Statement of Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina

INTRODUCTION
Welfare reform, enacted by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, recognized the vital importance of marriage and family, in fact, 3 out of the 4 provisions related to marriage or family.  Welfare reform requires states to pursue "job preparation, work and marriage… prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies… [and] encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families."  In spite of this overwhelming requirement, the focus of reforms seems to be principally on job preparation and work.  It has been recognized as a bi-partisan, cultural imperative that the other three issues are part of welfare reform.  Reauthorization must  address the other 3 out of 4 issues more thoroughly.  In order to begin to promote marriage, reduce illegitimacy, and encourage families we must curb the trends of divorce and fatherlessness.  Father absence, a byproduct of divorce, illegitimacy, and the erosion of the traditional family, is responsible for; filling our prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders.[1] 

Many anti-marriage detractors foist “privacy” propaganda about intrusions into marriage while ignoring laws designed to regulate every facet of marriage, divorce, child custody, and child support (or repackaged alimony [2]).  How much more control over personal decisions could a government exercise?  They claim there is little research on promoting marriages and healthy families while shrieking that taxpayers should pay untold billions on disastrously failed anti-family / anti-marriage experiments which have created more non-married “families” than married.[3] These detractors demand bias and discrimination against “traditional” family structures by insisting taxpayers subsidize every alternative to traditional families.  They then cry “foul” about marriage and family promotion.  Modern anti-marriage factions and policies promote a frighteningly bizarre and violent attack on marriage, families, women and children.

CAN ANYONE HEAR THE CHILDREN CRY?
The casualties of the “divorce revolution” are the children; [4] contrary to those who support easier divorce, and protest marriage, “[t]here is substantial evidence that the process of going through their parents' divorce and the resulting changes in their lives are psychologically costly for most children." [5]  “The impact of the marital disruption was most pronounced among girls, who skipped school more frequently, reported more depressive behavior, and described social support in more negative terms than did boys from recently disrupted homes." [6]  Math scores for girls are dramatically reduced without their biological father in the home.[7]  "Among teenage and adult populations of females, parental divorce has been associated with lower self-esteem, precocious sexual activity, greater delinquent-like behavior, and more difficulty establishing gratifying, lasting adult heterosexual relationships.  It is especially intriguing to note that, in these studies, the parental divorce typically occurred years before any difficulties were observed.” [8]  Children of divorced parents are significantly more likely to become delinquent by age 15, regardless of when the divorce took place [9] and boys without an intact family were twice as likely to end up behind bars, [10] with one Wisconsin study showing juvenile delinquent incarceration 12 times higher for children from divorced families.[11]  "Most victims of child molestation come from single parent households or are the children of drug ring members." [12]  Stepchildren are abused, psychologically, physically, and sexually, far more often than their peers from intact families [13] with re-marriage and step-parenting posing one of the greatest risk factors for child abuse and child sexual abuse,[14] second only to abuse in single-parent homes.

BLACK COMMUNITY
In the 1940’s 18% of black women divorced, [15] in 1960 (just before “no-fault” and modern welfare) 3 out of 4 black children were born in marriage;[16] yet by the late 60’s and early 70’s, the divorce rate had reached 60%. [17]  In the 80’s, for 25 year olds, there were 3 unmarried black women to each black man with a decent job. [18]   Early 90’s African American children could expect to spend just 16% of their time in a married household, while Hispanics could expect 67% and Caucasians 80%.[19]  The most common arrangement for black children under 6 (42% of the time), was to live with a mother who never married while all black children were only 1/2 as likely as whites to be living with both parents, and 8 times as likely to be living with a single mom. [20]  "Exposure to single motherhood at some point during adolescence increases the risk [of a daughter becoming a single mom] by nearly [150 percent] for whites and...  by about 100 percent for blacks." [21]  Married black family birthrates now average less than 1 child per marriage, if not for out-of-wedlock children, the African American population would quickly die off.[22]  The affects of growing up without both parents from similar communities increases the likelihood of jail time --, public housing, welfare, and similar life experiences did not increase this likelihood only the lack of the presence of two biological parents. [23]  The situation has become so critical that during the days of slavery a black child was more likely to grow up living with both parents than today.[24] 

