Jo Ann Davis

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Over the past decade, funding for NASA's Aeronautics Research has declined by more than half, to about $900 million. The President's budget proposes to cut aeronautics research by 20 percent over the next 5 years. I am concerned that the United States is losing critical expertise in aeronautics research and development. This degradation will have a tragic impact on military and civilian aviation, which contributes significantly to our national defense and our economy. I believe that the President's funding levels for aeronautics programs should be reassessed and that the House should give priority to restoring these vital programs. Will the gentleman commit to bring to the conference report language that will clarify that the resolution makes no assumption regarding the President's proposed funding level for NASA's Aeronautics Research programs?

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today out of frustration with H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Wartime Appropriations Act. I support passage of this legislation, as I believe it is absolutely necessary to continue to fund the important activities of our brave men and women fighting the global War on Terrorism. Our men and women depend on having the necessary equipment and systems to be successful in mission accomplishment. As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am actively involved in efforts, for example, to better protect our troops while they are in harm's way. With that said, the inclusion of spending projects within this bill that certainly do not qualify as either ``emergency'' or ``wartime'' is outrageous. The issue at hand is not whether or not it is necessary to fund the noble efforts of our soldiers, for that answer is self-evident. Rather, the question is about our responsibility to spend the American people's money wisely, and in a manner consistent with the established process. I do not doubt that the non-wartime, and non-defense related projects in this bill are worthwhile; however, the decision to fund these projects should be made during the established appropriations process. Certainly, it is inappropriate for this body to have to consider legislation under the guise of emergency, wartime spending, when in fact, that description is not completely honest. Again, I support this funding legislation as it pertains to the support of our military, and our efforts to protect American citizens, and to promote peace and democracy in the Middle East. However, I do not support the inclusion of unrelated projects within this bill, and find it most unfortunate that Members of Congress are forced to vote on such legislation.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, this House overwhelmingly passed H. Con. Res. 415 regarding the October 31 Presidential elections about to be held in the Ukraine. During the floor debate on that resolution, I noted that the development of a strong democracy in the Ukraine has been slow and difficult over the past 13 years. In recognizing this fact, I stated that no issue would be more important to the Ukraine's future standing with the West than the test its democracy was about to face in that Presidential election. I said that in many ways the election represented a historic opportunity for the people of the Ukraine to decide whether or not democracy can flourish in this important nation. Those elections did take place on October 31. Since no candidate received over 50 percent of the votes, a runoff election was just held this past Sunday. Regrettably, and despite every effort we were told would be made by the Government for a free and fair election, the rhetoric was not matched by the actions and the elections seemed to have been seriously flawed. A preliminary assessment of the elections conducted by the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), consisting of representatives from the OSCE, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, indicated that the second round of the presidential election did not meet a considerable number of internationally accepted standards for democratic elections. The IEOM report listed election day violence, intimidation of voters and observers, suspiciously high voter turnout in some regions, problems with ballot counting and the addition of several hundred thousand absentee ballots. In a statement issued by Senator Richard Lugar who was observing the elections as the representative of President Bush, the Senator reported that it was apparent that a concerted and forceful program of election day fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or cooperation of government authorities. Mr. Speaker, this is disappointing and unacceptable news from the Ukraine. It seems incomprehensible to me that with the rocky relationship the West has had at times with the outgoing leadership in Kiev that the new President of the Ukraine would want to spend the next 5 years under a cloud of legitimacy as a result of an unfair electoral process. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress have long supported building a stable, democratic, and prosperous nation in the Ukraine and have tried to work with those individuals and organizations who shared our goals. Unfortunately, and regrettably, the conduct of these recent elections suggests that many in Ukraine's current government have not yet committed themselves to this goal and lack the political will to do so. As chairwoman of the Europe Subcommittee I believe I can speak for the House in expressing our deep disappointment with the conduct of these recent elections and our concerns for the Ukraine's future. We join with the Bush administration in calling on the current President of the Ukraine, the Rada and the Supreme Court to conduct a thorough review of these elections and investigate the charges of mass fraud before any certification of the results is made. At the very least, it may be necessary to hold new elections in those cities or regions where the fraud was most blatant. We also call on all sides of the dispute to exercise restraint and avoid violence. Finally, if the dispute is not resolved in support of the democratic process, then I believe the Bush administration must begin a review of our relations with the Ukraine and take what ever actions may be necessary to express our displeasure with the actions of the Ukraine government and its leaders.