lty of sufil.clent care in neighbor-

lJercent, lJrovlded care in family day care orgroup care homes; and only about 10 percent,provided care in centers.

NEEDED-IMPROVED REPORTING SYSTEl\4S

7. Another change .needed at the Federallevel is the improvement of the reportingsystem relating to day care and preschool

. educational facilities. Data are collected bythe Ofil.ce of Child Development on currentenrollment in licensed day care homes andcenters; statistics on enrollment In kinder­gartens and nursery schools are reported bythe Ofil.ce of Education. The two series over­lap and there are serious deficiencies in both.There should be a single reporting system.providing Information on the availability ofday care and educational services for pre­school children. both public and private.showing full-day and part-day enrollment ca­pacities.

MANDATORY WORK REQUIREMENTS OPPOSED

8. An additional reco=endation set forth.relating to Federal responsibilities. is thatneither work training nor employment berequired to make mothers eligible for publicassistance. We believe all mothers should befree to decide whether to work or to takecare of their own children. We regard thischoice as a fundamental right in our society,a right which must be preserved.

We would emphasize that our Investiga­tions and those of others convince us that ifquality day care services were to become in­creasingly available, a large proportion ofAFDC mothers would elect to use them andto enter training programs or accept employ­ment. We are strongly opposed not only tomandatory work requirements, but also tothe development of a second rate care sys­tem for the children of welfare-assistedmothers. Disadvantaged children. even morethan others. need developmental opportuni­ties of high quality if they are to have anequal chance with the more fortunate; theymust not be segregated as they are today inmany pUblicly subsidized programs.

STATE AND LOCAL COORDINATION IS NEEDED

9. Not only should day care program actiV­ities at the Federal level be better coordi­nated; the Federal government has a majorresponslbl1lty to encourage and assist moreeffective coordination of child care services atthe state and local levels. The 4-C program(the establishment of state and local Com­munity Coordinated Child Care Committees)was initiated toward this end. While the pro­gram is potentially a very usefUl one, It hasfaUed to achieve its declared objectives, withBome notable exceptions, because of inade­quate stafil.ng and support. and lack of direc­tional clarity and of Interagency coordinationat the Federal government through the re­gional ofil.ces to the state and local commit­tees. Very little Federal funding has beenavailable except for a limited number ofpilot projects.

An original impetus to the establishment.of 4-C committees In some areas had beenthe hope that these committees might be therecognized channels through which child(lare funds would fiow from Washington.When this failed to materialize, some 4-C-committees broke apart as local groups com­pleted to become grant recipients.

Because 4-C committees have lacked com­mon guidelines and have been largely de­pendent on very limited sums of local money,there has been great variation from localityto locality in 4-C organization and function.Some committees have promoted training op­portunities or served as informational cen­ters. Others have regarded themselves aschild service advocates. A few have been in­volved in actual planning and coordinationactivities; a few have assumed roles withrespect to fund administration. having ob­tained contracts to do so; and a few havebeen directly involved in program operation.

July 18, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-.SENAT~, .". ".' ; . - ~

24215personnel are paid less than the Federal mini­mum wage. Far higher salary scales for non­professionals should .. be encouraged. Profes­sional salaries should conform with accept­ed standards. for elementary school teachersand administrative personnel.Linking pre-school and elementary education

Both day care and elementary schoolingwill benefit to the extent that there can bea closer interrelationship· of and con~inuity

between these educational services.Others can help

A responsibUity that all of us concernedwith day care, .. its expansion,· and its im­provement should accept is to encourage, tothe fullest extent feasible, the expansion ofevery possible type of qUality day care in ourcommunities, in addition to what is now be­ing assisted or may be in the future, bypublic funds. Employers need to appreciatethat the provision of chUd care services is awise business move. It can greatly help cur­tall excessive rates of turnover of personneland absenteeism, and promote the efficiencyof mothers on the job. This includes em­ployers in private industry as well as Fed­eral, state and local agencies. Colleges anduniversities, hospItals, and other institu­tions could and should, on a far wider basis,provide child care services for stUdents,trainees, and employees. Only one majortrade union in the country has succeededin including the provision of day care serv­ices on a sizable scale in its collective bar­gaining agreements. Why should not manyother unions seek to do so? There is muchthat can be done to give greater impetus tothese and other potential sources of daycare service expansion.IMPROVING STANDARDS AND THEm ENFORCEMENT