“African Americans marry later, are about twice as likely to divorce, and less likely to ever marry; yet [their] views of the importance of marriage are similar to those held by members of other ethnic groups.” [25]  By age 30, only 45% of black women have married compared to 80% of white women.[26]  The high mortality and incarceration rate of black men has resulted in a serious gender imbalance in the African-American community leaving few marriageable men.[27]  Changes in family structure explain 97 percent of black and 99 percent of white families’ poverty spells—not only unwed childbearing but also divorce.[28]

“NO-FAULT” IS AN ANTI-MARRIAGE, ANTI-FAMILY, COUNTRY DESTROYING DISASTER
No-fault was a 1969 California revolution enacted in all 50 states by 1985.  "[N]o-fault divorce law had a significant positive effect on the divorce rate across the 50 states, [29] “especially for families with children,[30] giving America first place, by an enormous margin, in the worldwide divorce race.  From 1960 to 1990, children living with a divorced parent increased 352% [31] and from 1970 to 1994 divorced adults quadrupled from 4.3 million to 17.4 million.[32]  "If the family trends of recent decades are extended into the future, the result will be not only growing uncertainty within marriage, but the gradual elimination of marriage in favor of casual liaisons oriented to adult expressiveness and self-fulfillment.  The problem… is that children will be harmed, adults will probably be no happier, and the social order could collapse." [33]   "Seldom in U.S. history have laws been enacted with higher hopes and poorer results than the no-fault divorce statutes.” [34]   “In his book, The American Sex Revolution, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin reviewed the history of societies through the ages, and found that none survived after they ceased honoring and upholding the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.” [35]  "Marriage is displacing both income and race as the great class divide of the new century." [36]  Young couples marrying for the first time face a 40-50% chance of divorce.[37]  "The divorce revolution - the steady displacement of a marriage culture by a culture of divorce and unwed parenthood - has failed. It has created terrible hardships for children, incurred unsupportable social costs, and failed to deliver on its promise of greater adult happiness.  The time has come to shift the focus of national attention from divorce to marriage and to rebuild a family culture based on enduring marital relationships." [38] 

Maggie Gallagher sums up the current “No-fault” mess by noting "[y]ou can't force two people to stay married…  Divorce, however, is not usually the act of a couple, but of an individual.  Eighty percent of divorces in this country are unilateral, rather than truly mutual, decisions.  Rather, the divorce revolution can be more accurately described as a shift of power, favoring the interests of… the spouse who wishes to leave over… the spouse who is being abandoned and over… the children whose consent is not sought." [39]  “[Nor is cohabitation] in children's or the society's best interest...  it has weakened marriage and the intact, two-parent family and thereby damaged our social well-being, especially that of women and children.” [40]  Cohabitating doesn’t improve mental health,[41] heightens disagreements while lowering relationship quality, creates relationship instability,[42] while increasing depression, drunkenness,[43] drug use, promiscuity,[44] and the risk of divorce [45] as much as 80%.[46]  These findings are consistent with numerous international studies in Western countries.[47]  Pre-marital sex created "a considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women who were virgin brides." [48] 

