Then it is pointed out nearly 99 percent of our funds is expended to prevent dissolution of the family. The costs of raising a child to age 18 in institutions in these other categories is $120,500, three and a half times the estimated cost of raising the child in his natural home.

I presume from that that you think that there should be substantial stress in a program of this sort-and, of course, we are dealing with child and family services-on such things as family counseling and educational programs, training for parenthood, et cetera.

Governor APODACA. Mr. Chairman, if I might equate that attitude with what family situations may be, one of the important things is to develop an ethic of education within families.

Congresswoman Chisholm alluded to the high percentages of Mexican-American families which may be experiencing economic difficulties in my State.

Oftentimes, when a parent of a child has come to a system in which it was to his or her advantage to drop out of school to go earn a living, and maybe to improve their economic lot very little, it is very difficult for that parent oftentimes to understand the value of that child's going beyond the educational level that they have reached.

For that child to receive the encouragement that he or she needs as they go about their educational years, it is important that the family be convinced-and we are talking now about the parents or the parent-that continuing education is such an important part of the development of a young child. If the parent has the same opportunities in a different level, then I think the family can almost improve together the 4-year-old with the 20-year-old parent; the 5- or 6-year-old with the 25-year-old parent.

That is why, in New Mexico, Mr. Chairman, we are now in the process of developing what we call a total educational plan. We are talking about education from whatever age you choose to take it to whatever age you choose to end it, because I think that is the only ingredient that is going to improve a family situation.

I do not think we can deny children. My five children, as an example, even though they are Mexican-American, have so many more opportunities than the five children of a farm laborer who also might happen to have the name Apodaca.

So that I think family opportunities are a great part of it.

Mr. CORNELL. To be very specific, would you agree that the preservation of the family is probably as important as any other possibility you can think of as far as child care is concerned?

Governor APODACA. Mr. Chairman, I have never appreciated that as much as I do now.

I went through an extensive 12-month campaign to get elected Governor. At that time, it kept me consistently away from the family environment to a point where now in my administration, I will not encourage or even pursue any goal in my administration where I can see that it is going to cause some sort of diffusion in the family unit. because I think when everything else goes wrong, that is the only thing an individual can still hold onto. I would hope that it improves the lot of a family, if we can pursue some of these objectives.

Mr. CORNELL. That is one area, is it not true, which the States and local communities have been more active in?

Governor APODACA. I think so.

Mr. CORNELL. In regard to marriage counseling and things of that nature?

Governor APODACA. I would agree.

Mr. CORNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Zeferetti.

Mr. ZEFERETTI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor, at the bottom of page 6, you make reference to a sentence here. "We are concerned with some aspects of legislation as introduced. I refer specifically to the question of prime sponsors."

Would you touch on that a little bit for us?

Are we talking about the role of finance?

Are we talking about the role of responsibility between the States and the Federal grants as prescribed by this piece of legislation? Governor APODACA. Yes, I think the concern is what the role of the State would be in the whole program.

I think that is precisely what our concern would be. We want to sure that the State in this particular case has a major role in t. functioning of the program.

Mr. ZEFERETTI. One of the questions. I think, brought forth by the chairman earlier was the question of whether or not-or I should say what role the State should play in the area of finances, whether there were any discussions or observations or certain recommendations that the 16-State task force might have in that area.

Governor APODACA. I think the States have participated financially, very much so. I think this should be a joint effort.

I think if the State is not willing to make its financial commitment, then it is essentially saying to Congress that it does not deem the program to be that important. I think State governments should share very much as they do in many other areas.

Mr. ZEFERETTI. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor, it seems to me that your statement is saving that it is wise to invest money to maintain the family element and to help the child out, since over the long run we will get a return in terms of less juvenile delinquency and less breakup in families.

Is that a correct summary of your viewpoint of the task force? Governor APODACA. Mr. Chairman, I think I can best answer that question by saying that I have just delivered my state of the State to the legislature on the opening day of this session, and in New Mexico we happen to have, as in many other States, a substantial surplus in State funds.

Unfortunately, you cannot invest surplus for ongoing reasons because, in a year or two, you are going to be faced with the dilemma of either raising taxes or doing away with programs.

I think the comment that I made to the legislature was that you needed to return that money to the taxpayer in the form of services rather than in the form of rebates, because every dollar that we spend in education should be looked at as an investment rather than an expenditure. I feel very sincere about that.

That is why I think it is an investment, and the earlier we make an investment in that child, I think the bigger the savings will be at a later date.

So I can see no other way of looking at it. Every dollar we spend on that 4- or 5-year-old or on the related family is going to give us back many returns. But, more important, it is going to bring that family and that child many more returns.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Pressler, who is a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes; I am the only member of the minority party here, but I do support and cosponsor this legislation.

I want to touch upon one thing that may be analogous in your State and mine. That is the problem of the small town on the Indian reservation.

I have three Indian reservations in my district.

I was just there and visited several small towns on and off the reservation with populations of just less than 200.

These programs are just not being delivered in those towns, nor can any other Federal program be implemented.

What can we do about that?

Governor APODACA. Again, I think a great deal of the problem is lack of commitment by the people directly involved.

I think the way we are going to try to deal with it, Mr. Pressler, and that is the best way I can explain, is to involve these people that are affected in our administration at a very early stage. They will be sitting on a committee of two or three or four, so that a major role is played by the people who need the services, so that they can have confidence in what we are trying to do.

Again I think it is a lack of information by the people affected as to what is available, why it is important, how it can help, and why it is not influenced.

