[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.




                          ____________________