[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.
____________________