When we are dealing with groups, with ethnic groups, whether they be Mexican-American, Indian, or black, or whatever? Many times we are dealing, particularly in the case of the Indian, with traditional habits and some traditions that maybe they are reluctant to change.

It takes a considerable amount of consultation, education, and involvement. But I think if we involve these people at a very early stage rather than impose a program on them, I feel they are going to be much more receptive to the service itself.

Mr. PRESSLER. In terms of the matching requirement in your State, if you do not get the Federal money, what are you going to do in your State?

Governor APODACA. Obviously we will do the minimum probably that we need to do, but we will do some.

I think that is the best way to encourage assistance from Congress, to show that you believe enough in a program to make that commitment.

But, very frankly, there are limited funds in the State budget. So the program will simply be 10 percent as successful, or whatever percentage.

Mr. PRESSLER. But, in terms of reorganizing priorities all the time, if you had to recognize the efforts to match Federal money, where would you get the money?

What programs would suffer?

Governor APODACA. I am not sure any one program would suffer. We have done things in New Mexico despite the unemployment problem, like putting moratoriums on major agencies until we are satisfied those number of employees are needed.

I do not know that any one area would be identified as the one that would suffer. I simply think that State governments need to be economically sound, and one of the things that we are using in New Mexico from day-to-day is quality employment.

We are asking our State employees to develop the attitude that they are not working for the State of New Mexico as a last resort; rather, because they have some pride in why they are there, and what they are trying to do.

I think by encouraging that attitude we hope to get maximum effort from maybe a fewer number of people. Even though it may add to the unemployment problem to some degree, I simply think that by being cautious in those areas we can release more funds for education. Mr. PRESSLER. Thank you very much.

I have no more questions.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Governor, thank you very much indeed. We are very grateful to you for having taken the time to be with us.

We have two remaining witnesses. We would like to hear, if possible, from both of them.

Dr. Mindlin, we are delighted to have you with us.

If you could perhaps summarize your main points, we might then be able to ask you some questions.

STATEMENT OF ROWLAND L. MINDLIN, M.D., CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON INFANT AND PRESCHOOL CHILD OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

Dr. MINDLIN. Thank you.

I do not have to describe to this subcommittee the American. Academy of Pediatrics' advocacy for children.

We support this legislation. Our interest in this legislation stems. from a long-term commitment as individual pediatricians and as an organization concerned with the health and welfare of children.

We recognize that that goal cannot be accomplished by medical care alone. It is true that without good health, our children cannot flourish, but health is more than merely the absence of disease, and it is not achieved merely by the treatment of recognized illness.

Health is good nutrition. Health is a nurturing environment. Health is enhanced by strong family structure.

To its credit, this bill places emphasis on the family. Quality day care is good care for families. In our 1972 "Policy Statement on Day Care" we said, "Day care services should be a supplement to, not a substitute for, the family as a primary agent for the child's care and development."

You have kept this precept in mind in the construction of the bill. Parental involvement is quite properly mandated. I would urge one note of caution which may be recognized in the regulations rather than the law.

Section 102(c) (3) stipulates that assistance should only go to a program that "provides for regular consultation with the parents *." This should not be permitted to become a vehicle for the exclusion of so-called undesirable children whose parents, for what

57-649 Opt. 176 12

ever reason, may be unable to avail themselves of the opportunity for that consultation.

The scope of services authorized in section 102(b) is sufficiently broad. The policy statement of the academy that I referred to before emphasizes:

To meet all the child's needs, day care services should provide the following: 1. A means for children to enrich their experiences when away from their parents, and for parents to share in the broadening experiences of their children. 2. An opportunity for children to explore and learn at their own speed, in a safe environment, and for parents to understand the developmental needs of their children.

3. A vehicle for helping families to secure medical, dental, and mental health services, including prevention, early diagnosis and treatment.

4. Social or, when necessary, emotional support for the family with particular attention to children with special problems, such as the child of the broken home or the isolated child.

Day care which does less than the foregoing will not meet the developmental needs of the child and the social, emotional, and economic needs of the family. All of these provisions can be accomplished under the proposed authorization.

The device of "prime sponsorship," with preference given to local government rather than to the States, as formulated in section 104, but still reserving to the Secretary the authority to fund specific programs directly, is a concept long supported by the academy.

These provisions, particularly when implemented in conjunction with the Child and Family Service Councils of section 105 should insure the development of programs responsive to local needs.

I would like to suggest a change in the provision of section 108. I have been in charge of maternal and child health services in two municipalities where the regulation of day care was a function of the department of health. In one, New York City, the health department was the pioneer in the regulation, supervision, and upgrading of children's day care, and had the authority under its own health code.

In the other, Boston, the regulation was delegated to the city by the State department of health. In both, I attempted to perform all of the functions enumerated in 108 (b) except that in Boston, development and assessment of the code was a State role.

Both cities had inadequate resources to do the job well. As a matter of fact, in Boston the austerity budget forced the city to relinquish the delegated authority and disband a developing capacity to upgrade services on a local level by local initiative.

Accordingly. I respect fully suggest that provision be made in section 108 for special grants to be made to those municipalities or other units of local government which are large enough and desirous of carrying out these activities. I imagine some State approval or acquiesence would have to be required.

Let me now turn to health services in the more conventional sense. I should like to make a distinction between the health program and health policies of a day care center and the provision of medical care to parents and children.

The difference is highlighted in the pamphlet "Recommendations for Day Care Centers for Infants and Children" which our Committee on Infant and Preschool Child of the academy has published. This is in the previous re ord of the com