OF AMERICAUNITED STATES

<iongrcssional1Rccordd

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 93 CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 119-PART 25

SEPTEMBER 28, 1973 TO OCTOBER 8, 1973

(PAGES 31929 TO 33228)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1973

September ,g8, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 31961government take course work at the PeaceAcademy of his or her nation, and if nosuch academy exists, then such leadersshould attend an academy of another coun­try. This training should be required of highadministrative officials, members of Con­gress or comparable bodies, and also membersof state and local governments where a needfor peace orientation is indicated.

Such an effort in leadership education forpeace orientation is but the capstone of avast system of education and reeducationfor peace that Is needed throughout theworld and from elementary through collegeand graduate educational levels. Certainlyone of the first tasks that could be under­taken by the Peace Research Institutes wouldbe the designing of curricula for all sucheducational levels.

In short space it is not necessary to detailwhat educational areas need attention. Somenew thinking about peace education has Inrecent years begun to appear In the work ofsocial scientists. Much more is needed Ifthe tradition-bound .Ideas associated withdifferent peoples, different cultures, natlon­allsm, economic rivalry and the Ilke are tobe redirected toward peaceful cooperation.

New educational programs on a. far vasterscale than are now available should also befounded. For example, I suggest a PeaceCentral be estabIlshed as a worldwide organi­zation to promote contact between andamong mlIllons of youngsters through cor­respondence and visits with their peers.

Fundamentally, all of the above sugges­tions have one common denominator-theeffort to raise our consciousness about peace,through chlldhood and adult education anda new education for leadership, but alsothrough new Institution building for peace­fulorientatlon.

A VIABLE PEACE CITY

Last, I suggest the creation of Peace Cityto be located not far from Washington, D.C.(In due course such cities could hopefullybe bUllt in other countries as well.)

Such a city shOUld become the symbol ofpeace for all citizens. It should riVal andsurpass In beauty and meaning the count­less symbols we have raised to wars andwar heros. It should certainly Include aPeace Hall of Fame where a beginning canbe made to laud the efforts for peace. Greatrellglous figures. Nobel Peace Prize winnersand others from all cultures and times whohave contributed to peace could be en­shlrned In such a Hall of Fame.

But Peace City should be a Viable, func­tioning city In which the dominant activI­ties relate to peaceful pursuits-the studyand research alxlUt peace, the training ofstudents and leaders in peace orientationand executive, administrative and otherlegai activities related to peace. As suchPeace City should provide the site for theDepartment of Peace. the U.S. Peace Re­search Institute, the Peace Academy andPeace Central, all mentioned above.

As a viable city, it can take Its place asone of the new cities America must buildin any case in the next decade or two forreasons of popUlation growth. For similarreasons, the bullding of viable Peace Citiesin many other countries would appear tobe qUite practicable.

But above all Peace City, and the Vitalpeace actiVities it would encompass, wouldraise to a level never heretofore accom­plished a symbol of peace which would aloneaid mightily in redirecting our thoughtsand modes of Ilving towards peace and awayfrom the time-honored SUbjugation to war.

HEARINGS ON "AMERICAN FAM­ILIES: TRENDS AND PRESSURES"Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, this

week the Subcommittee on Children andYouth, which I chair, has been holding

onrview hearings "n "American Fam­ilies: Trends and Pressures."

During these hearings we have receivedextremely valuable testimony from avariety of individuals and groups con­cerning the needs of families and chil­dren in America, the extent to whichgovernmental policies are helping orhurting families, and what kinds ofsupport systems should be available.

In order that these recommendationsbe available to the Congress and to thepublic, I ask unanimous consent that theprepared statements of the witnesses whoappeared at the second day of our hear­ings be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the state­ments were ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT BY DR. MARGARET MEAD

I wish to congratulate Senator Mondaleon his forward-looking recognition of thechanges that are going on in the UnitedStates and the overriding Importance of thewell-being of the American Famlly.

Our people are In a parlous state; m1Jllonsare undernourished, three mlllion door stepchildren roam tbe country with no one re­sponsible for them, our small fraglle defense­less fammes are breaking up, lacking sup­port, or protection from neighbor, kin,community or the nation, our old peopleare ending their lives in squalor and misery.Those on whom a country must rely for itswell being, the hundreds of thousands pro­fessionally engaged in caring for and teach­ing children, helping fammes, findIng mean­ingfUl career paths for youth, and giVingmeaning to the llfe of the elderly, are indispair. They have watched us steadlly de­teriorate from a people who came out ofthe Depression and World War II more de­termlned than we had ever been that nochlld would ever go hungry, no sick personunattended, no youth without someone ac­countable, no working father unable to carefor his chlldren, no abandoned mother withno way of caring for her chlldren whlle sbeworked, no grandparent left with emptyhands. Beginning with the Depression thenation had steadily assumed responsib111tyfor every man, woman and child, within ourborders.

And for twenty-five years we have watchedourselves sliding into a pit of deterioration,corruption, apathy, indifference and out­rIght brutaIlty towards the weak, the sick,the young and the poor.

But as more children went hungry, moreold people uncared for, more families brokeup, there were also thousands of efforts, atlocal, state and federal level to do somethingabout our cities falling into ruins that breedcrime and misery, our alienated young peo­ple, our disappointed minorities, our ruralpoor. Each new effort brought hope thatsome solutions would be found. But theefforts at amelioration often made mattersworse, raised expectations that could not befUlfilled, cancelled each other out. We lookedback on the great reform efforts of the eariyquarter of this cen~ury and watched themgo~sour, as C:lildren's tietentiol. homes, meantto rescue children from prisons, provedtraining grounds for crime, as junior highschools meant to relleve the pressure ofmammoth senior high schools Instead iso­lated together chil(!:'<,n least fitted to betogether. and as the move of parents to thesuburbs-for their chUdren's stake-endedin the destruction of the city and the lone­liness of the suburbs where friendless youngmothers went into post partum psychosis,and the children of the aftluent took to drugsand petty thrill-producing crime.

Whether the efforts came from small com­munities or from federallnitlative, they bred

both hope and dispair, for there was stUla sense tbat something was happening, thatthere might be now ·.()wns that were com­mur ities, schools wh,ere chlldren were notplaced on a single ladder where au who didn.ot fit were branded as fallures, efforts torecompense the culturally disadvantaged forhomes where '10 one had time to talk tothem.

Then came 1973, and we saw the wholesystem of Federal provision for peopie, forpeople who were poor, or unfortunate, forchildren and young famIlies and the loneiy.old, Impoverished being dismantled almostover night. And the dismantllng had echoeswithin every matching state and iocal pro­gram, compound of uncertainty about whatrevenue sharing meant, and inabl11ty to dealwith the reSUlts of inflation. Welfare Ilmitswere raised. Before all the children whoshould have had school lunches ever gotthem. recent cuts wlll reduce the rolls ofhungry children-it is estimated-by 800,000.Hundreds of thousand of eager workers, whohave been recruited in the new bellef in com­munity participation and para-professionals,have lost their jobs. StUdents who hadplanned to go to coilege find no way to go.And families, famliles that are absolutelYcrucial to the health of the nation, crumbleunder burdens too great to bear; housingprograms that force men to desert theirwives so their children won't go hungry, wei­fare that degrades, prisons filled with thosewho have never been found guilty but can­not furnish bail, while money and researchgoes not to new ways of finding unpoIlutingenergy for our homes, but to more rapid waysof devastating our landscape, not to a betterunderstanding of children but to betterways of suppressing the symptoms of dispairwbich own our pollcies have evoked, by train­ing more police and proViding new methodsof survelllance.

The country Is in terrible disarray. Richestand strongest of nations we may be, but we_m to have lost any concern for those whoare young or weak, old or poor.

Out of this debacle there must come some­thing new, some new recognition of how wea.n strengthen and support our fammes, re­build our communities, bring the old peopleback into the community to be useful andwarm to the young, provide many kinds oteducation instead of only one, stop givingpriority to mUes and miles of cement abovethe well being and safety of our chlldren.

It will not be enough to humanize the new"Federalism," to invoke help in the courts toget us back where we were before the dis­mantllng began, before more babies beganto die, and old people gasp and choke todeath with our poiluted cities. Because wherewe were was not good enough; where we werevery ill befitted our wealth. Our steadilyrising GNP dismally matched our steadilyrising rate of meaningless imprisonments forthe young and the poor, the black and thebrown, steadily rising divorce, steadly risingnumber of children lrretriveably and irrever­sibly mared by mainutrition in infancy.

Out of the depths into which our Nationconcern for people has sunk, we may nowbegin to face a need that has been recognizedfor a quarter of a century, but for which wemay now be ready, the need as Dr. Zigierexpressed it yesterday, for an overall polleyon the family, the need for some kind offamily well being impact statement.

In 1944, I visited an exhibition of newwell designed kitchen equlpment, highly ap­proved and backed by the Home Economic­Departments. But Within these white andconvenient fixtures there was no place fora babY, nowhere to hang it up, sit it, orlet it lie down. I asked Why and the answerwas revealing, "Because there is no Bureauof Family Life within the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture." And so, ther&was no place for the baby. UnleSs there Is acentral spot from which the well being ofthe family, the Impact on the family of every

31962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~SENATE• :._:: .- :'."" : ,_ ,;.. l '.'t ,· ..- ..,' ' .•. .-i"

S~p~e'Y(l,ber 28, 1~73

piece of legislation every program •.. therewill indeed be no place for the baby-neitherin federal programs, now in the concernof the nation. Such a statement of the im­pact of federal legislation and programs onthe well being of the American family wouldhave enormous consequences. On the onehand, we could look at things like urbanrenewal that breaks up communities andmakes thousands homeless, at freeways thatcut communities in half and leave oncehappy homes abandoned and burning, taxlaws which bear unfairly on young famUiesa.nd on women who ha.ve to work, provisionsfor medical care that tangle the elderly andless educated up in bundles of red tape. Andwe would look also at the benevolent legis­lation-when such legislation Is revived-toevaluate whether we had not been taking toomany children out of their homes into in­stitutions, rather than providing support forfrantic, desperate famUies from which ado­lescents run away, and within which littlechildren are abused. We can now take intoaccount both the dreadful consequences ofvaluing balancing a bUdget more than car~

ing for people and cutting services to humanbeings to save funds for oil subsidies, stripmining, more and more deadly weapons. Andwe can take account of criticisms whichhave been levied against our schools, ourhospitals, our housing programs, our youthhostels, our rehabilitation centers, our halfway houses, our day care centers. Whilethings seemed to be going in the right direc­tion, those who cared deeply for the. fateof the mothers and infants were loathe toattack many practices which they felt wereundesirable. But now, when hope is almostdead, we need not be afraid that criticismwUl damage the dying programs. Instead wecan start to plan in a much more coherentand responsible way, placing the family andIts needs at the center, scrutinizing everykind of legislation, every kind of programfor what it will mean to the well being ofthe family.

We can ask, is there anything about thisproposal that wUl force young people tomarry too early or prevent them from marry­Ing at all, that w1ll hinder their findinga home in which to raise their children,that will help or hinder. each young manwho wants to learn to do some kind of work,that wlll penalize or help a working womanleft With the care of her children, that willhelp or hinder early diagnosis of handicap,that will provide or reduce the possibility forevery child's ad~quate nutrition, that wlllcreate, or destroy, communities within Whichfam1l1es can be given support and help, thatwill mean better schools, more diversifiedschools, or schools which force all childreninto the same mold. We can start now todevelop a national policy on the family WhichwUl be far better than anything that we asa nation have ever done-knowing that asthe family goes, so goes the nation.

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE SUBcoMMrr­TEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

(By Urle Bronfenbrenner, Professor HumanDevelopment and Family Studies and Psy­chology, College of Human Ecology, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, N.Y.)

SEPTEMBER 25, 1973.Mr. Chairman, two years ago, at the first

hearings conducted by this Subcommittee,I presented evidence of what I Viewed asa disturbing trend in the position and pros­pects of the Amertcan family and its children.I then went on to speak with some optimismof policies and programs-some already inforce, others clearly on the hortzon-whichcould counteract the trend, and perhaps evenreverse It.

I appear before you today a more soberman. The disturbing trend to which I calledthe Committee's attention has increased, andso. has the evidence for its course and its

consequences. But lean claim poor ,crec:Utas a prophet, for the policies and programsthat I saw on the horizon have turned outto be not a rising sun, but a falling star,barely perceptible by its now cold, reflectedlight. . .

I speak today, perhaps not with optiJnism,but yet with hope. For as we have gainedmore knowledge about our growing problemll,we have learned more as well about theirpossible solution. Some of these Solutions 11ewithin the purvey of the Federal government,not only directly through its legislative andexecutive powers, but also indirectly throughIts influence as a voice of national leadershipand, I would add, by example, as the nation'stop employer and administrator.

But first, I will speak to the broader issueto which these hearings are addressed: trendsand pressures atrectlng AmericanfamlUes.

The winds 0/ changeThe most important fact about the Amer­

ican family today is the fact of rapid andradical change. The Amertcan family of 1973Is significantly ditrerent from what it wasonly a quarter of a century ago. Witness thefollowing statistics:

In 1971,43 percent of the nation's mothersworked outside the home. In 1948, the figurewas only 18 percent. The greatest Increasehas occurred for mothers of preschool chil­dren. One in every three mothers With chil­dren under six is working today. In 1948 thefigure was one in eight. Now there are morethan 5,600,000 children under six whosemothers are in the labor force. This figurerepresents over a quarter of all the nation'schildren under six years of age.

As more mothers go to work, the number ofother adults in the family who could earefor the child has shown a marked decrease.For example, fifty years ago In the state ofMassachusetts, 50 percent of the householdsinclUded at leaSt one other adUlt besides theparent. Today the figure is only 4 percent.

The divorce rate among families withchil­dren has been rising substantially during thelast twenty years. The percent of childrenfrom divorced families is almost double whatit was a decade ago. If present rates con­tinue, one chUd in six wlll lose a parentthrough divorce by the time he is 18.

In 1970, 10 percent of all children undersix-2.2 mUlion of them-were liVing insingle parent famll1es with no father presentin the home. This is almost double the ratefor a decade ago. Moreover, almost half ofthe mothers in single parent famll1es are nowin the labor force, and a third of them areworking full-time.

In 1970, the average income for a single­parent family with children under six was$31OQ-well below the poverty line. Evenwhen the mother worked, her average incomeof $4200 barely exceeded the poverty level.Among famUles in poverty, 45 percent of allchildren under six are living in single-parenthouseholds; In non-poverty fam1l1es, the cor­responding figure is only 3.5 percent.

