[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  AID FOR AMERICA'S NEEDIEST FAMILIES

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 16, 1998

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing 
legislation that would protect poor mothers and their children who have 
been victims of the so-called family cap-child exclusion provision used 
by 23 states including my own state of New Jersey.
  Three years ago, I supported efforts to reform our nation's federal 
welfare system. However, I had grave concerns at the time about a 
provision in the House's version of welfare reform legislation that 
would have cut off cash assistance for any additional children born to 
a woman while she was on welfare, known as the family cap. I objected 
to this provision because I believed that it would encourage women to 
have abortions in their hour of greatest need or drive families farther 
into poverty.
  The bill I am introducing today no longer allows states to implement 
their own version of a family cap if they desire to continue to receive 
their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant. My 
bill is very simple: a state will receive its TANF dollars as long as 
it does not impose a family cap upon America's neediest families.
  In 1995, I tried to ban the family cap but failed. I admitted at the 
time that the family cap-child exclusion proposal had enormous surface 
appeal, since people were fed up with abuse of the welfare system. As a 
result, I introduced an amendment which gave states the option to use a 
voucher system if they chose to do away with cash benefits as part of a 
larger family cap policy. My amendment passed overwhelmingly by a vote 
of 352 to 80.
  The two most predictable outcomes of the family cap-child exclusion 
policy as implemented by twenty-three states are the likely increase in 
the number of babies aborted by indigent women--many of whom will feel 
financially trapped and abandoned--and the further impoverishment of 
children born to women on welfare.
  Recently, my worst fears regarding abortion and the family cap were 
confirmed by a Rutgers University draft study prepared for the state of 
New Jersey which estimated that New Jersey's abortion rate increased by 
240 abortions per year as a result of the state's family cap. As a 
result, since 1993, nearly 900 abortions have occurred in New Jersey 
due to the family cap. Thousands of other children have also been left 
to fend for themselves because their parents are not allowed to receive 
assistance on their behalf. I led a broad-based coalition of groups 
opposing the state's original request for a waiver in 1992 to implement 
a family cap policy because we knew that the family cap would only 
drive women into greater depths of poverty and despair and consequently 
increase the likelihood that they would abort their child. Sadly, our 
concerns were confirmed by the Rutgers study.
  We knew at the time that money--or more precisely the lack of it--
heavily influences a woman's decision to abort her child. A major study 
by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research organization associated 
with Planned Parenthood, found that 68% of women having abortions said 
they did so because ``they could not afford to have a child now.'' 
Among 21% of the total sample this was the most important reason for 
the abortion; no other factor was cited more frequently as ``most 
important.''
  Demographers have pointed out that ``young, poor, and minority women 
are more likely to have abortions than older, more affluent, and white 
women,'' even though ``these same groups are also more likely to oppose 
the right to abortion . . . Seven in ten (70 percent) women with 
incomes of less than $25,000 disapprove of abortion, compared with 
52 percent of more affluent women. [Yet] poorer women account for two-
thirds (67 percent) of abortions.'' One expert observes: ``Few would 
say an abortion is a good thing, but many women who believe that 
abortion is wrong find themselves unable to support a child when they 
become pregnant.''

  The family cap is likely to tip the balance for each poor woman who 
feels that society has no real interest in the survival of her baby. 
She will get a powerfully negative message--that her child has no 
value--especially from those states where Medicaid abortion is readily 
available.
  Then one of two things will happen. The woman will have an abortion, 
or the family will descend further into poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, the family cap/child exclusion might present a close 
question if the incremental payment for a new baby were really so high 
that it might encourage women and girls to get pregnant and have babies 
just to get welfare. But this concern simply evaporates when we look at 
the facts.
  The additional assistance per child varies from state to state, but 
the median is $57 per month--fifty-seven dollars. Out of this the 
mother must pay for the child's clothing, shoes, diapers and other baby 
supplies, laundry, and bus fare for medical checkups. According to 
statistics compiled by Catholic Charities in 1994, the low-end costs 
for these items total $88.50 per month. So the mother is $31.50 in the 
hole even before she begins paying for the child's other expenses. We 
simply mislead ourselves when we assume that this constitutes an 
incentive to have more babies.
  Mr. Speaker, there was much about the welfare system that needed 
changing in 1995--people were trapped in the cycle of poverty and 
despair. They needed a new program. They needed help and the bulk of 
our new provisions have been beneficial. But letting states pay to 
terminate the life of a child while the same state refuses to pay a 
mere $64 a month for food and clothing for that child is 
unconscionable. Instead, if we want welfare to be temporary and to be a 
true safety net--a safety net against abortion under duress, a safety 
net against descent into deeper poverty, then we must ban the family 
cap.
  One abortion is one too many. It is wrong for the government, whether 
it be federal, state, or local to embrace policies that would promote 
abortion and financial impoverishment. The family cap does just that. I 
encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring my legislation.

                          ____________________