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 853, which expresses the Sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should continue to exercise its authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America. I am appalled that the Department of Defense agreed to warn its military bases worldwide not to sponsor Boy Scout Troops--just because the ACLU is upset that they require their members to swear an oath to God. I wholeheartedly disagree with this decision, and I think the Pentagon should reconsider this short-sighted settlement. Over the last 30 years, the Department of Defense has been specifically authorized to host Scouts on its installations and to provide equipment, transportation, and other services for both national and international events such as the Boy Scout Jamboree. Furthermore, United States Code Title 10, Sections 4682, 7541, and 9682 authorizes the Department of Defense to sell and donate (in certain cases) obsolete or excess material to the Boy Scouts of America to support its activities. In the First District of Virginia, the Boy Scout Jamboree is hosted at Fort A.P. Hill every four years. The success of this event is directly attributable to the strong relationship that the Boy Scouts and the Department of Defense have built over the years. The Boy Scouts and the Department of Defense have enjoyed a unique relationship with many former Scouts joining the ranks of our nation's military. The Pentagon's recent agreement threatens this unique relationship of two organizations dedicated to one important objective: service to God and country. I would remind my colleagues that Boy Scouts are not the only people who swear an oath to God. The fact is that our own service men and women take a similar oath before God at the beginning of their service, and I will not support any action or agreement which attempts to endanger a partnership which clearly benefits both organizations. I urge the Pentagon to reconsider its decision and to continue to support the Boy Scouts of America.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker one year ago yesterday, November 23, 2003 the world witnessed an extraordinary political event involving the peaceful pursuit of democracy. In what has become known as the ``Rose Revolution'', the people of the Republic of Georgia, after several weeks of peaceful and bloodless protests following parliamentary elections which were determined to be fraudulent, forced a peaceful change in their government. On that day, opposition parliamentarians entered their Assembly, roses in hand, demanding that the will of the people, expressed by their recent vote, be honored. Given the strong support of the public the government of Eduard Shevardnadze collapsed. Soon after, and under the effective management of interim President Nino Burdzhanadze, a free, fair and democratic presidential election was held. Mikhail Saakashvili, leader of the opposition protest, was overwhelmingly elected and sworn into office on January 24 of this year as President of the Republic of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Georgia is a small, but strategic country located in the Caucasus, between Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Central Asia. President Saakashvili is a young, energetic leader who has received educational training here in the U.S. and has repeatedly stressed the importance of strong ties with the United States. Since his election, he has committed his country to a strong effort against global terrorism and has deployed troops to Iraq. When President Saakashvili visited the United States Congress earlier this year he delivered a strong message of peace, stability, democracy, political reform, economic opportunity and closer cooperation with the West. Recognizing the important developments taking place in Georgia, the Europe Subcommittee, which I Chair, passed H. Res. 483 in October, pledging the continued support of the United States for the continued development of democracy in Georgia. Today, as we remember the events of November 23, 2003, we express our congratulations to the people and Government of Georgia and reaffirm our support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4324, the Thrift Savings Plan Open Elections Act of 2004. This simple, but important legislation will allow eligible individuals the opportunity to elect or modify contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) at any time, without penalty. The TSP is a voluntary, tax- deferred defined contribution plan for Federal employees and members of the uniformed services, through which Federal agencies provide matching funds to an individual's own retirement contributions. However, under current law, an eligible employee has only two opportunities a year to join the TSP fund and receive matching contributions, or to adjust their individual contribution amount. The changes implemented by H.R. 4324 will allow for greater participant access to the TSP, and will simplify administration. Given the hard work that our Federal employees and uniformed servicemen and women perform day in and day out, it is commonsense that they should have this increased control over their retirement contributions.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am glad my colleague from D.C. talked about protecting the FBI Academy in the national capital region because that, in fact, is located in what the gentlewoman calls ``way out there in Virginia'' which is my area. I rise today in strong support of the Bartlett amendment, which directs the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a study to see if there is a need to expand the national capital region. The terrorist attacks of 2001 demonstrated firsthand the need for the national capital region to be expanded. The I-95 corridor, which includes the Fredericksburg/Stafford area that I represent, served as one of the major evacuation routes for D.C. Anybody who drove down that 95 corridor on September 11, 2001, would agree that, as one of the main evacuation routes, it is necessary to secure sufficient infrastructure along I-95 to handle any mass evacuation. The current definition of the national capital region should be expanded as a result of the new threats to homeland security. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bartlett amendment. I urge my colleague from D.C. to look at where those areas that she says need to be protected, where they are located.