Of the 5.6 mlllion preschool children whol>8mothers are in the labor force, one mUlionlive in famUles below the poverty line (e.g.income below $4000 for a family of four) . Anadditional one million children of workingmothers live in near poverty (income be­tween $4000 and $7000 for a family of four) .All of these children would have to be onwelfare If the mother did not. work, Finallythere are about 2.5 million children under sixwhose mothers do not work, but where familyIncome Is below the poverty level. Withoutcounting the many thousands of children infamllles above the poverty line who are inneed of child care services, this makes a totalof about 4.5 million children u:ndersix whosefamlUes need some help If normal family lifeis to be s1.1stalned.

The situation Is especially crlticalfor thefamlUes of Black Americans:

Of all Black children, over half (53 p·er-

(lent) l~ve lnfanilliesbeiow the poverty line;~ii'i:ori:e:sPond1ngfigure for Whites Is 11 per­cent. .....OfllUJ31ack children, almost half (44 per­cent)ha.v~ .mothers who are in the laborfOrce; the conesponding figure for Whites isabout a quarter (26 percent).,.. ,Of all Black children, over 30 percent livein Single-parent faroUles; the conespondingfigure for Whites is 7 percent.

The.census does not provide comparablelDforma.tion for othf:lr groups living underduress, such as American Indians, MexicanAmericans, Whites living in Appalachia, etc.I! and when such data become available,theyare ..11kely to show similar trends.

Among families that are intact and well-offeconomically, and, of course, predominatelyWhite, research results indicate that parentsare spending less time in activity With theirchildren.

For example, a survey of changes in chUd­rearing practices.in the United States over a25-year period. reveals . a decrease in allspheres of interaction betWeen parent andchild. A similar trend is indicated by datafrom cross-cllitural stUdies comparing Amer­ican fam1l1es with their European counter­parts..Thusin a comparative study of soc1&l1­zati()npractices .among German and Ameri­can parents, the former emerged as signifi­cantly more involved in actiyities with theirchildren, including both atrectlon and disci­pline.. A second study, conducted severalyears later, showed changes over time in bothcultures reflecting "a trend toward the dis­solution of the famUy as a social system,"With Germany moving closer to the Americanpattern· of "centrifugal forces pUlling themembers into relationships outside thefamily." (Rodgers, 1971)

THE ECOLOGY OF FAMILY AND CHILDAlthough the nature and operation of

these centrifugal forces have not been stud­ied systematically, they are readily apparentto observers of the American scene. The fol­lOWing excerpt from the report of the Presi­dent's White House Conference on Childrensummarizes the situation as seen by a groupof .experts, including both scientists andpractitioners. .

In today's world parents find themselvesat the· mercy of a society which Imposespressures and priorltiesthat allow neithertime nor place for meaningfUl activities andrelations between children and adults, whichdowngradethe role of parents and the func­tions of parenthood, and Which prevent theparent from doing things he wants to do as aguide, friend, and companion to hischildren ••.

The frustrations are greatest for the fam­Ily pf poverty where the capacity for humanresponse.is crippled by hunger,cold, filth,sickness, and despair. For fam1l1es who canget along,· the rats. are gone, but the rat­race remains. The demands of a Job, or oftentwo. jobs,that claim mealtimes, evenings,and weekends as well as days; the trips andIIloves nElcessary to get ahead or simply holdone's own; the. ever Increasing time spent incommuting, parties, evenings out, social andcommunity obligations-all. the things onehas to (10 to meet so-called primary respon­slblllties-producea s~tuation in· which achild often spends more time With a passivebabysitter than a participating parent. (Re­port to the !'resident, 1970, p, 242)

The forces undermining the parental roleare particularly strong in the case of fathers.For example, although in one interviewstUdy of .middle class famiUes fathers re­ported spending an average of 15 to 20 min­utes a day playing with their one year oldinfants (Ban and Lewis 1971), an observa­tional research revealed a rather dltrerentstory:·

The data indicate that fathers spend rela­tively little time. interacting with their in­fants. The mean number of interactions per

September 28, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 31963day was 2.7, and the average number of sec­onds per day was 37.7. (Rebelsky and Hanks,1971, page 65)

Another factor reducing interaction be­tween parents and children Is the changingphysical environment In the home. For ex­ample, a brochure recently received In themail describes. a "cognition crib" equippedwith a tape recorder than can be activatedby the sound of the Infant's voice. In addi­tion, frames bUilt Into the sides of the cribpermit Insertion of "programmed play mod­ules for sensory and physical practice." Themodules come In sets of six, which the par­ent Is "encouraged to change" every threemonths so as to keep pace with the child'sdevelopment. Since "faces are what an In­fant sees first, six soft plastic faces ... ad­here to the window." Other modUles Includemobiles, a crib aquarium, a piggy bank and"ego building mirrors." Parents are hardlymentioned except as potential purchasers.

Although no systematic evidence Is avail­able, there are Indications that a withdrawalof adUlts from the lives of children Is alsooccurring outside the home. To quote againfrom the report of the White House Con­ference:

In our modern way of life, It is not onlyparents of whom children are deprived, ItIs people in general. A host of factors con­spire to Isolate children from the rest ofsociety. The fragmentation of the extendedfamily, the separation of resIdential andbusiness areas, the disappearance of neigh­borhoods, zoning ordinances, occupationalmobll1ty, child labor laws, the abolishmentof the apprentice system, consolidatedschools, television, separate patterns of so­cial life for different age groups, the workingmother, the delegation of child care to spe­cialists-ali these manifestations of progressoperate to decrease opportunity and incen­tive for meaningful contact between chil­dren and persons older, or younger, thanthemselves. (Report of Forum 15, page 2)

This erosion of the social fabric Isolatesnot only the child but also his family. InpartiCUlar, with the breakdown of commu­nity, neIghborhood, and the extended family,and the rise In the number of fatIJer-absenthomes, Increasingly greater responsibility hasfallen on the young mother. In some seg­ments of the society, the resulting pressuresappear to be mounting beyond the point ofendurance. For example, the growing numberof divorces Is. now accompanied by a newphenomenon: the unwillingness of eItherparent to take custody of the child. And inmore and more families, the woman is fieeingwithout waIting for the mechanism of a legalor even agreed upon separation. Increasingnumbers of married women are being re­ported to police departments as missing. Al­though no national statistIcs are available,news media have reported a "quantum leap"in the number of runaway Wives whom prI­vate detectives are hired to retrIeve by thefathers who are left wIth the children.

Systematic data are at hand, however, todocument an increase In a more gruesometrend.

The killing of Infants under 1 year of age­InfantIcide-has been Increasing since 1957.Although the number of infant homicidesaccounted for only 2.2 percent of the totalhomIcides In 1964, the rate of 5.4 deaths per100,000 population was higher than that forall persons aged 55 years and over. The 74percent Increase from 3.1 In 1957 placed in­fantIcide In 1964 at the highest level recordedsince 1945. (U.S. Department of Health, Edu­cation, and Welfare, 1967.)

ThIs Increase may, of course, be partly dueto more accurate registration; no tests ofthe extent of underreporting of this causeof death have been made. It shQuld be notedthat the rate of Increase of such deaths IssIgnificantly greater than for all other agegroups.

A sImilar pattern appears for less vIolentforms of child abuse Involving bodily Injury.A' recent survey of over 1300 families (Gil1970) estimated 2to 4 million· cases a year,with the highest rates occurring for theadolescent age group. More significantly, over90 percent of the IncIdents took place inthe child's home. The most severe injuriesoccurred In single parent homes and wereInfilcted by the mother herself, a fact whichrefiects the desperatIon of the sItuation facedby some young mothers today.

Even In' Intact famllie!'! the centrifugalforces generated withIn the family by ItsIncreasln~ly Isolated position have propelledIts members In different directions. As par­ents, especIally mothers, spend more time inwork and communIty activities, children arepla.ced In or gravItate to group settings, bothorganized and Informal. For example, be­tween 1965 and 1970 the number of childrenenrolled In day care centers doubled, andthe demand today far exceeds the supply.OutsIde preschool or school, the chUd spendsIncreasing amounts of time solely In thecompany of hIs age mates. The vacuum cre­ated by the withdrawal of parents and otheradults has been filled by the Informal peergroup. A recent study has found that at everyage and grade level, children today show agreater dependency on theIr peers than theydid a decade ago. A parallel InvestIgationindicates that such susceptibility to groupInfiuence Is higher among children fromhomes In Which one or both parents are fre­quently absent. In addition, "peer orIented"youngsters describe their parents as less af­fectionate and less firm In discipline. Attach­ment to age-mates appears to be lnfiuencedmore by a lack of attention and concern athome than by any positIve attraction ofthe peer group Itself. In fact, these chUdrenhave a rather negative vIew of their friendsand of themselves as well. They are pessI­mistic about the future, rate lower In re­sponsIblllty and leadership, and are morelikely to engage In such anti-social behavioras lying, teasIng other children, "playinghooky," or "doIng something illegal." (Slman1973.)

The roots 01 alienationWhat we are seeing here, of course, are the

roots of alienatIon and its milder conse­quences. The more serIous manifestationsare refiected In the rising rates of youthfulrunaways, school drop-outs, drug abuse, suI­cide, delinquency, vandalism, and violencedocumented In charts and tables speciallyprepared for the WhIte House Conference onChildren (Profiles of Children, pp. 78, 79,108, 179, 180) and more recent governmentpublications (Report of the New York StateCommission, '1973). AccordIng to these datathe proportIon of youngsters between theages of 10 and 18 arrested for drug abusedoubled between 1964 and 1968; sInce 1963,juvenile delinquency has been increasing ata faster rate than the juvenile popUlation;over half the crimes Involve vandalism,theft, or breakIng and entry; and, If thepresent trends continue, one out of everynine youngsters will appear in juvenlle courtbefore age 18. These figures index only de­tected and prosecuted offenses. How highmust they run before we acknowledge thatthey refiect deep and pervasIve problems Inthe treatment of children and youth In oursociety?

What Is the Ultimate source of thesedeep and pervasive problems? Where do theroots of alienation Ile? SCientific studies ofhuman behavIor have yielded few generaIl­zations that are firmly grounded In researchand broadly accepted by specialists In thefield. But there are two answers to the fore­goIng questions that do meet these exactingcriteria. Moreover, the two conclusions aredirectly' relevant to the concerns of thisCommittee.

1. Over the past three decades, there have

been Ilterally thousands of investigationsconducted to Identify the developmental an­tecedents of behavior disorders and socIalpathology. The results of these researchespoint to the almost omnIpresent overridingfactor-family disorganization.

2. Many of these same researches also re­veal that the forces of disorganization ariseprimarily not from wIthin the family Itself,but from the circumstances In which thefamily finds itself and the way of Ilfe whichthese circumstances, In turn, Impose.

Specifically, when these circumstances,and the way of life which they generate, un­dermIne relationshIps of trust and· emo­tIonal security between the family members,when there Is no support or recognItion fromthe outside world for one's role as a parent,and when tline spent with one's family meansfrustration of career, personal fUlfillment,and peace of mind-It Is then that the devel­opment of the child becomes adversely af­fected. The first symptoms occur In the emo­tional and motivational sphere and aremanifested In disalfection, Indllference, irre­sponsIbility, and inability to follow throughIn activIties requirIng application and per­sistence. In less favorable family circum­stances, the reaction takes the form of antI­social acts injurIous to both self and society.Finally, for chlldren Who come from en­vironments in which the capacIty of thefllomily to functIon has been most severelytraumatized by such destructive forces aspoverty, 111 health, and discrimination, theconsequences for the child are seen not onlyIn the spheres of emotional and social mal­adjustment, but also in the impairment ofthat most dIstinctive human capacity-theablllty to think, to deal wIth concepts andnumbers even at the most elementary level.The extent of thIs impaIrment In contem­porary American society, and Its roots In so­cial disorganization, are refiected In recentstUdies conducted at natIonal and statelevels. Two reports from the National HealthSurvey describe Intellectual development andschool achIevement as a function of demo­graphic and socioeconomic factors In a prob­ability sample of over 7000 children 6-11years of age. Differences were assessed acrossregion, race, size of place of residence, de­gree of educational mobllity, Income, andparents' education. Although SUbstantialvariation was found across each of these do­mains, the most powerfUl predIctors of schoolachievement were parental education andIncome.

Proficiency In two skills-readIng andarithmetic-was most strongly associatedwith educational level of the chlldren's par­ents and nearly as closely with their famllyIncome. These relatIonshIps are both sub­stantially greater than that found with race.If the racial and regional influences are re­moved, the degree of assocIation of schoolfactors Is reduced only sIlghtly. (U.S. Depart­ment of Health, Education, and Welfare,1971, page 26.)

Confirmatory results are available from .aNew York State survey. In a study of over300 schools. 58% of the variation in stUdentachIevement was predicted by three socio­economic factors-broken homes, over­crowded housing, and education of the headof the household ... When the racial andethnic varIables were Introduced into theanalysis, they· accounted for less than anadditional 2 percent of the variation. (NewYork State Commission on the Quality ofEducation, Vol. I, p. 33.)

And there Is a secular trend. One of themost striking phenomena In the achieve­ment score data Is that over time more andmore children throughout the state are fall­Ing below minimum competence. (Idem.)

How are we to reverse this debllltatIngtrend? Again. the evidence indIcates that themost promising solutions do not lie withInthe immediate setting In which the child Is

31964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-.. SENAJ'Efound, in this instance, the classroom andthe school. An impressive series of investiga­tions, notably the studies by Coleman (1966)and more recently by Jencks (1972) demon­strate that characteristics of schools, ofclassrooms, and even of teachers predict verylittle of the variation in school achievements.What does predict are family backgroundcharacteristics, particularly those which re­fiect the position of the family in relationto the larger social contexts in which it isembedded-the world of work (e.g., occupa­tion, income), neighborhood and community.

The crucial question thus becomes: can oursocial institutions be changed, can old onesbe modified and new ones introduced in sucha way as to rebuild and revitallze the socialcontext which famllles and children requirefor their effective function and growth?

A proved strategy for conserving humanpotential

Mr. Chairman, as my first answer to thisquestion, I ask your indulgence to repeat astatement I made to this subcommittee twoyears ago. At that time I testified as follows:

"We now have the knowledge and theknow-how to increase significantly the abllltyand competence of the next generation otchildren to be born in this country.

"We know what is needed, we know howit can be done. All that remains is to do thejob. At least a dozen nations are doing thejob better than we do it now." (Hearings,Subcommittee on Children and Youth, 1971.)

What I can add today, Mr. Chairman, isthat we in America not only have the know­how, we have now applied it, and know thatit works effectively and on a massive scale.We tried, we succeeded, and, just as we werebeginning to avert tragedy for thousands ofAmerican famllles, the effort was aban­doned-precisely at the level with Whichthese hearings are concerned-Federal policyand Federal action.

I know the members of this sUbcommitteeare well aware of the problem to which Irefer, but perhaps not of the evidence for itspractical solution. America, the richest andmost powerful country in the world, standsthirteenth among the nations in combatinginfant mortality; even East Germany doesbetter. Moreover, our ranking has droppedsteadily in recent decades. A similar situa­tion obtains with respect to maternal andchild health, day care, children's allowances,and other basic services to children andfamll1es.

