[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 72 (Monday, June 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4188-H4190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECOGNIZING IMPORTANCE OF STRONG MARRIAGES FOR A STRONG SOCIETY
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 280) recognizing the importance of strong marriages
and the contributions that community marriage policies have made to the
strength of marriages throughout the United States, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 280
Whereas one of every two marriages ends in divorce;
[[Page H4189]]
Whereas children living with a single mother are six times
more likely to live in poverty than are children whose
parents are married;
Whereas married adults, on average, live longer, have fewer
emotional problems, and are less likely to engage in alcohol
or drug abuse;
Whereas visionary communities have adopted community
marriage policies to empower couples for healthy, lifelong
marriage and to foster an environment that has the greatest
likelihood of ensuring the well-being of our citizens,
especially our children;
Whereas a community marriage policy is a set of guidelines
for premarital preparation and community support for marriage
to which individuals, the community, clergy, and
congregations voluntarily commit; and
Whereas a successful community marriage policy is one that
urges clergy, congregations, and the broader community to--
(1) encourage premarital preparation education;
(2) train mature married couples to serve as mentors to the
newly married;
(3) evaluate current practices that may unwittingly
undermine marriage formation and stability;
(4) implement policies that promote marriage; and
(5) volunteer time, expertise, and resources to support
initiatives that promote marriage and stable families: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the importance of strong marriages for a
strong society;
(2) commends communities that have established community
marriage policies for their efforts to support marriage and
prevent the problems of divorce; and
(3) encourages other communities in the United States to
develop voluntary community marriage policies to enable
community members, such as clergy, business leaders, public
officials, and health professionals, to work together to
strengthen marriages and provide stable environments for
children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
General Leave
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Resolution 280.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of marriage and its
benefits for individuals, for communities and for our Nation. There
have been considerable discussion about the state of marriage in this
Nation over the past half century because there has been such dramatic
changes in our Nation and in the institution of marriage.
{time} 1500
If we look at the details of what has happened to marriage in this
half century and what has happened as a result, we find some very
interesting things.
As an example, there has been a great deal of debate in America about
the growing gap between rich and poor; and almost all of it focuses on
the changing job force, the cost of living, and the tax and regulatory
structure that hamstrings businesses and employees.
But analysis of social science literature demonstrates that the root
cause of poverty and income is definitely linked to the presence or
absence of marriage. Among other problems, broken families earn less
and experience lower levels of educational achievement.
Let's consider some of the statistics that have been offered: in
1950, 12 out of every 100 children, in other words, 12 percent, entered
a broken family. By 1992, 58 percent, or 58 out of every 100 children
born, entered a broken family. Children living with a single mother are
six times more likely to live in poverty than are children whose
parents are married.
Of families with children in the lowest quintile of earnings, 73
percent are headed by single parents. Ninety-five percent in the top
quintile are headed by married couples.
In 1994, over 12.5 million children lived in single-parent families
that earned less than $15,000 per year. Only 3 million children lived
in single-parent families with annual incomes greater than $30,000.
Three-quarters of all women applying for welfare benefits do so
because of a destructive marriage or live-in relationship. Those who
leave the welfare system when they get married are the least likely to
return to the welfare system.
Co-habitation doubles the rate of divorce. Co-habitation with someone
other than one's future spouse quadruples the rate of divorce.
Divorce reduces the income of families with children by an average of
42 percent, and almost 50 percent of those families experience poverty.
Married couples in their mid-50s amass four times the wealth of
divorced individuals, $132,000 versus $33,600.
I think this illustrates some aspects of the current situation. But
let us also consider, research that has been done on marriage and
happiness and particularly marriage and health.
University of Chicago demographer Linda Waite found that life
expectancy is more adversely affected by being unmarried than by being
poor, overweight, or having heart disease.
Similarly, scholars at the National Institutes for Health Care
Research recently compiled a lengthy report showing that divorced men
are particularly likely to experience health problems. When compared to
married men, divorced males are twice as likely to die prematurely from
hypertension, four times as likely to die prematurely from throat
cancer, twice as likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease,
and seven times as likely to die prematurely from pneumonia. In other
words, being married is healthy.
Why does marriage offer such extraordinary health benefits? The
previously mentioned demographer, Linda Waite, states that marriage
provides individuals a network of help and support which can be
particularly beneficial in dealing with stress and in recovering from
illness and accidents.
Of course the long-recognized linked between stable marriage and
greater wealth is not simply due to the fact that married men have
stronger incentives to work hard. It is also due to the fact that
married-couple households benefit from role specialization and from
pooling resources.
Another interesting aspect, Washington State University researcher
Jan Stets reports that women in co-habiting unions are more than twice
as likely to be the victims of domestic violence than married women.
Data from the National Institute of Mental Health shows that co-
habiting women have rates of depression that are more than three times
higher than married women and more than twice as high as other single
women. On and on the statistics go.
I think a very important item to mention is that research reviews by
UCLA Professor Robert Coombs and others find that the longer lives of
married people cannot be explained by the fact that healthy people are
more likely to get and stay married. The state of marriage itself is
more important in fostering good health.
Now, that is very important to recognize because an immediate
response of many people to all the statistics that I have given here is
that we simply have not done a controlled experiment. The problem, they
would say, is simply that the healthier people and the happier people
are the ones more likely to get married and stay married.
But as I said here, the research by Robert Coombs of UCLA indicates
that is simply not true. The state of marriage itself is more important
in fostering good health.
The conclusion is that marriage is healthy. It is good for couples.
It is good for children, good for communities, good for the Nation. It
improves health, well-being, and makes children's lives, on average,
more stable.