PERPETUATING THE CYCLE OF DIVORCE
Children raised apart from both of their biological parents were twice as likely to drop out of school with girls twice as likely to get divorced, [49] 2 to 3 times more likely to have behavioral or emotional problems, [50] and 3 times more likely to bear children out of wedlock. [51]  Each year in America at least 1.2 million babies are born to unmarried parents [52] and children born out of wedlock reduce a girl’s chances for marriage.[53]  Children from divorced homes tend to repeat the divorce cycle themselves [54] with the likelihood of repeating the divorce cycle 76% higher than their peers from intact families.[55]  Divorced parents have a higher risk of a second divorce upon re-marriage, and their children on average do no better than children from single-parent homes.[56]  Perpetuating the cycle of marriage and divorce is more psychologically destructive to children than a stable residence. [57]  Re-marriages with stepchildren are more likely to fail (and end in divorce) than re-marriages that do not involve children [58] while half of all children will see their parent’s marriage fail, of those, half will see a second marriage breakup, and “ten percent of children of divorce will go on to witness three of more family breakups.” [59]  Children learn about commitment and the permanence of marriage from their parents and divorce undermines that sense of commitment and permanence making them much more likely to divorce as adults. [60]  “We as a society are failing to teach the next generation about the meaning, purposes, and responsibilities of marriage.  If this trend continues, it will constitute nothing less than an act of cultural suicide.” [61]  

EXPLODING MANY OF THE ANTI-MARRIAGE MYTHS AND PROPAGANDA
"The single most powerful predictor of stress-related physical, as well as emotional illness is marital disruption."  Divorce early death from hypertension, suicide, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. [65]  Divorced or separated men experience psychiatric care at 10 times that of married men and women at 5 times that of married women. [66]  Those "who lived alone or [cohabited] had significantly shorter survival times compared with those living with a spouse... the [survival factor] was the presence of a spouse." [67]  For women, being unmarried is riskier than being 20 pounds overweight, poor, or having cancer and men can add heart disease to the list.[68] 

“[Children’s] relations with parents appear to suffer, on average, more when parents divorce than when unhappily married parents stay together.”[69]  "Divorce often causes a bitter dispute between the parents, even worse than before the divorce was decided upon.  Two-thirds of angry divorces remain that way after 5 years of being separated, and one-quarter to one-third of those divorces that were initially in good spirits had degenerated to open conflicts." [70]  Conversely, 86% of unhappy marriages that didn’t give up were able to turn their marriages around within 5 years and subsequently claimed they were happy, or very happy;[71]  this study also indicated that “[a] bad marriage is nowhere near as permanent a condition as we sometimes assume."  "Significantly more child behavioral problems are found in those families that have an unsatisfactory marriage than in those with a happy marriage, but the behavioral problems from the single-parent families are far worse than in unhappily married families." [72]  Even in “high-conflict” marriages, children are still devastated by their parent’s divorce.[73]  Negative affects of divorce on children are long-lasting and traumatic, and may become worse in adulthood.[74]  “The common belief that parental divorce poses long-term hazards for the children involved is supported by [an] analysis of longitudinal data from... a nationally representative sample of American youth…  Effects of marital discord and family disruption were visible twelve to twenty-two years later in poor relationships with parents, and [there is] increased likelihood of dropping out of high school and receiving psychological help.” [75]

Men with lower levels of education have fewer employment opportunities,[76] they then end up with low wages causing them to marry less [77] and divorce more than those with higher earnings.[78]  Where men earn over 50% of the household income, divorces were significantly reduced [79]  while women with greater incomes have less incentive to work out marital issues and were more likely to seek a divorce.[80]  Poverty is a consequence of not being married and of marital disruption such as divorce.[81]  Children from low-income intact families academically outperform children from high-income single parent homes.[82] 

BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE
Both men and women benefit from marriage [84] while those who succeed in marriage are more likely to be from an intact home, better educated, white, and more affluent.[85]  “Married adults are more productive on the job, earn more, save more, have better physical and mental health, and live longer according to an extensive review of research conducted by scholar Linda Waite.” [86]  The University of Massachusetts [87] and the UCLA School of Medicine [88] have both conducted studies supporting longer life and better physical and emotional health of married people.  According to the UCLA School of medicine study, married people are “happy and contented with life,” have lower rates of suicide and mental health problems, lower rates of alcoholism, even when they are unhealthy married couples still live longer.[89]  These findings are a cross-cultural human condition as evidenced by a survey of 18,000 adults in 17 industrialized nations showing the positive mental health of married persons verses the unmarried.[90] 