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, and I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan for yielding me this time. The legislation before us today contains the most substantial reform of the United States intelligence community since its inception in 1947 and it contains five major improvements to the current intelligence community. First and foremost, this legislation creates an empowered National Intelligence Director who is the head of the intelligence community and the principal adviser to the President for all intelligence matters. Because this new position will be separate from that of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, we will finally have an individual whose sole purpose is to direct the overall functioning of the intelligence community. Second, the legislation provides a new National Intelligence Director with enhanced management authorities to coordinate and manage all aspects of intelligence operations as well as improved authorities over and control of intelligence budgets. Third, the legislation vests in the National Intelligence Director the responsibility and authority to dramatically improve information sharing across the government. We are all too familiar with the failure of agencies to communicate vital information with each other prior to 9/11. Now the head of the intelligence community will have the ability to implement an integrated technology network and establish uniform security standards that can break down stovepipes and promote the fullest information sharing possible. Fourth, this legislation makes the National Intelligence Director responsible for strengthening analysis across the community and for ensuring the sufficiency and quality of human intelligence and other intelligence capabilities. Finally, the legislation creates a National Counterterrorism Center that will be responsible for analyzing and integrating all intelligence pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism. No longer will the left- hand not know what the right hand is doing with respect to counterterrorism activities. As the central knowledge bank of all terrorist and counterterrorist information and the central point for strategic operational planning, we can now take the fight to the terrorists in the most coordinated manner possible. It is vital that the intelligence community reform better align U.S. resources and management authorities to effectively target both the terrorist threats of today, as well as new threats of tomorrow. I strongly urge support of the legislation.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 129, the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004. As the original sponsor of the House version of this legislation, H.R. 1601, I am proud to see S. 129 considered on the House floor today. This bill is an important tool as the Federal Government works to become a model employer. As the former-Chair of the Civil Service Subcommittee, I held hearings to explore what steps we can take to attract, motivate, and retain the best qualified workers to the Federal Government. S. 129 addresses the very real pay, benefit, and personal issues we investigated that keep potential employees from joining the civil service and sometimes drive our best employees and managers away. The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act would do many things to improve the effectiveness of the Federal Government, including expanding agencies' abilities to offer recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses, allowing agencies to offer enhanced annual leave benefits to mid-career hires, emphasizing training, streamlining critical pay authority, and making it easier for agencies to establish demonstration projects. Mr. Speaker, S. 129 will go a long way in strengthening the Federal workforce, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 774 commending the people and government of Greece for the successful completion of the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, and I want to commend our colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for introducing this legislation. For 17 glorious days this summer, with the spectacular setting of the ancient Parthenon and Acropolis as background, the Nation of Greece hosted the world to what has been referred to by some as one of the greatest games of all times. As we followed the progress of the preparations, we realized it surely was not easy to accomplish. The costs were high, and the tensions associated with providing security for 10,000 athletes and hundreds of thousands of visitors and spectators placed great pressure on the government of Greece. But in the end, the world-class venues and infrastructure provided, the breathtaking opening and closing ceremonies and, of course, the competition itself afforded the world an unparalleled look at the energy, diligence, hospitality and imagination of the people of Greece. All of Greece has a right to be proud of what was accomplished this summer. This resolution reaffirms that recognition. I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 774, the resolution under consideration.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 774) commending the people and Government of Greece for the successful completion of the 2004 Summer Olympic Games.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the sponsor of this bill, who works tirelessly to promote democracy over in Europe; and I am sorry he is not here to speak on this bill.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 854 and would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his tireless efforts in support of democracy worldwide, and in this case in Belarus. Belarus is perhaps the last country in Europe to embrace democracy. In just 2 weeks that nation will hold important elections for parliament in what will be a litmus test for President Lukashenko's commitment to democracy and the direction he intends to take Belarus in the future. I regret that the political situation there at the moment does not look very promising. In June, the House overwhelmingly passed H. Res. 624, introduced by our former colleague Doug Bereuter, which emphasizes that if Belarus is ever to become more integrated into the Western community of nations, it must work towards the establishment of a genuinely democratic political system in which the freedom of association and assembly are guaranteed, where political candidates from the opposition will be free from political harassment and intimidation as they campaign for office, and in which the media are free to act independently, free from government control or intimidation, where there exists a system in which elections and the electoral process are open, transparent and fair. For all of these reasons, it was important that the Congress emphatically express our strong support for free, fair and transparent elections and more definitive progress towards establishing a functioning democracy in Belarus. The bill we have before us today provides a mechanism by which we can influence that progress. H.R. 854 would authorize assistance for democracy promotion, for building strong democratic institutions, radio broadcasting, and the development of an independent media. But we know how the current government feels about these matters, and we anticipate a lack of cooperation. So the bill also provides a series of sanctions which could be implemented if certain conditions in Belarus are not adequately addressed or resolved. I would also note that in Europe, the situation in Belarus is of equal concern. The OSCE, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have all expressed deep concerns over Belarus and its elections. H.R. 854 rather precisely explains the concerns and recommendations of the United States Congress, and I urge adoption of this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 854.