11. Another key challenge to action is theimprovement of the regulation and enforce­ment of chUd care program standards. Werecommend that any legislation to expandfunding for child care services provide forthe development of Federil.1 child care stand­ards which local programs would have tomeet to be eligible for funding, no less com­prehensive than the 1968 Federal InteragencyDay Care Requirements approved by the De­partment of Health, Education and Welfare.the Office of Economic Opportunity and theDepartment of Labor.

Recent joint efforts on the Part of the Of­fice of Chlld Development and the Office ofEconomic Opportunity to involve child careleaders in the development of a suggestedModel State Licensing Statute are commend­able. It is recommended that such a code, if itis to be a "model," .be consistent With. thehigh standards iI.1ready set by several states,and not be geared to the lowest or middlecommon denominator of practice.

It is recommended that NCJW n:emberswork with representatives of other organiza­tions in their states to urge their Governorsto establish licensing review panels wherethey have not recently done so, to update andimprove state licensing standards and admin­istrative procedures, and to make them con­sistent With a recommended Model Statute.Steps are needed to bring local regulationsand procedures into conformity as well, toeliminate overlapping jurisdictions and con­flicting requirements, to find means. to re­duce the number of steps applicants for li­censes must take, and to eliminate unneces­sary delays and obstacles in the licensingprocess.

Standards are no better than their enforce­ment. In tb1s area we· are falling miserablydue to inadequate appropriations as well asto unwieldy regulations. A vital role forCouncU members and others cOl1\:erned is topress for adequate appropria~ions for en­forcement and for the development of guide­llnes or manuals which outline clearly pro-cedures to be followed. .

We need a more hUman1zedandservlce

oriented. concept of licensing enforcement.Inspectors must be more than police officers.They should be service oriented, and servicetrained, able not so much to crack down asto take a constructive part in the task ofhelping facll1ties to come into compliance.We recommend that Federal legislation forthe expansion of chUd Care services includeallocations for the states and localities tohelp In the upgrading of licensing and en­forcement.

EDUCATING THE COMMUNITY

12. Needed far more universally are educa­tional programs at the local level to informparents more fully about desirable standardsfor day care centers and family day carehomes, to assist them in playing a more ef­fective role through their own greater in­volvement and participation. Parents needespeciil.1ly to have sufficient information asto the kinds of services avaUable from whichthey may choose, as best suited to their ownneeds and their children's.

Another educational activity recommendedis the inclusion in the high school curricu­lum of courses relating· to famlly Ilfe andchUd development, with opportunities af­forded young people to participate as volun­teers in high qUil.1ity day care programs.

Community education programs are alsoneeded to help the publlc appreciate morefully the magnitude of day care service needs,the stake of the community in the large scaleexpansion of quallty services, and the sound­ness of an investment in comprehensive, de­velopmental chlld care and related familyservices.

TRffiUTE TO ALABAMA'S ROY D.HICKMAN, PRESIDENT OF RO­TARY INTERNATIONALMr. ALLEN. Mr. President, one of

life's great pleasures is to see recognitioncome to a man or a woman who dailygives generously in time and effort, aswell as money, to help his fellow man.

For many years I have watched myfellow Alabamian, Roy D. Hickman ofBirmingham, go about the daily tasks re­lated to his business, Alabama Engrav­ing Co., in Binningham, and in a vastnumber of civic activities to which he notonly gave use of his name, but whichbenefited from his active participation.The entire State of Alabama has servedas a. field in which he sowed the seeds ofgenerosity. Roy Hickman's integrity asa businessman is matched by his reputa­tion for doing for others with no thoughtof gain for himself.