Marriage increases employment responsibility among fathers at child birth; they had unemployment rates of less than 10% while unmarried fathers had unemployment rates in excess of 25% at their child’s birth.[91]   Marriage is the most practical solution for income generation, responsibility sharing and joint child-rearing,[92] with children from intact families financially better off having only a 6% likelihood of poverty compared to 33% from single-mother homes.[93]   Never married mothers are more prone to poverty than any other group, including those who divorce.[94]  Bearing children in marriage shows signs of reducing the risk of divorce by 20% per child birth.[95] 

“Even after controlling for differences in income, children who live with their married parents are 2 times less likely to fail at school, 2 to 3 times less likely to suffer an emotional or behavioral problem requiring psychiatric treatment, perhaps as much as 20 times less likely to suffer child abuse, and as adolescents they are less likely to get into trouble with the law, use illicit drugs, smoke cigarettes, abuse alcohol, or engage in early and promiscuous sexual activity.” [96]  Children from intact families generally do significantly better in all areas of academics,[97] are about 30% less likely to have health problems, and much less likely to have emotional or behavioral problems [98] than their counterparts in a single-parent home.  Boys from intact families have fewer legal problems and are less likely to be convicted of crime.[99] 

CONCLUSION
Three out of four of the provisions for welfare reform have mandates to promote marriage, reduce illegitimacy, and encourage two-parent families.  There are “few other bodies of data in which the weight of the evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue:  on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable…  If our prevailing views on family structure hinged solely on scholarly evidence, the current debate never would have arisen in the first place.” [100]  “The men and women who, for good reasons and bad, revolt against the family are… simply revolting against mankind.” [101]  With such clear, convincing, and conclusive evidence, why do we continue these programs and systems designed to destroy families while brutalizing children?  Those who raise privacy claims to oppose marriage are bent on privacy intrusions to promote their personal agendas.  Public policies about marriage could and absolutely should be improved.[102] 

A research review of the consequences of Father absence demonstrates the complete carnage that divorce and family breakdown causes.  So strong are these correlations that attacking marriage and families is an attack on children, especially little girls, and an attack on women.  The in-tact, two-parent biological family is the safest place for the development and sexual safety of girls and women.  Divorce is so destructive to children that it is child abuse--; absolutely, hideously destructive child abuse.  Parents who want out of a marriage with children, for no good reason, or a parent whose actions are destructive to the marriage, are not fit parents.  Those who participate in divorce processing, and those who promote easier divorces as well as those opposed to strengthening marriage are pushing child abuse the same way a drug dealer pushes their poison.  Divorce perpetuates divorce like a heroin addiction in our body politic--; it continues to demand a higher and higher cost with more and more poison until it destroys and ultimately kills.

The self-sustaining cycle of illegitimacy, tied to attacks on the “traditional” family, and coupled with anti-marriage policies and programs is destroying the black community.  The Black Caucus can no longer ignore the devastation of the African American community and say they represent them.  They must become vocal in demanding that the easy divorce laws and anti-marriage policies be ended and return to traditional families.  It is difficult not to wonder about all of the pressure from lawyers and other special interests for slavery reparations while ignoring the absolute destruction of an entire people through failed anti-family, anti-marriage welfare policies.  Today’s anti-marriage and anti-family mess in the black community is a new type of slavery created by the divorce industry and feminists.  Reparations should be coming from the divorce industry--, the rich lawyers of the “family” bar, the wealthy judges, prosperous psychologists, “women’s” groups, and others who have promoted the destruction of the black community’s marriages and families making them dependent on government welfare, just like the dependence of their ancestors.

