[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 20, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                E X T E N S I O N   O F   R E M A R K S


                       DON'T PUNISH THE CHILDREN

                                 ______


                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 20, 1994

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, recently a group of very 
thoughtful and extremely well-informed experts in the field of welfare 
issued a statement objecting to proposals to penalize children who make 
the mistake of being born in the wrong circumstances. As the welfare 
experts I am referring to said in their statement:

       Recently some have suggested that poor children born to 
     unmarried parents should not be eligible for Aid to Families 
     with Dependent Children, food stamps, or subsidized housing. 
     . . . this is not in the best interest of children. While 
     some signers of this statement believe that welfare has some 
     modest impact on out-of-wedlock childbearing, we all agree 
     that the damage done to children by denying assistance to 
     their families would be far too great to justify eliminating 
     the safety net for them. (Emphasis added.)

  I look forward to working with many of my colleagues in changing the 
welfare system to add both an opportunity to work and a requirement to 
do so where the work is available. It is clearly in our interest as a 
society, and in the interest of those who will wind up on welfare 
themselves, to reduce drastically the number of out-of-wedlock births. 
But punitive proposals that deny minimum economic assistance to poor 
children whose only crime is to have been born in the wrong 
circumstances are not the way to do that. Even those most critical of 
some of the parents on welfare should understand the need to avoid any 
policy which visits the sins of the parents on the children.
  Because these proposals have been given such currency, and because 
the list of those who have opposed them is an impressive one, and their 
reasoning quite persuasive, I submit the statement and list of signers 
to be printed here.