But the figures for the nation as a whole,dismaying as they are, mask even greaterinequities. For example, infant mortallty fornonwhites in the United States is almosttwice that for Whites, the maternal deathrate is four times as high, and there are anumber of southern states, and northernmetropolitan areas, in which the ratios areconsiderably higher. Among New York Cityhealth districts, for example, the infant mor­tality rate in 1966-67 varied from 41.5 per1000 in Central Harlem to 13 per 1000 inHaspeth, Forest Hills.

Ironically, of greater cost to the societythan infants who die are the many more whosustain injury but survive With disability.Many of these suffer impaired intellectualfunction and behavioral disturbance includ­ing hyperactivity, distractablllty, and low at­tention span, all factors contributing toschool retardation and problem behavior,Again, the destructive impact is greatest onthe poorest segments of the population. Itis all the more tragic that this massive dam­age and its subsequent cost in reduced pro­ductiVity, lower income, unemployab1Uty.welfare payments, and institutionallzationare avoidable.

The way to the solution Is suggested bya paradox that emerges when the medicaldata are analyzed in the socio-econom;.Cterms. The relation between birth complica-

tions and subsequent impairment of psycho­logical development is indeed substantial forfamllies in poverty, but is much smaller formiddle class samples. The analyses show fur­ther that the same prenatal complication hassubstantially more serioussequeUaefor achild born in a low income family than amiddle income famlly. In other words, theconsequences of prenatal injury depend lesson the injury itself than on the treatmentthe child receives. And the treatment Inturn depends on the circumstances in whichthe family live.

This same sequence is refiected by the re­sults of the two-stage analysis 'carried outby Dr. Harold Watts for the Advisory Com­mittee on Child Development of the Na­tional Academy of Sciences. First, Wattsdemonstrated that 92% of the variation ininfant death among the 80 New York Cityhealth districts is explainable by low birthweight. Second, he showed that 97% at thevariation in low birth weight can be at­tributed to the fraction of mothers who re­ceived no prenatal care or received care onlylate in their pregnancy. and the fractionunwed at the time of delivery.

Confirmatory eVidence is avallab1e from animportant and elegant stUdy, published justthis year, on the relations between infantmortality, social and medical risk, and healthcare (Kessner et al. 1973). From an analysisof data in 140,000 births in New York City,the investigators found the follOWing:

1. The highest rate of infant mortaUtywas for children of Black native-born womenat social and medical risk and with inade­quate health care. This rate was 45 timeshigher than that for a group of Whitemothers at no risk with adequate care. Nextin line were Puerto Rican infants With a rate22 times as high.

2. Among mothers receiving adequate med­ical care, there was essentially no differencein mortality among White, Black, and PuertoRican groups, even for mothers at high med­ical risk.

3. For mothers at socia-economic risk,however, adequate medlcli.l care substantiallyreduced infant mortality rates for all races,but the figures for Black and Puerto Ricanfamllles were st1ll substantially greater thanthose for Whites. In other words, .other fac­tors beSides Inadequate medical care con­tribute to producing the higher infant mor­tality for these non-white groups. Againthese factors have to do with the social andeconomic conditions in which these famUleshave to live. Thus, the results of the NewYork City study and other investigationspoint to the folloWing characteristi~s aspredictive of higher infant mortality: em­ployment status of the breadwinner, motherunwed at infant's birth, married but nofather in the home, number ot children perroom, mother under 20 or over 35, and par­ents' educational level.

4. Approximately 95% of those mothersat risk had medical or social conditions thatcould have been identified at the· time ofthe first prenatal visit; infants born to thisgroup of women accounted for 70% of thedeaths.

What would have happened had these con­ditions been identified and adequate medicalcare provided? The answer to this questionhas recently become available from an anal­ysis of data from the Maternal and InfantCare Projects of HEW which, in the middle60's, were established in slum areas of four­teen cities across the nation and in PuertoRico. In Denver, a dramatic fall in infantmortality from 34.2 per 1,000 live births in1964 to 21.5 per 1,000 in 1969 was observed forthe 25 census tracts that made up the targetarea for such a program. In Birmingham,Alabama, the rate decreased from 25.4 in1965 to 14.3 In 1969. and in Omaha from 33.4In 1964 to 13.4 in 1969. Significant reductionshave also occurred over the popUlations

served by these progrll,llls in prematurity, re­peated teenage pregnancy.\VOmen. Who con­ceive over 35 years old, and families Withmore than four children.

Mr. Chairman, it is because of •oUr dis­torted priorities that these programs are cur­rently being dismantled, even though theproposed replacement of support through rev­enue sharing is not even Visible on the hori­zon. As the statisitlcs I have cited indicate,phasing out these programs with nothing totake their place w1ll result in a return ofmortality rates to their earlier higher levels.To speak in human rather than purely sta­tistical terms, more babies wlll die, and moremothers as well.

IS EARLY INTERVENTION EFFECTIVE?

New information is available as well in asecond problem area SUbstantially affected byFederli.l polley. In connection with my workas a member 'of the MRe-MAS Advisory Com­mittee onChlld Development, I had the re­sponsibUlty of preparing a report evaluatingthe effectivenes of so-called intervention pro­grams that have been conducted with thou­sands of preschool chlldren over the past dec­ade (Bronfenbrenner 1973). As the Commit­tee knows, these programs were introduced inan elfort to counteract the destructive im­pact of poverty on the development of theyoung. In a number of instances, chlldrenwere followed-Up for three to five years aftercompletion of intervention in order to assesslong-range effects. The scientific interest ofthese studies is enhanced by the fact theyemployed strategies varying in the degree towhich they involved the child alone, solelyhis parents, or some combination of both.Specifically, four types of intervention wereexamined:

1. Parent education. Here the immediateand direct focus of attention was the parent,usually the mother; The program typicallytook the form of a lecture or discussion, usu­ally accompanied by. printed materials.. Alsoincluded were parent education efforts pre­sented entirely via mass media (press, radioor television).

2. Group preschool programs. The target ofintervention was the chlld in a groupsetting, With a ratio of at least four childrento one adult.

3. Home-based tutoring. A tutor visited thechild in his home on an indiVidual basis.

4. Parent-child intervention. This ap­proach involved working with parent andchild simUltaneously. usually in the home.

Each of these approaches was evaluated forits infiuence on the chlld's cognitive develop­ment. From this perspective, one strategy­that of parent education-proved generallyineffective. There was no evidence that infor­mational programs directed solely at the par­ent had any appreciable impact on the child'sintellectual function or academic per­formance.

Both group programs and home tutoringproduced gains in cognitive development (asmeasured by intelligence and achievementtests), but the effects were temporary only.By the first or second year after completionof the program, sometimes while it was stillin operation, the children began to show aprogressive decllne and, by the third orfourth year, the once-SUbstantial differencesbetween experimental and control groups be­came negligible or noneXistent. In contrast,parent-chlld intervention produced substan­tial improvements in intellectual functionwhich were still eVident three to foUr yearsafter termination of the program. In addi­tion, beneficial effects were observed not onlyin the target chlld but also his youngersiblings.

An analysis of research on conditions un­derlying impairment of .development andfailure of intervention effoi'ts With particularindividuals or groups led to a general con­clusion With important policy implications:

Septem,ber 28, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 31965Any force or circumstance which Interfereswith the formation, maintenance, status, orcontinuing developmcnt of the parent-childsystem in turn jeopardizes the developmentof the child.

Such destructive forces may be of twokinds. The flIst and most damaging are ex­ternally Imposed constraints, such as inade­quate health care, poor housing lack of edu­cation, low Income, and, under certain cir­cumstances, the necessity for full-time work,all factors which prevent the parents fromdoing what they might be quite able andwilling to do given the opportunity and theknOWledge. Second, there are social forcesand educational arrangements that diminishthe status and motivation of parents as themost powerful potential agents for the devel­opment of their child.

Evidence In support of these conclusionscomes from several sourc.;s:

1. The children who showed the greatestInitial Impairment of psychological develop­ment were those from the most deprived so­cial and economic backgrounds, Especiallyrelevant In this regard were such variablesas the employment sta.tus of the head C'f thehousehold, the number of children in thefamily, the level of parent's Income and edu­cation, and the presence of only one parentin the home.

2. The children from these same baCk­grounds were also those who profited leastfrom interventior. programs provided forthem, and showed the earliest and most rap­Id decline. Conversely, children benefitingmost compensatory effects were those whocame from the least deprived social and eco­nomic conditions.

3. The success of intervention efforts waspositively correlated with the degree towhich parents were accorded high status andactively involvt.d In the program. When pri­mary responsibility for the child's develop­ment was assumed by professionals and theparent relegated to a seconQary' role, the in­tervention was less effective, particularlywith respect to long-term effects.

4. Although group programs per se did nothave lll.Sting Impact, exposure to parent In­tervention during, and especially prior to, en­rollment In preschool or school resulted ingreater and more enduring gains achieved Inthe group setting.

5. Families willing to become Involved InIntervention programs tended to come fromthe upper levels of the disadvantaged popu­lation. At the most deprived levels, parentswere so overburdened with the tasks andfrustrations of sheer survlva.l that they hadneither the energy nor the psychological re­sources necessary to participate In an inter­vention program designed to benefit theirchlldren.

The foregoing findings Indicate that forchlldren from the most deprived environ­ments no strategy of Intervention Is llkelyto be effective that focuses attention solelyon the child, the presc: .001, or the parent­child relationship. The critical forces of de­struction lie neither within tJ1e child norwithin the farolly but In the desperate cir­cumstances In which the family Is forced tolive. Accorolngly, what Is called for Is inter­vention at the ecological level, measures thatwill elIect radical changes In the Immediateenvironmer,t of the family and the child.Such measures Include provision of healthservices, adequate housing opportunity foremployment, and an income sUffi.clent to sus­tain life and growth. It Is significant thatthe H.R.C. Committee could find no re­search bearlnb on the elIect.c of ecologicalintervention of this kind on the devel p_ment of children. It Is conceivable that aprobram which prOVides the family bread­winner with a job, guarantees an adequateIncome, supplies needed nutrition and healthservices, or furnishes better housing, mayproduce greater and more enduring gains In

cognitive development than are presentlyachieved by strategies directly aimed at thisobjective. We do not know Whether this Isso, but could easily find out simply by add­Ing well designed research components to anumber or eXisting Federal, state, or localprograms.

The studies I have been Jlscusslng docu­m" .. the Importance of what I have calledfamily supp'_rt syctems for .creaslng the de­velopment In the preschool years. Whatabout the school-age child? Does the family,and its supportive systems, stlll play thecritical role In the child's development?Breaking down. the wall between home and

schoolI believe It significant that in review of

researCh, I was able to find only one stUdythat examined the relation of parent inVOlve­ment to the child's learning In school. Theproject, carried out In Flint, Michigan, In­volved apprOXimately 1000 children fromlOW-income families, most of them Black,attending two public elementary schools(Smith 1968). Children of similar socio­economic background in another elementaryschool were selected as a control group. Theeffort Involved parents In activities both athome and In the school.

On the home front, parents, Includingfathers, were requested to read aloud to theirchildren, listen to their children read, readregularly themselves In the presence of theirchildren, show Interest by looking at thechild's work, and give encouragement andpraise as needed and deserved. In addition,parents were asked to provide a quiet periodIn the home for reading and study. Duringthis time the teleVision or radio was to beturned off, telephone callers were asked tophone back later. Parents were requested tooccupy the attention of younger children.The parents were not asked to helpthe childwith homework; instead, they were informedthat the teacher would be checking with

.them on whether the child did his workrather than how well the task was done."Every child could therefore be successful,provided that his parents were giving theneeded support at home." (Smith 1968, p.97.) A children's dictionary was also madeavailable to each family with a child ingrades four through six. Famll1es were askedto write their names In the dictionary andencourage its use. Many other Innovationswere introduced to provide support In thehome for the child's activities at school.

The program also brOUght the parents Intothe school. This was accomplished by a groupof thirty volunteer mothers who assignedthemselves specific blocks In the school dis­trict and made a personal call on every fam­Ily inViting the parents to a program "tolearn what they could do to help their chil­dren achieve better in schooL" (Smith 1968,p. 95.) In addition, parents and other resi­dents of the neighborhood who held skilledjobs were asked to visit classrooms In orderto explain their work and to indicate how"elementary school subjects had been im­portant to them In their lives." (Smith 1968,p.l02.)

The results of the program are refiectedby the gains In achievement test scores inreading made during the year by the ex­perimental groups. For the first time in theirschool career, the children attained and, Insome grades, surpassed the national norms.Real children and jamtlies in the school

curriculumThe relation between family and school has

significance In yet another quarter. It Is acommonplace among educators to affirm thatthe task of the school Is to prepare the child"for l1!e". Yet there is one role In 11!e whichthe overwhelming majority of all childrenultimately take, but for which they are givenvirtually no concrete prllparation. I am re­ferring, of course, to education for parent­hood. In our cross-eUltural observations we

were struck by the differences betweenAmerican children and adolescents and thosefrom other societies In the ease with whichthey could relate to Infants and young chil­dren, engage their Interest, and enjoy theircompany. This refiects the fact that With theImportant exceptions of certain minoritygroups, InclUding Blacks-many young peo­ple, especially males, never have experienceIn extended care and activity with a babyor young child until they have their own. Asolution to this problem, which speaks aswell to the need to give young people In oursociety genuine and consequential responsi­bility, Is to Introduce Into the regUlar schoolcurriculum functional courses In human de­velopment. These would be distingUished ina number of Important ways from courses orunits on "family 11!e", as they are nowusually taught In the junior high school,chlefiy for girls who do not plan to go onto college. The material Is typically pre­sented In vicarious form; that Is, throughreading, discussion, or at most, through roleplaying, rather than actual role taking. Incontrast, the approach being proposed herewould have as Its core responsible and activeconcern for the lives of young children andtheir fammes. Such an experience could befacilitated by locating day care centers andHead Start Programs in or near schools, sothat they could be utilized as an Integral partof the curriculum. The older children wouldbe working with the younger ones on a reg­ular basis, both at school and at home. Theywould thus have an opportunity to becomeacquainted With the younger children'sfamilies, and the circumstances In whichthey live. This In turn would provide aVitalizing context for the study of servicesand facilities available to children and fam­ilies In the community, such as health care,social services, recreation facilities, and ofcourse, the schools themselves. Obviously, thescope of responsibility would Increase withthe age of the child, but throughout therewould have to be adequate supervision andclear delineation of the limits of responsi­bility carried by older children in relation tothe young.