Among the many activities to whichhe has given so freely has been the Bir­mingham Rotary Club and Rotary In­ternational. Since becoming a Rotarianin 1935 at the age of 33, he has servedas president of his home clUb, as districtgovernor, as aide to paBt Rotary Inter­national President Frank E. Spain-alsoof Alabama-and in many other capaci­ties.

While conducting a successful businessand taking a leadership role in his civicclub, Roy Hickman also made time towork in an impressive array of commu­nity tasks, including serving in the pres­idency of the Birmingham Chamber ofCommerce, the Sales Executive Club, theAmerican Ordnance Post, the ExecutivesClub and the Downtown Club. He hasserved local community chest andunited fund organization,. as an adviserto the Salvation Arniy, president of theAlabama Tuberculosis Association and

director of the American TB Association,in addition to many other worthy causes.

He has amassed a vast array of honors,inclUding the William Booth Award fordistinguished. service in civic and philan­thropic activities bestowed by the Salva­tion Army.

And now, Mr. President, Roy Hickmanhas attained the highest honor that hi..<;fellow Rotarians can bestow-that of thepresidency of Rotary International forthe years 1972-73.

I think that my feeling of pride andpleasure at this new and great honor forRoy Hickman reflects the feelings of allof my fellow Alabamians. We are prOUdof and for him.

Mr. President, the July 1972 edition ofthe Rotarian inclUdes an article on RoyD. Hickman, the 62nd President of Ro­tary International. This story of a mod­em day Horatio Alger hero is recom­mended. reading. I ask unanimous con­sent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:MEET Roy HICKMAN: WORK MADE THE MAN(The 62d President of RI is a commonsense

Rotarian who strongly values vocationaldignity and Rotary's Object)It has been said, "When you want to find

out how high a man has climbed, you havefirst to learn where he started from." For themeasure of how far Roy D. Hickman hastravelled to become the 1972-73 President ofRotary International, one must look back to1935, when he first became a Rotarian andbeyond to his 'boyhood days in Chattanooga,Tennessee, where he learned the virtues ofself-rellance, hard work, and the determina­tion to succeed against adversity. Today heis the board chairman of Alabama Engrav­ing Company and its affiliate Platemakers,Incorporated, both located in Birmingham.

A tribute to the 62nd President of RotaryInternational was read into the United statesOongressional Record last November from theU.S. Senate fioor by Alabama Senator James .B. Allen, Who stated: "Roy Hickman came upthe hard way. He learned the meaning andvalue of work at an early age and worked tohelp put himself through college. His re­freshing attitude toward work is expressedin these words: 'Working was the best thingin the world that could have happened tome. It teaches you to appreciate things moreif you work for them than if they are handedto you on a sUver platter.'''

Certainly the invitation to become a Rotar­ian was not presented on a silver platter,but hard earned. He first became interestedin Rotary in 1926, when he arrived in Bir­mingham, Alabama, as a salesman for Ala­bama Engraving Company. In his field ofsell1ng photo engraving, especially for highschool and college yearbooks, he called onevery printer in town. He came to know thelate John C. Henley, Jr., president of theBirmingham PUbilshlng Company, chartermember of the Rotary Club of Birmingham,and a Past District Governor of Rotary In­ternational. Rotarian Henley took an inter­est in young Roy and told him that in duetime--when he had matured and was ready­he wanted him to become a Rotarian.

Nine years passed before John Henley, withsome trepidation and confessed misgivings,proposed for membership in that staunchlyconservative Club the name of Roy D. Hick­man. As a customer of Roy's company, Johnhad been impressed over the years by theintegrity and intell1gence of Roy Hickman.who was then far below the average age ofthe. Club members. He was only 33--a mere'stripllng in the eyes of the Club grey-heads.. The Birmingham Rotary Club takes pride