No-fault divorce is the enemy of marriages, families, and children.  Nor is it actually “No-fault”.  If tide of divorce is not dramatically reversed, it poses dire consequences for our country and its future.  Independent verification of “no-fault’s” corrosive affects on marriage comes from Canada, where “[a]fter falling for several years the [Canadian divorce rate reached] an all-time high following passage of the Divorce Act of 1985, which allows [for no-fault divorce after one year]." [103]   “Ironically, by adopting attitudes that provide greater freedom to leave unsatisfying marriages, people may be increasing the likelihood that their marriages will become unsatisfying in the long run,” and therefore fail.[104]  Easy divorce and anti-marriage policies, rhetoric, and programs destroy our Constitutional posterity and undermine our country for generations to come.  No country in history has survived the undermining of marriage between a man and a woman.  

Virgin brides divorce less while pre-marital sex and cohabitation lead to higher rates of divorce (trial “marriages” don’t work).  Higher income for women leads to greater levels of divorce while men with higher incomes experienced less divorce.  The “bad marriage” myth is not always good grounds for divorce since many of these are salvageable and the divorce is destructive and traumatic to children for most or all of their lives.  Continuing on this path of easy divorce, attacking traditional family values, and undermining marriage is not only a violation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause, the proponents of this failed easy divorce system and detractors of traditional values must be viewed as child terrorists. 

For adults, marriage creates wealth and prosperity, happiness, mental health and stability, fewer social problems, lower substance abuse, lower death, fewer health problems, and lower suicide rates.  Commitment and companionship is both a benefit and “[t]he most common reasons couples give for their long-term marital success...” [105]  Children with married biological parents benefit from lower rates of delinquency, less promiscuity, lower alcohol and drug use, do better in school, are healthier, have fewer problems with the law, are better adjusted, more emotionally stable,  have better adult relationships, lower rates of being abused, and are generally happier and more optimistic about life.

Anti-Marriage and Pro-Divorce ideologies or policies denigrating the traditional family are pro-death, pro-child abuse, pro-poverty, pro-drug abuse, pro-alcohol, pro-tobacco, anti-health, anti-woman, anti-child, uncivilized, and ultimately un American and unconstitutional.

RECOMMENDATIONS
American public opinion tracks the sentiment [106] that “divorce in this country should be more difficult to obtain.” [107]  75% of the teenagers believe that divorce is too easy [108] and 78% of Americans support requiring counseling for couples with children before a divorce is granted.[109] 

• With 3 out of 4 provisions of Welfare reform related to marriage and family, TANF fund payments should be contingent on states collecting accurate data on marriages, divorces and the children involved.
• Enact specific measurable goals or targets for reducing divorce, illegitimacy, and promoting marriage.  Monitor and report progress on those goals tying TANF funds to compliance.
• Develop publicity campaigns on marriage health benefits and divorce affects on children. 
• Give an additional tax credit for each child born in marriage, with an additional credit at ages 10 and 18 for in-tact marriages.  One study found that each child born in marriage reduces the risk of divorce by 20%, encourage this as the costs of the social problems are far higher.
• Fund special demonstration programs for the hardest hit area, the Black community, to turn the tide of divorce and illegitimacy, not to support more dismally failed welfare programs.
• Begin scaling back federal grants, funds, and programs to states that do not address the “no-fault” disaster as a General Welfare issue affecting our Constitutional posterity.
• Every time the opposition cries “foul,” point to the destruction of children and the devastating affects on our country.  Let the public see the real anti-child, anti-family, un-American agendas.