Critical contexts jor the future oj theAmerican jamily

Health services and education are two ofthe many Institutions which must serve assupport systems for the family. Others in­clude day care, the world of work, massmedia, transportation, architecture, and ur­ban planning. I have touched on most ofthese matters In testimony before this sub­committee two years ago. More recent devel­opments In these areas are diScussed In anarticle pUblished last year, entitled "TheRoots of Alienation", a copy of which Iwould be happy to submit as an addendumto this report. There are one or two aspects ofthese matters which because of their contro­versial or novel nature merit specific men­tion here. The first of these is day care.

Day care

Day care Is coming to America. The ques­tion Is: what kind? Shall we, In response toexternal pressures to "put people to work",or for personal considerations of convenience,allow a pattern to develop in which the careof young children Is delegated to specialists,thus further separating the child from hisfamily and reducing the family's and thecommunity's feeling of responsibility fortheir children? Or, shall our modern day carebe designed, as it can be, to relnvolve andstrengthen the family as the primary andproper agent for the process of making hu­man beings human?

The answers to these questions depend onthe extent to which day care programs areso located and so organized as to encouragerather than to discourage the Involvementof parents and other non-professionals in thedevelopment and operation of the program

31966 'CONGR.ESSIONALRECORD .2,;SENATE September '28,'-197$both at the center and in the home. Like Pro­ject Head start, day care prograins can haveno lasting constructive impact on the de­velopment of the child unless they aifect notonly the child himself but the people whoconstitute his enduring day-to-day environ­ment In the family, neighborhood, and com­mUnlty. This means not only that parentsmust playa prominent part in the planningand administration of day care programs, butthat they must also actively participate Inthe execution of the program as volunteersand aides. It means that the program cannotbe confined to the center, but must reachout into the home and the community sothat the whole neighborhood is caught upin activities In behalf of its children. Fromthis point of view, we need to experiment Inlocation of day care centers in places thatare within reach of the significant people inthe child's Hfe. For some .famUles this meansneighborhood centers; for others, centers atthe place of work. A great deal of variationand innovation w1ll be reqUired to find theappropriate solutions for diiferent groups indliferent settings.

Fair Part-time Practices ActIn my previous testimony I presented a

proposal for an act prohibiting discrimina­tion against parents who sought or held part­time jobs. Today I should Hke to enter intothe record the instructive experience of onestate legislator who attempted to putthrough such a b1ll, the Honorable ConstanceCook, Assemblywoman from New York. Mrs.Cook sent me a copy of her B1ll as Intro­duced in committee. It began "no employershall set as a condition of employment, sal­ary, promotion, fringe benefits, seniority.•.."etc. the condition that an employee who isparent or guardian of a child under 18 yearsof age shall be required to work more than"forty hours a week". Yes, Mr. Chairman,you heard me correctly~fortyhours a week,Which, of course, is full time. Mrs. Cook in­formed me that there was no hope of gettinga b1ll through with a lower I1mit.

It turned out that even forty hours weretoo much. The b1ll failed of passage even incommittee. The pressure from business andindustry was too great. They wanted theright to require their employees to work over­time.

There is, however, a ray of hope. It is myunderstanding that a critical issue in thepresent strike against the Chrysler Corpora­tion, and .one on which the union Is takinga strong position is precisely this question ofcompulsory overtime.

Families and neighborhoodsI shOUld also like to enter into the record

the results of a research conducted in Ger­many which sheds Hght on the Infiuence ofthe neighborhood on the I1ves of childrenand famUles. The study compared the actionsof children Hving in 18 new "model commun­ities" with those from youngsters Hving inolder German cities. The research was con­ducted by the Urban and Planning Institutein Nuremberg in collaboration with the In­stitute of Psychology at the University ofErlangen-Nuremberg. The following are ex­cerpts from a special bulletin to the NewYork Times (May 9,1971) :

"In the new towns of West Germany, amidsoaring rectangular shapes of apartmenthouses with shaded walks, big lawns andfenced-In play areas, the chlldren for whommuch of this has been designed apparentlyfeel isolated, regimented and bored ...

"The stUdy finds that the children gaugetheir freedom not by the extent of open areasaround them, but by the I1berty they haveto be among people and things that excitethem and fire their imaginations ...

"Children In the older cities seemed en­thusiastic about their surroundings, paint­ing a great amount of detail into a variety

of things they found exciting around them,according to those who Interpreted their art.

"The chlldren in the model communitiesoften painted what were considered despair­Ing pictures of the world the adults hadfa.shlon"d for them, depicting an uninviting,concrete fortress of cleanl1ness and order andboredom."

The impl1cations of the research are sel!evident. In the planning and design of newcommunities, housing projects, and urbanrenewal, the planners, both publ1c and pri­vate. need to give expl1cit consideration tothe kind of world that Is being created forthe children who w1ll be growing up inthese settings. Particular attention should begiven to the opportunities Which the en·vironment presents or precludes for Involve­ment of chlldren with persons both. older andyounger than themselves. Among the specificfactors to be considered are the location ofshops and businesses where chlldren couldhave contact with adults at work, recre­ational and day care facUlties readily accessi­ble to parents as well as children, provisionfor a family neighborhood center and famllyoriented faclI1t1es and services, availabll1tyof public tran§portation, and, perhaps mostimportant of all, places to walk, sit, andtalk In common company.

It is perhaps fitting to end discussion ofthis matter with a proposal for nothing moreradical than providing a setting in whichyoung and old can simply sit and talk. Thefact that such settings are disappearing andhave to be del1berately recreated points bothto the roots of the problem and its remedy.The evil and the cure, l1e not with the victimsof alienation but in the social institutionswhich produce It, and their fallure to be re­sponsive to the most human needs andvalues of our democratic society.

What are the Implications of these kindsof considerations for the work of your com­mittee? I oifer my recommendations in .theform of a document entitled the "AmericanFamlly Act of 1974: Suggested Principles andPrOVisions". The date and the substance, Mr.Chairman, represent a compromiSe betweendesperation, realism, and hope.

THE AIIlERICAN FAMILY ACT OF 1974SUGGESTED PRINCIPLES AND. PROvISIONS

A. Principles1. The family is the most humane, eifec­

tive, and economical system of child careknown to man. The first aim of any childcare program, therefore', should 'be tostrengthen the family and enable the parentsto function as parents. for their children.This can be best accompl~shed by providinga variety of suppcrt systems. for the. familyin the home, neighborhood,place of work,and community.

2. All programs should be family-centeredrather than merely child-.centered. Thismeans service to parents as well as to chil­dren, and opportunity for the Involvementof parents in the planning. and' executionof programs both within and outside thehome. Research results Indicate that whereprograInS have 1nvolved fam1l1es as a wholethere is greater. I1kel1hood .of .lasting elfectbeyond the duratio!.l of the program Itself,with an impact not only on the target childbut other children In the family as well.Also such programs tend to gemore eco­nomical because of the greatE1:r participationof family members in the work of the pro-gram. .

3. During the first six years of life, par­ticularlydurlng the first three, an. endur­ing one-to-one relationship is especially im­portant for the child's development, For th1sreason special encouragement 'shOUld begiven to an'angements which permit.one ofthe two parents to work part-time. In par­tiCUlar, welfare eliglb1l1ty, requirementsshould not discriminate against families inwhich one or both parents are working part­time rather than full-time.

4. Many families today are una.ble to func­tion etrect1\'ely ''to .meet the needs of theirchUdren because of circumstances beyondtheir control. The principal debilitating fac~

tor is poverty. Others Include reduction ofthe family to only two adults, or, in many1nstances, Only a single parent; the 1nvolve­ment of both parents In full-time jobs;working on dllferent shUts; the social iso­lation of famlUes-especially the mother­because of the breakdown of neighborhoods.Measures des1gned to alleviate these condi­tions can contribute in reenabling parentsto function more etrectively. Hence suchmeasures should become apart of any com­prehensive . chlld care program, especiallybecause they are more economical In the longrun.

5. In addition to the parents, other per­sons can playa s1gntficant role both In rela­tion to the child himself and in providingsupport to those primarily engaged in hiscare, especially to the mother. The most im­portant persons In this regard are other fam­ily members such as grandparents,aunts,uncles, older brothers and sisters but alsoneighbors, friends, teachers" social workers,and other prOfessionals. Finally, the researchevidence also points to the powerfUl Impactof older children on the development of theyoung. Therefore, both on psychological andeconomic grounds, an eifective child careprogram should ut1l1ze and encourage theInvolvement of other adults and older chil­dren In the care of the young.

6. To be eifectlve, programs must be com­prehensive in nature not only In relation tothe needs of the child but also those of hisfamily In the areas of health, education,and social services. For example, the mosteifective and economical measure to Insurethe health of the child may often be to meetthe health problems of his parents, or ofother Elick, handicapped, or aged family mem­bers Who sap the parents' strength· andre-sources. . . '. <'7. FIl1Il1l1es live in Widely dllferlng circum­

stances. Any 'program of child care services,must therefore supply a variety of options.In accordance with .this prinCiple, chlld careservices shOUld not be l1In1ted .to group daycare provided outside the home.

B. "Family Support Syl!tems"1. Revision of Welfare and Work Legislation

No single parent of young children shouldbe .forced to work full time or more to pro­Vide an Income at or below the poverty I1ne.The statement applies w1th equal force tofammes In Which both parentl'; are. COmpelledto work fUll time .01' longer to maintain aminimal subsistence level. Under such cir­cuIl1stl'l.nces, a p;J.rentwishingt.o do so shouldbe enabled to remain at home for part of.the day. The following .measures <,COUld helpachieve this objective: . .

a. Welfare legislation sho\'ild ;be amendedso ,1lS to encourage rather tha!.lpenalize lowIpcome parents, especially ",single .' parents,who wish .. to work only p;J.rt-time ..in ordertobe able themselves to care for theIr ownchlldren. . ." < ., ..' b, To free p;J.rents in poverty from . full­

time emploYIllent so that oheo~them cancare for the chlldren. Feder.al and state pro­grams sho\11d providE1 ,un~3 .fo).' part-timeparental chlld care .at home 1n lieu of wages.

c. There ..' .should be . legal. prohibitionagainst unliIllited compulsory overtime forparents withy-oung C:hildren. '.

d. Federal or stateleg1s1atures should passFair Part-Time. Employment Practice.s Actsp).'ohlblttng· discrimination in. jobc;>pportu­nlty, rate of pay; seniority, fringe. benefitsand job status for parents ",hI) /leek'or areepgElged 1n part-time employment.

2. Incentive Programsa. Tax ·incentlvesshould.be extended to

businesses and industries who "et up familyand chUd services for their employees. such

September 28, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 31967as day care programs, part-time work oppor­tunities, fiexlble working hours, special pro­grams designed', to acquaint chUdren andyoung people with the world of work, etc.In particular, employers should be encour­aged through tax benefits to modify workschedules so as to enable parents to be homeWhen their children return from preschoolor school thus decreasing the need for baby­sitters during the child's waking hours or for"latchkey" arrangements for older chUdren.

b. Special Incentives should be providedfor the development of neighborhood 'andcommunity-wide programs benefiting fam­ilies and children, especially on a non-age­segregated basis.

d. Incentives should be offered to groupsresponsible for the design of neighborhoods,housing projects, apartment complexes,churches, Industrial sites, urban renewalprojects, etc. to provide for the needs of ch1l-"dren and famUies in the planning of theseenvironments; For example, apartment com­plexes should Incorporate day care facll1tiesadapted for parent participation, large hous­Ing projects should be provided with a familyneighborhood center.

e. Incentives should be offered to schoolsfor Introducing programs involving olderchildren in responsibll1ty for the young bothwithin the school and in neighborhoodsettings (inclUding the old and the sick, andalso for the development of programs whichbring members of the community In contactwith school children so as to reduce theWidening gap between the worlds of chUd­hood and adolescence on the one hand, andthe world of adults on the other.

3. Family Impact AssessmentBoth Houses of Congress and analogous

governmental bodies at state and local levelsshould change or establish committees tomonitor all legislation or proposals comingbefore the body in question for possible im­pact in the welfare of fammes and children.

4. Homemaker ServicesMany disadvantaged or single parents are

unable to spend time In activities With theiryoung children because of other demands inthe home, such as care of old or sick relatives,meeting the needs of a large famUy, house­keeping under difficult conditions, etc. Localresidents trained as homemakers, or highschool students In special programs (seeabove) could take over some of these respon­slb1Utles during regular visits so that the par­ent could be free to engage in activities withthe younger chUd.

5. Group Day Carea. Day care eligibUity should not be limited

to parents engaged In full-time employment.b. Some off-hour and around-the-clock day

care shOUld be avaUable.c. Some provisions should be made for the

avaUabil1ty of emergency day care when par­ents are sick, Incapacitated, or for other ur­gent reasons temporarUy unable to provideadequate care for their chlldren.

d. In the establishment of care programs,provision should be made for the involvementof other family members besides the parentssuch as adult relatives, and older children ofthe family.6, Training Programs for Child Care Workers

These should be available for persons of allages by InclUding them In the curricula ofhigh schools, adult education programs, com­munity colleges, etc. They should incorporateas a regUlar feature voluntary chUd careservices while in the period of training. Thiswouid make avaUable large numbers oftratned personnel at low cost for famUies whoneed such assistance. .7. Commissions for Children c:'nd Fam1l1es

Federal encouragement should be givenfor the estsbllshment of such commissionsat the neighborhood or community level.They would have as their initial charge find-

CXIX--2015-Part 25

ing out what the community is doing for Itschildren and their famUies. The commissionwould examine the adequacy of existing pro­grams such as' maternal and chlld healthservices, family planning clinics, day care fa­cUlties, social service and recreational oppor­tunities. They also would have the responsl­bll1ty for looking at the entire communityas an environment for chUdren. Attentionwould be given not only to institutions andprograms designed explicitly to serve fami­lies and children, but also to town planning,housing, traffic, entertainment, etc. from thepoint of view of meeting the needs of faml·lies and their children. The commission wouldbe expected to report Its findings and rec­ommendations to appropriate executive bod­Ies and to the public at large through themass media; After completing the initial as­sessment phase, the commission would as­sume continued responsibility for develop­ing and monitoring programs to implementits recommendations.

8. ResearchProvision should be made for studies de­

signed to assess the comparative effectivenessof specific strategies for furthering the de­velopment of chlldren and famUies. Unlikethe massive surveys employed to date, suchinvestigations should focus on specific com­ponents of particular programs, rather thana~tempting an Indiscriminate evaluation ofmany complex programs differing in content,clientele, and social setting.9. A Family-centered Employment Policy in

the Federal GovernmentThe Federal Government as an employer

should be mandated to set an example byadopting, at least on an experimental basis,the policies and practices proposed in theserecommendations.