         Welfare and Out-of-Wedlock Births--a Research Summary

       As researchers who work in the area of poverty, the labor 
     market, and family structure, we are concerned that the 
     research on the effect of welfare on out-of-wedlock 
     childbearing has been seriously distorted. As researchers, we 
     are deeply concerned about the rising rates of out-of-wedlock 
     childbearing and the high incidence of poverty and welfare 
     use among single-parent families. However, the best social 
     science research suggests that welfare programs are not among 
     the primary reasons for the rising numbers of out-of-wedlock 
     births.
       Most research examining the effect of higher welfare 
     benefits on out-of-wedlock childbearing and teen pregnancy 
     finds that benefit levels have no significant effect on the 
     likelihood that black women and girls will have children 
     outside of marriage and either no significant effect, or only 
     a small effect, on the likelihood that whites will have such 
     births. Indeed, cash welfare benefits have fallen in real 
     value over the past 20 years, the same period that out-of-
     wedlock childbearing increased. Thus, the evidence suggests 
     that welfare has not played a major role in the rise in out-
     of-wedlock childbearing.
       There is, however, strong evidence that poverty harms 
     children. Poor families often live in substandard housing and 
     have difficulty purchasing basic necessities such as food and 
     clothing. Research has demonstrated that poor children are 
     more likely than nonpoor children to be too short and too 
     thin for their age. Poor children also tend to develop 
     academic skills more slowly than nonpoor children. And, poor 
     children who live in poor neighborhoods are less likely than 
     more affluent children to complete high school. Research in 
     this and other countries also indicates that programs that 
     provide employment and income assistance to poor families 
     decrease poverty rates among children.
       There are several plausible explanations for the rise in 
     out-of-wedlock childbearing, although research has not 
     determined which of these are important factors. Possible 
     explanations include: changed sexual mores, decreased 
     economic opportunity for low-skilled young men and young 
     women, changed roles of women, the increased proportion of 
     women in the labor market, and deteriorating neighborhood 
     conditions stemming from racial segregation and industrial 
     change. Focusing on welfare as the primary cause of rising 
     rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing vastly oversimplifies 
     this complex phenomenon.
       Recently some have suggested that poor children born to 
     unmarried parents should not be eligible for Aid to Families 
     with Dependent Children, food stamps, or subsidized housing. 
     Proponents of these drastic policies defend them as necessary 
     to decrease the number of children born outside of marriage. 
     We question the efficacy of such policies.
       Policies that deny poor children basic income and nutrition 
     assistance are likely to harm their physical and academic 
     development and increase the incidence of homelessness and 
     hunger among children. In addition, families that are left 
     with no means to support their children may find that the 
     only way their children's basic needs can be met is to place 
     them in foster care or in an institution. Such parents would 
     be forced to relinquish their children not because they are 
     abusive or neglectful but simply because they are destitute. 
     This is not in the best interests of children. While some 
     signers of this statement believe that welfare has some 
     modest impact on out-of-wedlock childbearing, we all agree 
     that the damage done to children by denying assistance to 
     their families would be far too great to justify eliminating 
     the safety net for them.
       We need significant improvements both in the welfare system 
     and in other policy areas. Improvements in the child support 
     system must be made so young men understand that if they 
     father a child they will be required to provide financial 
     support for that child for 18 years and so fathers assume 
     more parenting responsibilities. Changes in the welfare 
     system must be made so more parents can move off welfare, 
     into the workforce, and out of poverty. And, innovative 
     approaches to curbing teen pregnancy should be pursued and 
     strategies found effective widely implemented.
       But ending welfare for poor children born out-of-wedlock 
     does not represent serious welfare reform, and would inflict 
     harm on many poor children. We strongly urge the rejection of 
     any proposal that would eliminate the safety net for poor 
     children born outside of marriage. Such policies will do far 
     more harm than good.
       Signatories: Larry Aber, Columbia University; Greg Acs, 
     Urban Institute; Elijah Anderson, University of Pennsylvania; 
     John Antel, University of Houston; Sheila Ards, University of 
     Minnesota; Rebecca Blank, Northwestern University; Larry 
     Bobo, Univeristy of California, Los Angeles; Larry Bumpass, 
     University of Wisconsin; Martha Burt, Urban Institute; Glen 
     G. Cain, University of Wisconsin; Maria Cancian, University 
     of Wisconsin; Anne Case, Princeton University; Andrew 
     Cherlin, Johns Hopkins University; Thomas Corbett, University 
     of Wisconsin; Mary Corcoran, University of Michigan; Sandra 
     Danziger, University of Michigan; Sheldon Danziger, 
     University of Michigan; Greg Duncan, University of Michigan; 
     Kathryn Edin, Rutgers University; George Farkas, University 
     of Texas at Dallas; Ren Farley, University of Michigan; 
     Ronald Ferguson, Harvard University; Frank Furstenberg, 
     University of Pennsylvania; Irv Garfinkel, Columbia 
     University; Peter Gottschalk, Boston College; Edward 
     Gramlich, University of Michigan; Kathleen Mullan Harris, 
     University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Robert Haveman, 
     University of Wisconsin; Martha Hill, University of Michigan; 
     Jennifer Hochschild, Princeton University; Saul Hoffman, 
     University of Delaware; Robinson Hollister, Swarthmore 
     College; Marjorie Honig, Hunter College; Joe Hotz, University 
     of Chicago; Robert Hutchens, Cornell University; George 
     Jakubson, Cornell University; Paul Jargowsky, University of 
     Texas at Dallas; Christopher Jencks, Northwestern University; 
     Alfred J. Kahn, Columbia University; Sheila B. Kamerman, 
     Columbia University; Thomas Kane, Harvard University; Joleen 
     Kirschenman, University of Georgia.
       Marieka Klawitter, University of Washington; Sanders 
     Korenman, University of Minnesota; Jeff Lehman, University of 
     Michigan; Robert Lerman, American University; Kristen Luker, 
     Princeton University; Irene Lurie, State University of New 
     York at Albany; Douglas Massey, University of Chicago; Sara 
     McLanahan, Princeton University; Jane Miller, Rutgers 
     University; Robert Moffitt, Brown University; Kristin Moore, 
     Child Trends, Inc.; Samuel L. Myers, Jr., University of 
     Minnesota; Richard Nathan, State University of New York at 
     Albany; Kathryn Neckerman, Columbia University; Demetra 
     Nightingale, Urban Institute; Brendan O'Flahrety, Columbia 
     University; Melvin Oliver, University of California, Los 
     Angeles; Martha N. Ozawa, Washington University at St. Louis; 
     Robert Plonick, University of Washington; Samuel Preston, 
     University of Pennsylvania; Lee Rainwater, Harvard 
     University; Lauren Rich, University of Michigan; Philip 
     Robins, University of Miami; Gary Sandefur, University of 
     Wisconsin; Dona Schwartz, University of Minnesota; Theda 
     Skocpol, Harvard University; Timothy Smeeding, Syracuse 
     University; Mercer Sullivan New School for Social Research; 
     Marta Tienda, University of Chicago; Harold Watts, Columbia 
     University; Julie Boatright Wilson, Harvard University; 
     William Julius Wilson, University of Chicago; Doug Wissoker, 
     Urban Institute; Barbara Wolfe, University of Wisconsin.

                          ____________________