The question is what can we do to encourage marriage if marriage is
so wonderful? Is there some magic wand we at the Federal level can wave
and solve that particular problem? I think it is important to recognize
that we cannot do a great deal at the Federal level. But we can
certainly encourage community-level activity, particularly activity
that is having a good effect.
I want to make it clear I am not up here to condemn divorce; I am
simply pointing out that marriage can be a positive factor in many
lives and that we should try to encourage those who are married to stay
married and those who are not married to become married.
An example of a way to handle this appropriately is to mobilize
religious
[[Page H4190]]
and community support. Something that has emerged in this country,
which is very good and has had a positive influence, is something
called a community marriage policy.
Let me cite some material from a recent report, ``Toward More Perfect
Unions: Putting Marriage on the Public Agenda,'' a report from the
Family Impact Seminar, reported by Theodora Ooms. She notes that
perhaps the most promising and innovative marriage-strengthening
strategy bubbling up from the community level is the community marriage
policy. This is a strategy rooted in the religious sector and was
originally conceived of and promoted by Michael McManus, a syndicated
columnist and author of ``Marriage Savers.''
In the community marriage policy initiative, clergy and congregations
in a community get together and agree upon a set of guidelines.
A particularly good example of such a community marriage policy is
that of the Greater Grand Rapids, Michigan, area which I represent. I
do not say that just because I represent it.
In the words of the report Family Impact Seminar report, the best
community marriage policy is taking place in Greater Grand Rapids,
Michigan, where, in 1996, the community launched an ambitious
community-wide mobilization designed to support children-strengthening
marriage.
The initiative has some core funding, an executive leader, Dr. Roger
Sider, and institutional support from Pine Rest, a Christian Community
Mental Health Center.
I should point out in an aside that Pine Rest is more than just a
center; it is the second largest private community member health
facility in the United States.
What distinguishes the Grand Rapids community marriage policy is that
it involves a high caliber and breadth of community leadership,
including many civic leaders and health professionals as well as the
clergy. They have taken pains to be inclusive of many different views
of marriage.
For example, they have been careful to listen to and accommodate the
concerns of feminists working with battered women and minority leaders
working with single-parent families.
Let me emphasize that this community marriage policy is voluntary;
but the Grand Rapids one is unique in that it has involved the broader
community, not just the religious community.
In Grand Rapids, pastors, rabbis, priests, judges, doctors, lawyers,
counselors, elected officials, business leaders, educators and
concerned citizens are being asked to find ways that they can
strengthen and support marriages throughout their life cycle.
The chairman of the 50-person steering committee is Bill Hardiman, a
good friend of mine, and the mayor of Kentwood, the second largest
suburb of Grand Rapids. He has put many hours into this and has done
exceptional work.
After more than a year of careful planning, in the spring of 1998 the
initiative began implementation, starting by offering training to
ministers and courses to others.
The Greater Grand Rapids Community Marriage Policy has set itself a
goal of reducing the divorce rate by 25 percent by the year 2010, a
very ambitious goal; and they are well on the way to achieving that. It
will also establish some interim benchmarks of progress towards this
goal.
So the purpose of this resolution is to commend community marriage
policies throughout this land; and, in particular, although it is not
specifically stated in the resolution, I want to commend the Greater
Grand Rapids community in developing their community marriage policy.
It has worked well. It holds great promise. We hope that it will
achieve a great increase in the stability of marriages in our community
and eventually throughout our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 280, which recognizes the
importance of strong marriages and community marriage policies. I think
it is a wonderful thing if communities try to encourage strong
marriages.
Our communities have changed so drastically over the past 3 years,
today it is a fast-paced world and places constant stress on families
and couples alike.
But today, most married couples, young married couples, one finds
both of the couples working, dedicated to a career or a job, and that
is a hectic life style. The hectic life style that many young couples
are leading make it difficult for them to focus on family and each
other, thereby putting a strain on their relationship and putting their
marriage at risk.
This resolution, I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
for bringing it forth, bringing attention to a need for strong healthy
marriage and community support to make that a reality.
This support, in the form of community marriage policies and other
efforts to ensure a network of help for couples, can greatly contribute
toward more harmonious and happy marriages, especially churches and
community-based organizations.
Those who are contributing that support are various members of our
community, including those organizations, as I mentioned, religious and
those people's community-based organizations that put forth counseling
service.
In closing, I want to thank again the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers) for bringing this resolution to the House today and urge
Members to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined some of the reasons that our
nation should consider as we try to strengthen marriages in our
country. The benefits of health, the benefits of stability, the
benefits for our Nation and particularly for our children and their
education.
I have stated that the purpose of the resolution is simply to commend
communities throughout the entire Nation that have established
community marriage policies. But I would like to point out that the
Congress itself should focus on ways to undue the bias against marriage
in certain Federal programs.
This House has already passed the elimination of the marriage penalty
in our income tax, and we hope that that will soon pass the other body
and be signed into law by the President. The earned income tax credit
should also not have a marriage penalty, which it presently has.
There are other issues in poverty programs and many other programs in
the Federal Government where one can detect some antimarriage bias. I
think we as a Congress should address those issues.
In addition State governments, with their responsibility for the
marriage laws, should do what they can to encourage proper premarital
counseling and especially proper counseling of individuals considering
divorce.
In the State of Michigan, we have done that through a State law which
sets up a mechanism for counseling at the local level, using funds from
marriage license fees. Churches and local communities, through
initiatives such as community marriage policies, also should encourage
this.
In summary, we have demonstrated there are substantial effects of
divorce on children. There are substantial effects of divorce on the
health of individuals. And we have also outlined a number of the
benefits of marriage.
It is very important that we as a Nation and as a Congress emphasize
the importance of stable marriages for the well-being of our Nation,
our citizens, and especially our children.
{time} 1515
This resolution is one small way we can do that, and I urge the
adoption of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution
280, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________