Urgent actionsFinally, Mr. Chairman, there are two urgent

steps that cannot wait for the passage of abill in 1974. They must be taken now:1. Reinstating and Expanding Material and

Infant Care ServicesIn view of its urgency, a separate bill should

be introduced in the Congress now to rees­tabl1shand expand the new material and in­fant care services and to mandate that theappropriated funds not be impounded by theExecutive branch.2. Verifying the Support of FamUy Programs

on Revenue SharingMany vital federal programs for families

and children have been dismantled by thepresent administration with the assurancethat they would be "picked up" by states andlocal communities with support from revenuesharing.'For the :Salte of the nation's children,it is essential that this process be monitoredby an appropriate agency in the federal gov­ernment, such as the office of Child Develop­ment, to identify any lapse in critical pro­grams, An effort should then be mounted, bythe Congress If necessary, to assure that theVital needs of famll1es are being met.

SummaryMr. Chairman, I should like to summarize

with three statements:1. The family is the most humane, efficient

and economical system for making humanbeings human known to man.

2. With all Its strength, the family can­not survive and function in a vacuum. It re­quires support from the neighborhood, fromthe world of work, and from social and politi­cal institutions at the local, state, and na­tional level.

3. The future belongs to those nationsthat are prepared to make and fUlfill a pri­mary commitment to their fammes and theirchildren. For, only In this way w111 It bepossible. to counteract the alienation, dis­trust, and breakdown of a sense of commu­nity that follow In the wake of Impersonal

technology, urbanization, bureaucratization,and their unplanned, dehumanizing conse­quences. As a nation, we have not yet beenw111ing to make that commitment. We con­tinue to measure the worth of our own so­ciety, and of other countries as well, by thefaceless criterium of the GNP-the gross na­tional product. We continue, in the wordsof the great American psychologist, Wll1iamJameS-to "worship the bitch-goddess Suc-cess". .

It appears, Mr. Chairman, that we are a"stiffnecked people". That phrase calls tomind that the worShip of idols is not new Inhuma.n experience, and its almost ineVitableand awesome consequences are a matter offamll1ar record. Yet, the God of Abraham, wew111 recall, was merciful. He sought to warnhis people by lesser calamities before Sodomand Gomorrah were destroyed. Or, to trans­late to our own time and venacular: "Thingsmay have to get worse before they can getbetter". If so, Mr. Chairman, we can takeheart from the facts and figures I havebrought before you; we surely are makingprogress!

Mr. Chairman, our nation must make andfUlfill the commitment to Its fam1l1es andchlldren before time runs out. Ultimatelythat commitment must be made and fUlfilledby the people themselves. In the last analysis,It is they who must decide to change the in­stitutions which determine· how they andtheir neighbors live-who can get healthcare for his family, a habitable dwelling Inwhich to live, opportunity to spend time withone's children, and help and encouragementfrom individuals and society in the demand­ing and richly gratifying task of enabling theyoung to develop Into competent and com­passionate human beings.

Untimately, all of us must make this na­tional commitment. But It can begin onlywhere national leadership begins, in the hallsof Congress and in the White House. It is,of course, unlikely that within the next threeyears that commitment w1l1 be made at theother end of Pennsylvania Avenue. It ap­pears to be a long way from there to thelives and hearts of the people, their fammes,and their children. The way Is surely shorterfrom here, from these halls, where the repre­sentatives of the people gather to serve thepeople's interest. I have high hope, Mr.Chairman, that the Hearings being conductedby this Committee w1l1 mark the beginning ofa new era in the history of the Congress andthe country, and that the Senate of theUnited States, under the leadership of thisbipartisan Committee, w1l1 act in behalf ofthe people In making a national commitmentto meet the needs and realize the tragicallyunfulfilled potential of our fam1lles and ourchildren.

PARENTS WITHOUT PARTNERS, INC.•September 19, 1973.

To Senate Subcommittee on ChUdren andYouth, Old Senate Office Building,Washington, D.C.

From Parents Without Partners. Inc.,George B. Williams, Executive Director,Washington. D.C.

My name 13 George B. W11llams, and I amExecutive Director of Parents Without Part­ners. Inc.• the world's largest organization ofsingle parents. With me today are threemembers of my organization who wlll presenttheir personal stories and findings on severalaspects of our national life affecting the dis·solution of the family and the resultingdeleterious effects on children and youth.

Before introducing them, let me tell yousomething about our organization, ParentsWithout Partners. We are an international,voluntary membership organization of singleparents-the widowed. divorced, separatedand never-marrled-who are bringing upchildren alone In what Is st111 a dual-parentsociety. Custody is not a requirement for

31968 CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD..:..... SENATE Septembert28;\1'973membership,and 35% of our members aremen. PWP's North American membership(United States and Canada) l1sta90,OOOmembers. We were founded nearly 16 yearsago and have doubled in siZe every thirdyear of our eX1stence; our growth has beenphenomenal, and the future of our organiza­tion has never been brighter. Th1s doesn'tsay much for the future of the traditionalmarriage as we have known it or of the so­called nuclear famlly.

More than 700 Chapters of our organiza­tion ex1st in all 50 States and in most Canadi­an Provinces. We also have large alfiliatedgroups, exclusive of our 90,000 members inNorth America, in Australia, New Zealand,England, Mexico and Venezuela. Chaptersrange from upwards of 1,000 members in ur­ban areas to fewer than 100 in the smallertowns and cities. Each Chapter, with electedvolunteer leaders, plans and conducts itsown programs of service to ita members andtheir ch1ldren, With admin1strative aids,materials, advice and guidance from the In­ternational Office here In Washington. Weare tax-exempt as a non-profit, non-sectari­an, educational organization devoted exclu­sively to the welfare and interests of singleparents and their children.

Our members come from all walks of lifeand represent a kaleidescope of occupationInterests and educational attainment. Agesrange from the 20's into the 60's with thebulk of the membership in the 30's and 40's.Thirty-five percent of our members arewidows and Widowers, but the majority aredivorced. Never-marrieds are a tlny growingminority, and there are many "separateds"who do not divorce for rellglous or other rea­sons. Sixty-five percent of the total arewomen. The only requirement for member­ship in Parents Without Partners is singleparenthood. We represent a typical cross­sectlon of the m1l11ons who have sufferedmarrlage termlnatlon, have chUdren to worryabout, and are In the throes of a reorganiza­tion of their llves. Our members come to usat all stages In the process of separation;some are only recently widowed or divorcedwhUe others have lead the "single again" llfefor some time. .

Some have young chlldren; others haveteenagers. Some are fairly sophisticated,others naive. They are of all faiths. A fewhave had professional counseling; most knownothing about It. Basically middle to lower­middle class on the soclo-economic scale (amarriage termlnatlon Invarlably means thatthe party or parties to It take a step or twodown that scale), many are bitter about mar­riage, others hopeful about remarriage. Aboutthe only other generallzation I can makeabout the organization I represent 15 thatthe members are all in the process of transi­tion and change and have come to us forhelp. Having received the help they need. andhaving completed the process of transition,they leave. The average tenure of member­ship 15 about two years. We are a permanentorganization of transients. We are a do-it­yourself, self-help organization. We've hadto be.

For the most part, gentlemen, you as indi­Viduals are members of the legal profession,and you know full well that the end of amarriage, especiallY if children are involved,15 a tremendously traumatic experience forall concerned. Even if problems were an­ticipated, nobody, it seems, ever expects themto be so critical. Beyond that, many unpre­dieted situations and problems have to befaced. In any case, demoraUzatlon and de­spair are the frequent response. There ismuch that government can do in many,many areas to make the transition smootherfor those who suddenly enter the world ofthe formerly married because of marriaged1ss01ution.

It 15 most encouraging to see, beginning~th the hearings by th1s SUbcommittee, thatthe nation is beginning to address itself to

the escalating phenomenon of broken faml­lles and marriage termination. AU I can say15 that It's about time.

Marriage dissolution shOUld be the Num­ber One SUbject of the decade. The famlly 15the fundamental unit of civilizatlon, and thetraditional marriage has been a corner-stoneof our soclety. Marrlage dissolution 15 reach­ing epidemic proportlons, and the societalimpact on all levels of our national life Isnow beginning to manifest itseif.

Strange things are happening to the1nsti­tution of marriage as we know It in theUnited States and In Western society; curiousthings are happening to divorce in America.The pain and trauma associated with thebreak-Up of a marriage have not impalredthe prevalence of marriage d1ss01ution. Ap­proximately four of every 10 couples whomarry this year wUl not llve happUy everafter.

They will divorce after, on the average,seven years of marriage. It can be safely saidthat the dlvorce rate 15 soaring to a recordpeak; It 15 beginning to approximate 50%.

One of every six ch1ldren in the UnitedStates 15 now being raised in a Single parenthome. The first-marriage rate 15 now at itslowest ebb since the Depression. Second mar­riages have also leveled olf dramatically. "ThePill" and llberalized abortion laws have ac­counted for the fact that the birth rate hasreached its lowest level in our history, andeven where ch1ldren aren't Involved directly,equally striking is the rising number of mar­riages that spUt apart after the major chUd­raising chores are finished. Among couplesmarried 15 to 19 years, divorce has doubledsince 1960, wh1le In the 20-years-and-overbracket, it is up 56%.

And In spite of the plll and liberalizedabortion laws, the number of so-called "111e­gitlmate" births 15 rising.

Let me also state here and now that thosewho sulfer most in a marriage dissolution arenot the chUdren. Ch1ldren are amenable tochange and resl11ent. It is the adult whosulfers most.

The best thing one can do for a child isto enable him to have a reasonably well­adjusted, functioning parent or parents. Weare all aware that Innocent children are in­nocent victims of marriage dissolution. Par­ents can become disturbed, overwrought andtraumatized when they enter the world ofthe formerly married, and they must readjusttheir lives In a happy, organized manner.Above all, this has the most beneficial elfecton children. Contributing heaVily to thetrauma and maladjustment sulfered by manymembers of the single parent community areseveral inequities which can be corrected bygovernment, both in the leglslative,enforce-ment and policy-making areas. .'

From personal experience, the three. mem-'·bers of our organizatlon Whom I w1l,1 intro­duce to you now wUl present their personalexperiences as well as their recommendationsin several of these areas. In order of theirappearance, they are as follows:

Ms. Katheleen Carroll Gallagher. MS. Gal­lagher has been a member of our organiza­tlonfor several years and has served insev­eral leadership capacities. In the businessworld. she Is Assistant Secretary of ·Coach­man Industries, Inc.. of Mlddlebury,Indiana.She is also the Administrative Ass1stant ,tothe President of that corporation, Mr. T. ·H.Corson. You'll be interested to know thatwhen Mr. Corson was approached to give Ms.Gallagher the time to come to Washingtonto testify before this committee. he said, "Myopinion of the men in government and thoseelected Senators has r1sen considerably sincelearning that they have asked you to discussthe problems of the single parent. They canbenefit greatly from your knowledge and thatof your organization, and its' gratifying toknow that Congress 15 actually seeking theadvice of those who had experience with the

problems. ' Hopetully, they'll do more ot thisIn all areas of government."

MS. Gallagher became a single parent 12years ago and at that time. her two sonswere age ·13 and 15 and her daughter was14. Since her divorce, her children have suc­cessfully completed the total of 16 years ofcollege in nine. of those 12 years. Her eldestson has h1s' doctorate from Stanford Uni­versity in nuclear and systems engineering,and her younger son 15 a graduate of IndianaUniversity aUd 15 now a Certified Public Ac­countant. Her daughter 15 a Reg1stered Nursespecializing in the Intensive care ot newborIlbabies. All of them are happUy married.

MS. Martin Creasy, Ms. Creasy 15 a tormermember of the Armed services herself andwas married to a non-commissioned officerin the United States Air Force for more than14 years. She 15 divorced, and a parent ofthree growing boys. She has direct knOWledgeof how politics governing the ml11tary alfectthe lives of enl1sted servicemen and theirfaml11es wh1le on active duty. Ms. Casey 15 ahousewife from New Ipswich, NewHa.m.p­shire.

MS. Patricia Young. Ms. Young 15 the di­vorced mother of three children and is aresident of Andover, Massachusetts, She isemployed as a Secretary. Her situation israther unique, because her divorce from asenior non~comm1ssloned officer in theUnited States Army did not' solve very manyproblems for her. Many of those problemscontinue because of some m1l1tary poliCiesno longer In existence but Which, in her case,are not yet resolved. While she is divorcedfrom a former Army non-commissioned of­ficer, her testimony wUl show, I believe, thather divorce from problems generated by "be­nign ml11tary neglect" w1l1 not be final unt11she leaves th1s planet.

STATEMENT OF MS. GALLAGHER

I am personally delighted to discuss certainareas of concern which I share with othersingle parent women functioning In thebUsiness world.

My 12 years spent as a single parent werenot easy ones. I'm not complaining, becauseI've been very fortunate. My children haveturned out well. I've worked extremely hardin spite of the fact that both my family andI have felt l1l~e "second class" citizens be­cause of my divorce. A man or woman dl­vorced or separated with children is thesubject of a wide variety of overt and covertd1scrimlnatlon, some of which is directly dueto lack of governmental controls and laws.This discrimination takes many forms, andI would like to review with you some of theparticularly relevant aspects. If you magnifYmy problems as one single parent womanby the 10,000,000 single parents In the UnitedStates today, you wlll eas1ly realize my con­cern as an Individual as well as the concernof my organization, Parents Without Part­ners.

(1) It goes Without saying that one of themost commonly shared dilemmas of singleparents is adequate income. Child supportpayments or life insurance benefits are rarelyadequate to provide for the needs of a family.In nearly every case, it is mandatory that asingle parent be employed outside the homeIn order adequately .to support the house­hold.. This leads to ansulary problems ofchild care, low income levels of the averagewoman, bringing their occupational skUlscurrent, and finding a SUitable job. Today onefamUy in nine is headed by a woman-th1smeans 5.6 mUllon fammes headed by women.In the decade between 1960 and '70, th1s

.group increased 24% in humbers.Compounding this problem Is the fact that

despite womell's rights ,movements and equalopportunity legislation from the Congress,figures on the earnings by occupational andeducational levels clearly show that a work­Ing woman. with a high school educationearnsapproxlmMely 56% of the salary at-

Septentber 28, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 31969talned by men on an. equivalent level ofage and education. From the standpoint ofsociety concern mUsf'" e centered on thestatus 'of those single' '. '~nt familles Withdependent children. Most .1'e not as fortu­nate as I have been. I did ma->1age to keepthree children in college at the same time onearnings of approximately $6,000 per year,plus approximately $2,800 in child supportannually.

This is a very broad problem. The propor­tion of mothers working outside the homeis now more than double that of 25 years ago.For a graphic lllustration of the problem,consider the group of mothers With childrenunder six. Last year, there were more than 4.3mllllon mothers with chlldren under six inthe labor force. More appalllng, there were1.3 million mothers with children who werebringing up their familles without a husband.Add to this the children from six to 17 yearsof ago being raised by single parent women­almost 3.3 m1111on-and one soon realizes thatcompared to the estimated number oflicensed day-care slots of 800,000, the recentveto by the President on the matter of daY'care facilltles only serves to aggravate Im­mediate solutions to this gigantic problflmfor single parents and their children.