[1]  US House Testimony 107-38, June 28, 2001.  Pg. 94-104.  83 noted references.  Online version is at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/humres/107cong/6-28-01/record/chillegalfound.htm

[2]  H.R. 1488, The ``Hyde-Woolsey'' Child Support Bill.  Serial No. 106-107.  p. 98-100 subhead “When Child Support becomes Tax Free Alimony.”  (March 16, 2000)

[3]  United states Census Bureau, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Dept. of Commerce News (May 15, 2001), http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01cn67.html

[4]  Judith S. Wallerstein et al., The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study (2000); Judith S. Wallerstein & Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men, Women, And Children A Decade After Divorce (1989); Robert F. Cochran, Jr. & Paul C. Vitz, Child Protective Divorce Laws: A Response to the Effects of Parental Separation on Children, 17 Fam. L.Q. 327 (1983)

[5]  Elizabeth S. Scott, Rational Decision making About Marriage and Divorce, 76 Va. L. Rev. 9, 29 (1990)

[6]  The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic A. Frost, PhD; B. Pakiz, EdM, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(4), October, 1990

[7]  David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1995), p. 148

[8]  Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Developmental Vulnerability Model Neil Kalter, Ph.D., University of Michigan, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(4), October, 1987

[9]  Abbie K. Frost and Bilge Pakiz, "The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 60 (1990), pp. 544-555; David B. Larson, James P. Swyers, and Susan S. Larson, The Costly Consequences of Divorce (Rockville, Md.: National Institute for Healthcare Research, 1995), p. 123.

[10]  Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (1998 San Francisco).

[11]   Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Youth Services, "Family Status of Delinquents in Juvenile Correctional Facilities in Wisconsin," April 1994.

[12]  Los Angeles Times, 16 September, 1985. Cited in Amneus, The Garbage Generation

[13]  David M. Fergusson, Michael T. Lynskey, and L. John Horwood, "Childhood Sexual Abuse and Psychiatric Disorders in Young Adulthood: I. Prevalence of Sexual Abuse and Factors Associated with Sexual Abuse," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 34 (1996), pp. 1355-1364.

[24]  Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, rev. and enl. ed., (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1992), 110 . See also Herbert G. Gutman, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925 (New York: Pantheon, 1976). See also Stanley L. Engerman, "Black Fertility and Family Structure in the U.S. 1880-1940," Journal of Family History 2 (Summer 1977): 177ff. Cited in The Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher p. 117

[25]  M. Belinda Tucker, 2000. "Marital Values and Expectations in Context: Results From a 21 City Survey" in Linda J. Waite et. al (eds) The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation (New York: Aldine de Gruyter).

[26]  Christine Bachrach, Michelle J. Hindin, and Elizabeth Thomson, (in press) 2000. "The Changing Shape of the Ties that Bind" in Linda J. Waite, et. al. (eds) The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation (New York: Aldine de Gruyter).

[27]  William A. Darity, Jr. and Samuel L. Myers, Jr., "Family Structure and the Marginalization of Black Men," Policy Implications" in The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Implications, ed. M. Belinda Tucker and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1995), pp. 263-308.

[28]  Thomas J. Kneisner, et. al., 1988. "Getting into Poverty Without a Husband, and Getting Out, With or Without" American Economic Review 78 (May): 86-90.

[29]  Paul A. Nakonezny, Robert D. Schull and Joseph Lee Rodgers, "The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Law on the Divorce Rate Across the 50 States and Its Relation to Income, Education and Religiosity," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1995, 57:477-488; Ailsa Burns and Cath Scott, Mother Headed Families and Why They Have Increased , (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1994), p. 5,9.

[30]  Martin Zelder, "The Economic Analysis of the Effect of No-Fault Divorce Law on the Divorce Rate," Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 16, No. 1: 241ff.

[31]  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, p. 23, No. 180, "Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the 1990’s."

[32]  Arlene Saluter, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1994 , U.S. Bureau of the Census, March 1996; series P20-484, p, vi.

[33]   David Popenoe, "Modern Marriage: Revisiting the Cultural Script," Promises to Keep, 1996, p. 248.

[34]  Allen M. Parkman, No-Fault Divorce: What Went Wrong?, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), p. 53.

[35]  Linda Bowles.  Damage for the Children.  June 13, 2000.  Worldnet Daily online.

[36]  Jonathan Rauch, The Widening Marriage Gap: America's New Class Divide, National Journal.  May 18, 2001.

[37] U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P23-180, 1992, p. 5