(2) The second area of concern are theproblems generated by Inequitable taxationof tho single parent. Most assuredly, childcare expenses should be treated as a businessexpense rather than a personal expense.

An industriallst can hire 2 dozen extra sec­retaries and even a chauffeur and there isnever any shadow of a doubt that theirwages wlll be a legitimate tax deduction. Hepays their wages from one pocket and recoupsa handy tax break from the Treasury withanother. The secretaries help him work moreeffectively. They help him spend time moreproductively so that he can make a greatercontribution to our nation's economy. With­out them and their help, he would be verymuch cut down to size.

But what about fathers or mothers whocan't even get to the stage of taking a jobat all Without paying someone to look aftertheir chlldren or clean their homes? Theydon't have the resources of a mlllionalre,but they have to hire someone or pay some­one to help them all the same. No businessdeduction for them-desplte the fact thatmany of these parents could not even workat all without incurring such expenses, letalone getting to the stage of thinking Interrns of help to enable them to work moreeffectively.

Certainly, where two divorced or separatedparents provide support to chlldren, thereshould be some automatic, eqUitable formulafor allowing them to spllt exemptions andclaim tax credit,. both for support and forthe education of those dependent children.Meaningful tax reform is long overdue. Iwould think the House Ways and MeansCommittee would be seriously embarrassedby their inaction. I, and other single par­ents, wonder exactly What the time table onthis glacier is?

Let me personallze tax problems as theyaffect single parents. I am one of those whomay have read about who was the subject ofIRS harassment. On two occasions, the ·IRSchose to audit my returns as a single par­ent--the first time when my former husbandclalmed both me and the three chUdren(mind you, this was two years after the di­vorce) and it was this incorrect filing thattriggered an audit of my return, and theburden of proving the deductions and ex­emptions fell on my shoulders. At one point,I was threatened by the IRS auditor that hewould take away aU my dependent exemp­tions unless I would "give" som/t of these ex­emptions to my former husba,:ld. Actually,the auditor also threatened to flse my older80n's scholarship money against me in com­puting which of us contributed 50% of thetotal support. This, in spite of their own

printed rulings Which state that scholarshipsare not to be considered as income in suchcases. I finally had to utlllze the services of apracticing tax consUltant to plead the hear­ing successfully before an IRS examiner. Allthis, at unnecessary and great expense to meat a time when I could llttle afford it.

(3) The third area of concern are problemsencountered in the areas of credit, mortgagesand insurance for the Widowed and divorced.

Let me sight a couple of brief examples:In 1962, I suffered the indignity of being

refused automoblle insurance coverage sim­ply because I was newly-divorced, and con­sidered a bad risk for that reason. AllstateInsurance Company refused my appllcation,refused even to process it, because I had notbeen divorced for at least a year. I submitthat I was a better driver after my divorcethan I was before. Not only that, why couldI not be considered as an indiVidual and bejudged on my own driving record?

From all that I hear In my organization,insurance discrimination against the di­vorced and Widowed still exists and has notreceded at all. From what I am told, I bel1eveit has escalated.

As far as credit Is concerned, I've been for­tunate. My income level Is higher than mostsingle parent women. However, there is one'interesting anecdote to indicate discrimina­tion. In May of 1971, I sent an appllcation fora BankAmericard to First Bank and TrustCompany in South Bend, Indiana. This waswhlle I was employed as business adminis­trator for eight doctors, managing severalX-ray facllltles, and my income was indi­cated near $10,000. Within that very sameweek, a woman appeared from the Bank­Americard Central Office to apply for my job,but I never heard anything directly fromBankAmericard. I wrote the banking facllltyto which the appl1cation had been sent andexplained what had happened. I also ex­plained that I would stlll Ilke to have a card.To this day, I have never received an ac­knowledgement to my appl1cation or my let­ter, nor have I received a BankAmericard.

(4) The fourth concern I have is the prob­lem of divorce and separation and the effecton the education of the dependent chlldren.The education of my children has been myprime motivation these past 12 years. I wasstunned when I read my divorce decree in1961 to learn that no reference or provisionhad been Inserted In the decree for theirhigher education. This Is one area where anational divorce code with mandatory provi­sions for shared responslbillty for the educa­tion of chlldren would be of great and last­ing benefit. Such provisions wlllprobably notexist as long as states are the control pointfor the issuance of divorce decrees. In addi­tion, there shOUld be mandatory provisionsfor the insurance and hea;lth protection ofthose chlldren.

There are many, many reasons for a na­tional divorce code and it could be ap­proached through the states on the saniebasis that the "no-fault" automobile insur­ance legislation was approached: mlnlmumstandards and a time frame. '

(5) Problems relating to the dissolution ofmarriage will continue to plague us untllgovernment makes more adequate provisionsIn our educational system to prOVide that allchildren, equally and fairly, are given theright to learn about marriage, about divorce,about being good, effective parents, etc., inorder that they may better prepare them­selves for. the certainties of their llfe styles.The recently developed program, "Educationfor Parenthood", launched by the Office ofEducation and the Office of Chlld Develop­ment in September, 1972, Is most eXCiting inall respects. This Is just the type of thing ournation needs as we view with considerableanxiety the recent trends in marriage dissolu­tion. Hopefully, simllar programs in otherareas wlll be developed and launched. MyorganlzatlOD continues to be avallable as con-

sultants and is prepared at all times to shareour experience With all governmental levelsconcerned. Let me also add, Senators, thatit is gratifying to know that you are askingus to discuss pertinent viewpoints towardspeedy solutions to our shared problems 01single parents and their children In our so­ciety today ... and tomorrow.

Thank you very much.STATEMENT OF MS. CREASY

I was involved with the mlUtary for 14years. Many problems were encountered and,of course, not all of them were mllitarlly con­nected. Problems common to most marriagesbecome more prominent, however, because ofthe stresses of mllltary life. Many problemsencountered directly result from pollclesgoverning military personnel as well as, insome cases, the lack of covering poUcles.

The overriding problem for enlisted mll!­tary famllies Is money. Ninety percent ofthe famllies I knew in the military found itnecessary to "moonlight" In order to survive.No matter how tight the hold on the pursestrings, it was necessary for me to work ona full-time basis and for my husband towork part-time, three nights a week plUSSaturdays every week. He held the rank ofTechnical Sergeant, at that time the secondhighest non-commissioned officer rank.

Even though military pay scales haveescalated recently, so has the cost of llving.The "tight money" situation for enllstedmilitary famllles has not altered.

The necessity of "moonllghtlng" adds itsown strain to family life. My chlldren spentmore time at under-staffed nurseries andwith baby-sitters than in their own home.This factor, plus the added physical stressof "moonlighting", placed my husband andme in an atmosphere where family life wasalmost nil. Although low finances is oneproblem nearly everyone encounters at samepoint, one would think that men in themilitary service of their government, what­ever their rank, would be able to support asmall family Without the added mental andphysical stress of "moonllghting".

One of the biggest' financial strains placedon wives of non-commiS310ned officers camewhen a decision was made to allow non­commissioned officers to receive family al­lotment checks along with their monthlypay checks. No consideration was given tothe wives and chlldren of non-commissionedofficers whose husbands were already usingtheir pay to their own personal SAtisfaction.This decision was a mistake.

Unnecessary transfers run a close secondto financial problems for mllltary famllles.Undue mental, physical and-again-finan­cial strain Is placed on families In the proc­ess of transferring from one base to another.The strain Is even greater when the famllyls not allowed to follow.

Moving from one home to another, fromone school to another, becomes more diffi­cult as the children get older and friendsbecome closer.

Transfers to overseas bases where Ufe istotally different and where housing is eithernon-existent or of low qual1ty places otherkinds of strain on family life.

Overseas bases where only famUles of of­ficers are allowed makes the enlisted manfeel guilty of his rank. Another strain, per­haps the biggest strain of all Is placed onthose families where the wife Is forced, with­out advance or continued counsel, to takeover the full responsiblllty as a "head ofhousehold".

Mllltary life makes unique demands inmany ways and all members cf the famllyhave pride in service to our country and dotheir very best to meet those demands with­out complaining. However, a woman becOlIl­ing both father and mother to her chll­dren for any length of time learns to beless dependent on her husband, 1110re inde­pendent and more capable of being her own

31970 CONGRESSIONAL .RE~ORD-. SENA,Tl!boss. In many cases Where the husband isthe true foundation of the marriage, the mar­riage begins to falter with this type of trans­fer. Every effort should be made by theArmed Services to keep the families togetherand, where it is impossible to do 50 becauseof security reasons or war-time conditions,then counseling should be readily availablefor those who stand and walt. The divorcestatistics of our Viet Nam POWs bear me out.

Is It too much to ask that when a service­man 15 taken from his family for six monthsor more for security reason which cannot bedivulged that a senior omcer come by andexplain the necessity of it to the wife andchildren in terms they will understand with­out divulging the necessity of the mission?From my experience, this would have beenextremely helpful, and would have savedmuch strain on many marriages. After all,the percentage of field grade omcers andabove Is at its highest point in mll1tary his­tory. While the Armed Services do a good jobof "taking care of their own" the word"own" should be more fully extended to in­clude the mllltary dependents, too.

The military does take care of widows andorphans.' Divorce, in many respects, has thesame effect as death on m1lltary dependents.Even worse effects I I belleve that there mustbe a greater concern Shown for m1lltary di­vorcees and their children, particularly asthey may affect t:J.e children in terms of fi­nancIal supoprt and medical care.

In preparIng for this testimony I was ad­Vised by a member of our organization, a fieldgrade omcer now retired from the Army, thatconditions leading to marriage dissolutionand reSUlting single parenthood are moreacute in the service than among civlllans.This Is true because many famllles cannot ad­just to the constant relocating Which seemsto be required in the ml1ltary, that break­ups are caused by low pay and poor llvlngconditions among the enllsted personnel(many of Whom are on welfare), and thenecessity of "hardship tours" (one year over­seas Without family) .

He found, as did I, that the mllltary Ishighly sensitive about releasing any statis­tics to any organization on subjects Whichthey feel might cause an unfavorable publlcimage. Maybe you can change this. I hope so.

Thank you.STATEMENT OF MS. YOUNG

Gentlemen, my gross weekly income Is$135.00; my r.et $104.00. I receIve no otherincome for either myself or my children. Ican barely meet my expenses, which aregreater than they need be because I have towork and that means baby-sitters.

My expenses are also larger because I haveto clothe myself for my work, a greater ex­pense than it would be if I were a housewife.Also, I don't have time to prepare economicalmeals, and I rely on so-called "conveniencefoods", and one must pay for the convenience.I am one of those heads of households Whosetall: base Is higher, and I pay a penalty be­cause I happen to be a single parent.

In 1957 I was married to a serviceman, at­tached to Army security, With the rank ofSP-4. My former husband attained a rankof SP-5 in 1958, then took a year's separa­tion from the Army in 1958-59. He re-enllstedin 1959 as an SP-5, the grade he left. Prior toour marriage, he had served 18 months inKorea, and his service record was excellent.

Upon re-enllstment, he taught as an in­structor at Fort Devens, Massachusetts. Hewas selected for the Non-Commissioned om­cers Academy in New Jersey and from there,he went on to Washington, D.C., for instruc­torlal courses. He was then selected for lan­guage school in Monterey, CalifornIa. HIsspecialty was Arabic. At this time he waspromoted to the rank of E-6.

Following language school, he returned toWashington to receive instructions and awaitorders for assignment to Turkey. After oneyear in Turkey, he ,was assigned to Beirutfor 2 years and was promoted to the rank ofE-7, the Army highest, shortly after his ar­rival. All throughout his mllltary, career hereceived numerous commendations and nc­ommendations from his commanding omcersfor outstanding performance.

Prior to my leaVing for Beirut with mychildren, another chlld was born and, inaddition, one of our sons was hospitalized.After my arrival in Beirut, there were fiveadditional hospitalizations for the entirefamlly. I developed meningitus and WlIS lateroperated on for a tUbal ligation which, fol­lowing surgery, developed serIous infections.My husband also had an accident whlleswimmIng, and my son suffered eompllca­tlons in a routine tonsilectomy and adenoid­ectomy.

My husband's assignment in Beirut was ex­tremely demanding, and the pressures weregreat. In addition, the frequent and seriouslllnesses of our famlly plUS the death of hisfather (the majority of the funeral expenseswere placed on my husband), the constancyof doctor and prescription bUls, the cost ofhiring domestic help because of my confine­ment to bed under doctor's orders all con- .trlbuted to my husband's suffering consider­able mental and nervous tension andangUish.

When we decided that he should seek pro­fessional assistance, we discovered that allthat was available in Beirut was a physicianwho could administer tranqulllzers. Unfor­tunately, my husband turned to alcohol forrellef, and a distingUished m1lltary careerbegan to go down the drain.

There were no medical faclllties avallableto us as a military family in Beirut. We in­curred very costly medical and prescriptionbUls. There was no polley established for re­imbursement at the United States Embassyin Beirut. My husband's income was in noway sumcient to cover these bills in additionto the day-to-day liVing expenses.

After many months of medication for myson's ear infections (the operation did nothelp), it was upon the written statementand strong advice of my son's physician thatwe returned to the United States for propermedical treatment and change of climate.When my husband put in for a transfer backto the States, he was threatened that if heleft his assignment in Beirut he would prob­ably be transferred out of his outfit. And thisis exactly what did occur.

While awaiting orders to be transferredback to the United States, my husband re­ceived a communication that stated he wasno longer with the ASA due to "debt" (hos­pital, physicians and medication Which themilitary didn't pay and for which the Em­bassy, did not reimburse). The mllltary usedthis excuse to transfer him from his unitand the resulting hUmiliation he sufferedcaused him great anguish. He had great prideIn himself, his unit and his career. He wasa man torn between his love for his job andhis love for his family and it was at thispoint that he seemed to fall apart and turntotally to alcohol.

When we arrived in the States, the chil­dren and I went to Ohio. My husband con­tinued on to his assignment In Callfornia.Shortly after reporting to his new assign­ment, I received a telephone call that he wasabsent without leave. He later turned him­self In and was brought up for court martial.I flew to Callfornla and left my flve-year-oldand two toddlers In Ohio. After long discus­sions with his defense counsel and his com­manding omcers, they advised me that ,hewas greatly in need of medical and psychia-

tric a8$1Stance. They dld.not;want to seehim court martialled. However, due to hisrank, he was to be r~ ,(1 as an ,"example" toothers. TIlls ,was act .ly told to my husbandand me by these acers. Because he was tobe an "example", no medical assistance wasforthcoming.

At this time, my own physical deteriora­tion was extreme. After the court martial,my husband was assigned to Fort Huachuca,Arizona. Before I left him in California toreturn to Ohio, my husband's physical andmental state was at an all-time low. After a·brief period, he instructed me to bring thefamlly to Arizona and, upon my arrival, Idiscovered that he was again AWOL. Thistime, six weeks elapsed before he returned.

He was again brought up for court martialand again demoted in rank. During this en­tire period, he had one interview with apsychiatrist.

It was at this time that my husba.nd wasadvised to "leave the military service" Heleft the service, but not for medical reasons.Thus, my children and I no longer have anyconsideration as mll1tary dependents. TIlereIs no support for my children, 'nor is thereany available medical care or other privilegeswhich would be available to us if he had amedical discharge.

During his year's tour of duty in Turkey,my daughter and I were hospitalized in theStates. My husband was not L.ble to be withus. In addition to this, the Ahny's non-reim­bursement of our medical bllls in Berult hadleft us In great financial debt upon returnto the States and I was not able to givehim very much moral and physical supportduring his post-Berutt assignments In,Cali~

fornia and Arizona. TheSe separations create(/,great strains on the famlly as a unit ano:upon my husband and me as individuals andin turn, upon' our entire marriage.

After Berult, my husband endeavored toreceive reimbursement for bur medical blllsincurred In Lebanon. 'They were neverhonored I "

When my husband was assigned to Beruit,our marrIage was very sound. I feel thatthe lack of medical assistance to our family(as well as other faro1lIes iri the servlce,andI have plenty of examples), no 'family coun­seling, no psychiatric care, and at that timeno recognition of alcoholism as a disease­all of these factors assisted the deterlora­tionof our marriage in a most viable man..nero

Because my husband's lllness was not rec­ognized at the ,time of his, discharge (after14 years of active m1lltary service) which upto the time of Beruit waS commendable, hedid not receive, the. medical discharge forwhich he was qualified., Therefore. my chil­dren reap no m1l1tary benetj.ts nor do I fortheir care and support." "

The deterioration of my husband due to al­cohOlism occurred while 'In the service. Itcaused great str~ss uporimy ,qhilc4'en, and Iwas not able to .!!ave aurmarrlage 110r wasmy husband able to cope 'with his escalatingproblems. A very fine marrll\ge ended,a :veryvaluable soldier's service ~s lost to hIs, coun­try and my chlldren and I cohtll1ueto'sulferbecause of the ineptltude~fthemlllta.ry, thenecessity of creating' "the example" and the"benign ,neglect",~fthe"fact.thatxIIlll1tarywives and <:hUdren are people too. '. "

Frankly, it, would be, better had he died.MychUdren would have greater security ifthat had happened. He might have died, andit may be that he has. I don't know. I haven';heard a thing for three yei\rs.;. '

The ineptitude with whlqh my husband'scase was handled, has. c,a\ised, untold 'emo­tional stress, particularly, •for • my oldestdaughter. The only assistance forher whichI can alford Is school counsellng, She needsmuch, much :':nore than that.

Septe1nber 28, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 31971

1 Staff of the Joint Committee on InternalRevenue Taxation, General Explanation ofthe Tax Beform Act Of 1969, H.B. 13270, 91stCongress, Public Law 91-172 (Washlri.gton:U.S. Government printing Office, 1970), p.224.

that formal, legal marriages coupled with"no-fault" divorce laws, may be increasinglldifficult to distinguish from less formal ornon-legally sanctioned liaisons that appearto be gaining mere widespread acceptability.To the extent, therefore, that "marital sta­tus" becomes more a matter of legal formrather than a description of J.iving arrange­ments relevant for measuring economic and,therefore, taxpaying capacity, any differen­tial impacts of the income tax that turn onthe distinction between married and singleindividuals take on greater weight and maybe hitting an increasingly fraglle Institu­tion.

I shall discuss first the principal featuresof the United States Income tax that differ­entiate between married and single taxpay­ers. These are the rate structure, the lowincome allowance and the optional standarddeduction, the medical deduction, the chlldcare allowance, and the capital loss carry­over. This is by no means a completely in­clusive Hst, but for all except a small hand­ful of taxpayers other aspects of the taxcode that make tax l1abll1ty turn In somepart. on marital status are irrelevant eso­teria.

THE TAX RATE STRUCTURE

From 1948 to 1969 married couples enjoyedthe privllege of being taxed as though theywere single individuals each haVing half ottheir joint incomes. In 1951 apprOXimatelyhalf of the benefits of Income-spllttlng wasextended to single persons who maintain ahome occupied by one or more dependents.For individuals With substantial Incomeswho contemplated marriage with someonewhose Income was zero or relatively low,the law offered the opportunity, through in­come-splitting, to "marry Into lower brack­ets." It also brought enormol1s pressures forchange from single persons subject to verymuch higher tax rates than their marriedcompatriots who enjoyed equal Incomes.Until the 1969 Revenue Act took effect thesingle taxpayer's tax llabllity exceeded thatof the married couple with the same taxableincome by an amount that ranged from 3.6percent at taxable Income of $1,000 to 25.2percent at $12,000, and a peak of 42.1 percentat $28,000.1 Expressed in this fashion the taxlaw seems to have dealt harshly with thesingle person and most generously with themarried couple only one party to Which hadincome. It was, however, very well SUitedto the case of the married couple With in­come equally attributable to husband andWife, as compared wl~ the single taxpayerwith Income equal to one half of that of thecouple. Stated another way, under the pre­1970 law if brothers A and B and sisters Xand Y each had $10,000 per year of taxableIncome and continued to do so after theybecame married couples AX and BY, mar­riage would not· have affected their tax lia-bllitles. .

The Revenue Act of 1969, however, changedall this. Whlle the tax rates appllcable toII1arried couples filing either joint or separatereturns remained unchanged, for single in­dividuals rates applicable to taxable incomein the brackets $4,000 to $6,000 up to $38,000to $44,000 were reduced by from 1 at $4,000to $6,000 to 10 percentage points at $20,000to $26,000, or by as much as 20.8 percent(from 48 to 38 percent in the $20,000 to$22,000 bracket). As a consequence our tax-

THE IMPACT OF THE INCOME TAX ON THEFAMILY

(Testimony of Harvey E. Brazer, professorof economics and research associate, In­stitute of Publlc Pollcy Studies, theUniversity of Michigan)Within' the ta~ structure of the Federal

Government only the Individual Income taxbears directly on the stab1llty of the family.My concern in these remarks Is not with the

~ effects of the weight of taxEls in general. ItHes, rather, with those features of the taxlaw that Impose heavier burdens on thefamily headed by two adults as comparedwith the single-head famlly.

The Joining together of two people throughmarriage to form a household--or theirseparation through divorce or death-neednot. be permitted to affect tax llab1llty bymore than the consequences of adding ordropping a dependent's exemption. As InCanada and some other taxing Jurisdictions,a man and a woman each of whom receives

- Income, may pay jointly the same amountof income tax Irrespective of whether ornot they marry or, If married, stay married.The problem. arises in this country in partbecause under our law the unit for taxationis, essentially, the household, rather thanthe indiVidual. And under an Income taxthat alms at taxing people according to theirrelative economic power of wellbeing, this Isas it shOUld be. At the same time, however,under this approach It is dltncult to steera course between the single individual, thesingle head of household, and the marriedcouple that will do justice to all and alsoavoid either imposing tax penalties on, oroffering tax bonuses for, marriage. On theother hand, the alternative of Ignoring themarital status of the tax payer, largely orentirely, inevitably results In vastly differ­ent treatment of slmilarly circumstancedeconomic units or households.

In the discussion that follows it should be. kept in mind that the institution of mar­

riage may no longer be as easy to define as itonce was. Changing social mores suggest

tal' status in the areas of housing, credit andInsurance.

2. Immediate tax reform which, in fairnessand equity, will equalize the tax base be­tween married couples and heads of house­holds; such legislation to provide for thededuction of chlld care expenses as a busi­ness deduction rather than a personal deduc­tion and, in addition, a percentage considera­tion for the dependent deduction when twoparties not in the same household contributeto child support,

3. A re-examination by the Armed Servicesas well as other governmental departmentsof all policies covering transfers and familyrelocations. (I've been told by many marriagecounselors, psychiatrists and psychologiststhat the chances of marriage dissolution risesharply-at least 50%-following a family re­location. I believe it.)

4. The Armed Services shOUld re-examineall their policies covering dependents withparticular reference to control of allotmentsfor child support· and alimony.

5. Uniform standards by all states In di­vorce codes shOUld be encouraged by theFederal Government with partiCUlar atten­tion to "no-faUlt" provisions. The archaic di­vorce codes In many of our states encouragethe adversary system in divorce practice bylawyers and usually brands a party "guilty"or "at faUlt." This does not end the conten­tiousness which a divorce purports to cureand has long term, deleterious effects on chll­dren.

6. Uniform chlld custody and support lawsand enforcement.

I might also add that after my husband'sdischarge and subsequent desertion of hisfamlly, our household goods were shipped toOhio. I went back to Massachusetts with thechildren. I couldn't obtain a release to havethe furniture sent to me because I "neededmy former husband's signature", Conseqent­ly, this pedantic attention to red tape causedme to beg from relatives to have a home formy chlldren. I also had to spend money I de­sperately needed for lawyers to try to obtainmy home furnishings. In addition, many ofour households goods were sold in Beruit topay some of the medical bills we owed andfor which we wer~e never reimbursed.

The Army must provide for greater cogni­zance for their famllles In trouble. Manytimes I thought that if the system or evenone of his commanding officers had the back­bone to stand up and fight for my husbandthat today there would be a whole famllyunit with a father who is a whole person.The need at that time for decent medicaland psychiatric attention was acute but lack­ing.

Maybe it still is. My nine-year-old son tellspeople that his father Is dead because hecannot accept the fact that he has been re­jected. My seven-year-old can't remember hisfather, and my 12-year-old daughter is fight­Ing a desperate battle within herself aboutwho Is to blame for her father's disappear­ance from her life. If this is not a destruc­tion of the family unit by separation, mill­tary ineptitude and basic Ignorance, I don'tknow what you would call It.

Military familles have a difficult lot at best.Mllltary men would do a much more efficientjob in serving our country if the baSic In­stablllty of mllltary. famllles caused by lowpay, frequent transfers and duty-necessitat­Ing frequent and lengthy absences could bealleviated by a greater concern and aware­ness for the needs of mllltary wives and chll­dren, pius more adequate psychiatric, psy­chological and marriage counseling services.Without that, the problems of the InnocentVictims of mllitary marriage dissolution, thechildren, wUl not be appreciably alleviated.

I do hope you'll do something about it.Thank you very much.

CONCLUSIONIn summary, gentlemen, let me reiterate

the fact that there are many, many thingsour Federal Government can do to alleviatethe pain, SUffering, trauma and maladjust­ments caused by marriage dissolution, all ofwhich have deleterious effects on childrenand youth. I won't take the time to define allthe reasons why It is necessary to do so be­cause they are more eloquently stated in thetestimony than I can articulate in a sum­mary.

The four of us did not spend very muchtime talking about what single parents con­sider to be the most critical area of need . . .meaningful Day Care and Child Developmentlegislation. From all that I have been told bynot only my own 90,000 members but everysingle parent with young chlldren I havetalked to, this is the Number One Priority.Hopefully, forces can again be mustered tomake this legislation a reality. Our nationneeds it now, our chlldren need it now, andit Is their right as well as the right of thoseyet unborn to have it. It simply must bedone. I might add that as this testimony isbeing drafted in its final form (Thursday,september 20) our expert on the SUbject ofDay Care had to cancel her scheduled ap­pearance With us ... she couldn't find any­one to take care of her children.

In addition to unvetoed Day Care andChild Development legislation, my organiza­tion also suggests the following:

1. A total end, in fact as well as theory,to class discrimination based 011 sex or mari-

31972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-...SENA.'rE September. 28,/1!I79payers A, B, C, and D each would pay taxof $2,090 as unmarried Individuals, for a totalof $8.360. As they contemplate marriage,however, they now observe that their jointtax llabUltles will rise. after marriage. to$8.760. Thus the change under the 1969Revenue Act In the rate structure In the"::ircumstances described has imposed an an­nual tax of $200 per couple on marriage!

Those who may file tax returns as heads ofhouseholds are placed approx1mately halfway between single persons and married cou­ples filtng joint returns in the constructionof the tax rate schedules. And the tax costsof marriage vary with income and the pro­portions of income attributable to eachmember of a married couple. Thus it is dlJfl­cult to generalize about the penalty borne bymarriage under current tax rate schedules.Clearly it may be negative or zero, eitherwhere income Is very IowaI' Where substan­tially more, than half of the couple'S incomeis received by only one of the parties, whUeit rises to a very large sum where Income ishigh and equally divided between the twospouses. For example, If the man and womaneach earns $50,000 in taxable Income per year,as single Individuals they would pay incometaxes of $20.190 each. or $40.380. The "taxprice" of marriage Is $4.800, for as a marriedcouple their tax llablllty would rise to $45,­180. And, of course, If all of the $100,000 oftaxable Income was earned by either the hUS­band or wife it could be divided evenly be­tween them through marriage followed bydivorce and an appropriate alimony agree­ment, with a tax saving to the couple of al­most $5,000 per year. At the other extreme,with only $1,000 of taxable Income accruingto each Individual, marriage would actuallysave $5 per year. I will not speculate on theimpllcatlons of these figures for the attitUdeof the Congress with respect to the relationbetween income and virtue.THE OPTIONAL 5TANDARIJ DEDUCTION AND THE

LOW INCOME ALLOWANCE

Taxpayers may not avall themselves of oneof three options for handllng non-businessdeductions. They may take Itemized deduc­tions for state and local taxes, charitablecontributions, interest paid, medical ex­penses, and a miscellany of other expenses.Or they may choose instead the optionalstandard deduction of 15 percent of adjustedgross Income SUbject to a maximum of $2,000.The third option Is the low Income allowanceof a fiat $1.300. The choice between thestandard deduction and the low Income al­lowance turns simply on Income. Up to$8,667 the low incom" allowance exceeds thestandard deduction and will be taken unlessitemized deductions are greater than $1,300.

The standard deduction and the LIA are sodesigned as to Impose tax costs on marriagebecause they apply under the same terms tomarried as to single .taxpayers. Thus, for ex­ample, returning to brothers A and Bandsisters X and Y, let us suppose that each has$12000 of adjusted gross Income. Collectively,whlle single, they would be entitled to $7.200($1.800 x 4) in standard deductions. But fol­lowing the marriages of A and X and B andYother things remaining the same, thestandard deduction permissible is reduced to$2,000 per couple. for a reduction of $3.200 intotal and an Increase, on this account, ofsome $600 in the tax l1ablUties of the fourpeople.

The operation of the low Income allowancehas a similar impact on marriage. Supposetwo people each with adjusted gross Incomeof $5,000. As single taxpayers each is entitledto a LIA of $1,300, or $2,600 In total. If theynow marry their combined income at $10,000entitles them to only a standard deductionof $1,500, for a loss of deductions of $1,100.In this instance marriage costs over $150 peryear in additional tax llabillty.

It should be noted, of course, that marriedcouples cannot regain the tax advantages atstatus as single taxpayers byfil1ng separatereturns. In the case of separate returns theLIA permitted is only $650 per return andthe maximum standard deduction is reducedto $1,000. Divorce, once more, is the clear-cutanswer to the problem!

THE DEDUCTION FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES

Medical expenses may be taken as an Item­Ized deduction only to the extent that theyexceed 3 per cent of adjusted gross incomeand the costs of medicine and drugs countas medical expenses only insofar as they ex­ceed 1 per cent of AGI. In cases where most orall of such expenses are Incurred in behalfof one spouse the medical expense deductionmay be substantially larger If that spouseboth has income and can file as a single tax­payer.

As we have seen, divorce Is one way inWhich single taxpayer status may be attainedand the income of a couple divided betweenthem. Suppose that (1) married couple AXhas AGI of $20,000. all earned by A, and (2)medical expenses of $1,000 and $200 of drugcosts are Incurred in behalf of X. F1l1ngjointly as a married couple, AX may deductonly $400. But If A and X, follOWing a divorce,were to divide their income so that X re­ceived $8,000 and A $12.000, the medical ex­pense deduction available to X would be$880," or $480 higher.

ObViously any of an infinite number ofcombinations of income and medical expenseallocations between married couples is pos­sible. The foregoing numbers are merely oneillustration. As such the numbers have noparticular Significance other than to demon­strate another. probably minor. burden thatthe income tax law may impose on marriage.

THE CHILD AND OTHER DEPENDENTS CAREALLOWANCE

As much as $400 per month or $4,800 peryear may be deducted for the costs of house­hold services or for the care of one or moredependent children under the age of 15 or anIncapacitated spouse or dependent when suchcosts are Incurred in order to enable the tax­payer to be gainfully emploYed. This amountis deductible. however, only if AGI is equalto or less than $18,000. Above that level theamount of the allowable deduction is reducedby 50 cents for each dollar by which AGIexceeds $18,000. Thus at AGI of $27,600 thedeductible amount is reduced to zero.

Let us suppose now that a married couplewith two children under the age of 15 earns$36,000, divided evenly between husbandand Wife. At this income level they are notpermitted to deduct anything that may bespent for household services or for the careof the children. If, however, the marriage isterminated and one child is assigned to eachparent, since we now have two AGIs of $18,000rather than one at $36,000, the total allOW­able deduction tor household services or childcare may amount to as much as $9,600. Thusentirely apart from the tax saVings accruingfrom the dissolution at the marriage becauseof other aspects at the law, this one teatureby Itself may cut taxable 'income by closeto $10,000 and provide a tax reduction ofsome $2.500.

It should be remembered that the kind oftax impact noted here is not appllcablemerely to younger or young middle-agedtaxpayers with children under age 15. It ap­piles as well to taxpayers who may be respon­sible for incapacitated parents or adult chil­dren. And, whUe one may strongly favorthis Ilberal treatment of the kind of ex­penses under discussion, the very large dlf­ference In the treatment of single as com-

• $1,000+$200-.01($8,000)-.03($8,000).

pared to married taxpayers is str1k1ng in­deed.

THE DEDUCTION FOR CAPITAL LOsSES

Net capital losses in anyone year may bededucted from other Income ·in an amountof up to $1,000. The excess may be carrieaforward indefinitely and, 1! not offset bycapital gains, the carryover is, again, de­ductible from ordinary income to the extentof $1,000 per year.

The $1,000 11m1t applles Irrespective of themarital status of the taxpayer. Thus If bothhusband and wife have sufrered substantialcapital losses and neither the current yearnor succeeding years bring offsetting capitalgains, they could double the amount dedUC­tible on this account if they attained sin­gle status as taxpayers.

This feature of the tax law as it impingesupon marriage is probably not of majorquantitative importance. Nevertheless, itdoes. once more. raise the question as toWhether any element of the tax coda shouldoperate In such fashion as to bring a highertax llab111ty simply by reason of the fact thatthe taxpayers are married rather than single.

OVERALL IMPACT ON MARrrAL STATUS

To this point we have been looking at se­lected aspects of the Individual income taxwith each of them viewed independentlY ofthe others. In an effort to gain some addi­tional perspective it may be helpful to lookat the tax consequences or marriage undersome Ulustrative circumstances With re­spect to level of Income, the distribution ofincome between husband and wlfe, and thenature of non-business deductions. InTable 1 some hypothetical tax llab1l1tles arepresented. In the first .row ot this Table wehave the llab1l1tles Incurred by taxpayers fil­ing joint returns. In the two rows that followthe computations are based on the assump­tion that Income is split· equally betweenthe dissolved marriage partners, either be­cause one halt was earned by. each or be­cause alimony equal to one half of AGI ispaid to the ex-spouse. In the second row eachof the parents is assigned one chlld and thusthey both file tax returns as heads of house­holds. while in the third row both childrenare assigned to one parent, who quallfies asa head of household, and the ,. other parentfiles his tax return as a singleJindtyldual.

It wlll be observed that an even split·ofboth Income and children always, in thelllustrative cases presented, produces thesmallest tax, ltab1l1ty. The dltrerence In in­come tax llab111ty may amount to as much as$98 per year even where AGI is only $5.000.and that difference rises to a range of about$1,500 to $2.500 at an AGl at $40,000, de­pending on Whether or not deductions areItemized. These figures, however, do not in­clude the effects, described earller, at thetreatment of medical expenses and costs athousehold services and care of dependents.and the capital loss effect. Thus in ,the caseof the couple with AGI of $40,000, tor ex­ample, dissolution of the.' marriage couldpermit further deductions of $9,600 torhousehold services and child care, an addi­tional $1,000 deduction tor capital losses, and$6oo<?f medical expenses not deductible inthe joint return. This $12,200 In reduced tax­able Income could bring the tax saving, as­suming itemized deductions are taken, fromless than $1,500 to as high as $5,000 per year.This amount represents nearly one-sixth atthe arter-tax income available to the couplefiling a joint return. Similar calCUlationswoUld offer startling, but less dramatic, evi­dence indicating how expensive marital tiescan be under the Federal Income tax. even atlawaI' moderate income levels.

September 28, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 31973TABLE I.-EFFECTS OF MARITAL STATUS ON TAX LIABIlITY, FAMILY OF 2 PARENTS.AND 2 DEPENDENT CHILDREN,SElECTED INCOMES

[Tax liability in dollars!

Type of return and income and family s;Jlit

AGI $5,000 AGI $10,000 AGI $20,000 AGI $40,000

Itemized Standard Itemized Standard Itemized Standard ItemizedlIA deductions 1 deduction deductions I deduction deductions 1 deduction deductions 1

98 79 925 785 3,010 2,586 9,920 8,2700 78 1672 756 2,520 2,367 7,390 6,800

62 207 , 702 800 2,625 2,518 7,725 7,20298 I 253 29 490 219 2,530 1,470

I Itemi.zed deductions as. a proportion of AGI assumed to be equal to the average for the AGI , Low income allowance used on each of 2 ~5,000 AGI returns.class on JOint returns filed," 1970. Computed from U.S. Department of the Treasury "Statistics ofI neome, 1970, Individuall ncome Tax Returns" (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972)

TAX POLICY AND FAMILY STABILITY

It is d1lficult to beHeve that the pecuniaryincentives for dissolving marriages that arecurrently olIered under the individual in­come tax are of no influence on people's de­cisions in this area. And the infiuence ex­erted can hardly be conducive to 1mprovedfamily stab11lty. I leave it to those betterquallfied than I to attempt to gauge theeffect. Having attempted to spell out thedimensions and sources of the tax pressureon marriage, I will venture some suggestionsas to how that pressure might be reducedor eliminated. It may tempt some, as ameans of enhancing family stab1l1ty, to gofurther in the direction of favoring marriagethrough the tax system. I reject this for tworeasons. The first is that if married couplesenjoy tax concessions these concessions willappear inequitable to widows and Widowersand the "wronged" parties to divorces, noneof whom chooses to be unmarried. And if thespecial tax treatment is extended to suchpeople holding the Hne against only somesIngle people seems neither eqUitable norpolitically viable. My second reason is. thatlegally identlflable and recognized marriagemayor may not involve interpersonal rela­tionships that are SUbstantially differentfrom those that may obtain in the absenceof legal or religious sanction. Men of thecloth may preach, and any of us may moral­ize, but surely the tax code is not the ap­propriate vehicle for rewarding virtue orpunishing sin. Rather, it seems to me thatthe tax system should incorporate a com­pletely neutral stance in this regard.

With respect to the rate structure underthe income tax, neutrality requires that in­come be taxed to the individual who earnsit or to Whom it accrues. Each individual inreceipt of income would be a unit for taxa­tion, including each of the two marriagepartners. If one spouse had less than someminimal income he or she could be givendependency status. Putting aside problemsrelating to property income, this approachwould ensure that entry into or the dis­solution of marriage would leave tax liabil­ity unaffected.

Property present d1lficulties because ofcommunity property rules in eight states,and because property may readily be di­vided between husband and wife and taxliab1l1t1es thereby reduced in the absence ofJoint returns and income-splitting. It wasthe first of these considerations that led theCongress to introduce income-splitting in1948. But the results would have been farpreferable if, instead, the Congress had pro­Vided that state laws with regard to com­munity property were not to be permittedto govern in allocation of income for pur­poses of the Federal income tax. It is thismove that I urge at this t1me.

The distribution of property among fam­Uy members now provides a means of re­ducing income tax llabll1ties. My proposalwould simply add the spouse to the potentialbeneficiaries and would not pose a new set ofproblems. Whether or not the suggestedchange should be contemplated, there ismuch to be said for either a gift tax witha much more substantial bite than that im-

posed under present law, of the inclusion ofmajor gifts in the income of the donee.

I would not be concerned about the allo­cation of exemptions for dependent childrenbetween par~nts as taxable entities. As I sug­gested at length elsewhere,' the present formof the exemption would be better abandonedin favor of an income-conditioned children'sallowance patterned along lines not very dif­ferent from the Family Allowance Plan thatwas passed in the House but failed to gainapproval in the Senate last year.

The problems presented by the cost ofhousehold services and child care deductionare readily solved. If the deduction is war­ranted for a couple With income of up to$18,000 it should also be warranted at higherlevels of income. Thus all that is required isthat the provision under Which the deduc­tible amount is reduced as income exceeds$18,000 be dropped.

If my first proposal, re-establishing the in­dividual as the taxable unit, should beadopted neither the capital loss offset of notmore than $1,000 against other income northe LIA or standard deduction would con­tinue to present problems. Difficulties arisenow because the amount of these deductionsavailable is made to turn on whether twopeople sre or are not married. Under thesuggestions olIered here each Income receip­ient would constitute a taxable entity ir­respective of his or her marital status. Thusneither marriage nor dissolution of marriagewould alIect allowable deductions for capitallosses, optional standard deduction, or LIA,Much the same can be said for the medicalexpense deduction.

I suspect that the present income tax, de­spite its obvious shortcomings, is not a majorinfluence on family stab111ty. But it doesseem to me both inequitable and potentiallydisruptive of an institution that has servedour society well (for the most part), to con­tinue in the tax law those features that per­mlt tax liab1l1ty to turn in some appreciablemeasure on one's marital status. It distressesme to think that A may never marry X onadvice of their tax accountant.

MARYLAND INSTITUTE FOREMERGENCY MEDICINE

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, the Augustissue of. "Contemporary Surgery" fea­tured an article on Maryland's statewideeffort in the emergency medicine area.

The State has established a MarylandInstitute for Emergency Medicine whichhas been given the mandate by the Gov­ernor to move statewide. I have been inclose p0J:ltact with Dr. R. Adams Cowley,the Director of the Maryland center andworked with the state in securing a grantto develop its communication network. Itis estimated that a statewide system inM~rYland, when operational, w1ll cutthe accidental death rate in our State

• "The Federal Income Tax and tbe Poor",California Law Review, April, 1969.

in half. Because of the interest in emer­gency medicine, I ask unanimous consentthat this article be printed in the RECORD.I believe it illustrates the need and im­portance for the enactment of the emer­gency medicine legislation which I feelconfident the President will sign.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:STATEWIDE TRAUMA CARE: MARYLAND INSTI­

TUTE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICINE

The Maryland Institute for EmergencyMedicine is now designated the "systems con­trol center" of a new statewide program--.,.aprogram that will radically affect every hos­pital emergency room in the state. Based atthe University of Maryland in Baltimore, theinstitute is unique in having a statewide net­work of radio communications and inter­hospitai collaboration centered upon it,unique in its agressive treatment of patientsby teams of doctors and other personnel whoare forewarned and waiting when the pa­tients arrive by helicopter or ambulance, andunique in the fast processing of laboratorydata.

The program's multidisciplinary approachcombines these life-saving measures withhour-by-hour basic research into many as­spects of trauma and its treatment. This in­cludes the investigation of shock as a meta­boUc disease proceSs at the cellular level.Dr. R Adams Cowley, director of the center,also heads the state's new Division of Emer­gency Medical Services.

The origins of the institute (formerlycalled the Center for the Study of Trauma)go back to 1956, when Dr. Cowley, a heartsurgeon, became interested in stUdyingshock. At that time, he recalls, "the mainproblem was getting the patient olI the pumpwith the right amount of blood," This wasdone, rather cumbersomely, by weighing thepatient before and after surgery, making al­lowances for preweighed tubes and otherparaphernalia. To apply Dr. Bill Esmond'ssuggestion that measurement of pressures inthe right atrium would provide a good index,Dr: Cowley started trying to develop an an­1mal model for shock. The first thing he dis­covered was that he couldn't match the find­ings reported in the literature. "Nobody badexperiments that could be duplicated, yeteverybody was talking about therapy,"

Study of 1,000 shocked dogs convinced Dr.Cowley of two things. First, predictions ofwhat physiologic sequences would causedeath or permit life could not be made in­telligently unless mathematicians, biocbem­ists, and other specialists were directly in­volved. second, speCies d11ferences are sogreat that if the results were to be thera­peutically useful, the kind of data he wascollecting from dogs had to come from bu­mans.

But shock is a "pause in the act of death,"and when a human being is in shock•. thetask at hand is to keep him from dying.

Lifesaving measures cannot be interruptedfor research: you can't stick d&ta-OOllectingdevices into tbe patient unless you are there­by alding his survival. In 1959, when Dr.