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 854) to provide for the promotion of democracy, human rights, and rule of law in the Republic of Belarus and for the consolidation and strengthening of Belarus sovereignty and independence, as amended.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 415 regarding free and fair elections in Ukraine. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for introducing this important and timely resolution and thank the ranking Democrat of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his strong support. On October 31, the people of Ukraine will go to the polls to participate in an election for their next president. The development of a strong democracy in Ukraine has been slow and difficult over the past 13 years by any measure. However, no issue will be more important to Ukraine's future standing with the West than the strength of its democracy. Therefore, this election, in many ways represents a historic opportunity for the people of Ukraine to decide whether or not democracy can flourish in this important nation. Ukraine has an obvious need to maintain positive relations with its neighbor, Russia. But with its resources and economic potential, Ukraine can and should be an important element in the further stabilization of Europe. However, its long-term commitment to democracy is the only way Ukraine can become a full partner with the democracies of the Euro-Atlantic community. Because of the importance of relations between Ukraine and the West, Ukraine has been reassured time and again that the door to the West remains open. This month will be a crucial test of whether the Ukrainian people and their government are willing to make the effort to walk through that door. Regrettably, recent statements and actions by some in the current political leadership have raised concerns in the international community and in this Congress about whether this election will be open and fair. Based on problems witnessed in the past elections in Ukraine, I believe it is important that Ukraine's leaders understand that this election will be regarded as a litmus test of Ukraine's commitment to democracy and to its future in Europe. It seems incomprehensible to me that with the rocky relationship the West has had at times with the outgoing leadership in Kiev, that either of the major candidates running for election would want his victory tainted by an unfair electoral process, biased media coverage, and even thuggery. Why would the next President of Ukraine want to spend the next 5 years under a cloud of legitimacy? Many visitors to Ukraine, including several from this House over the past few months, have raised the issue of free and fair elections. All have been reassured by President Kuchma, Prime Minister Yanukovich, Foreign Minister Gryshcenko, and Speaker of the Parliament, Lytvyn, that every effort will be made to meet the government's commitment for a free and fair election. I am afraid, however, that in many instances thus far, the rhetoric has not been matched by the actions. At the Subcommittee on Europe markup of this resolution in June, our former subcommittee chairman, Doug Bereuter, noted that they would hold those government officials to their word. We know that Ukraine's leaders have heard our message, but we are concerned that some of them are not taking that message seriously. H. Con. Res. 415 notes the importance of the presidential election to the success of Ukraine's transition to democracy. The resolution addresses reports of government harassment of those who support opposition candidates and of threats and violence against opposition leaders and their families. It speaks to allegations of harassment of independent media in Ukraine and about allegations of possible outright election fraud. The resolution stresses how important it will be for President Kuchma and other senior officials to take active steps to ensure that the kinds of foul play seen in past elections do not become the norm during the remainder of this presidential election. Finally, the manager's amendment which has been included also includes language calling on the United States Government to ensure that all of Ukraine's election laws are being followed by the presidential candidates and those working on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress remain committed to assisting Ukraine in building a stable, democratic and prosperous nation. What better way for President Kuchma to leave office than to ensure that the people of Ukraine have a free and fair choice as to who will lead them over the next 5 years? We hope the elections in just a few weeks' time will prove that Ukraine too shares these same goals. I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 415) urging the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process for the presidential election on October 31, 2004, as amended.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to keep in mind in the midst of this debate that a primary benefit of marriage is that it provides children with a mother and father from whom they can learn and be protected. What we are talking about today is whether or not we as a Nation will work to reaffirm an institution that provides profound benefits for children. It is correct that there are millions of men and women in this country who bravely raise children as single parents, and I applaud them for that. But there is an ideal for our children. Social science and everyday experiences teach us that children raised without the presence of both a mother and a father experience more poverty, more substance abuse, a higher rate of educational failure, and much more. Given the importance of marriage in the presence of a mother and father for our children's general welfare, this institution must remain strong. As a wife and a mother of two sons, I know the importance of children having both a mother and father. When our boys were growing up, my presence was important and irreplaceable. Studies have shown that young men raised by both a mother and father have more positive attitudes toward women, children, and family life. This is exceedingly important, as our society benefits when boys grow up to be men who take raising children seriously. My husband also played an equally important role in the lives of our boys, the role of father, a role that I could never play. It is true the future of marriage as a strong institution goes far beyond whether or not the Constitution is amended to reaffirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This does not mean that the Marriage Protection Amendment is unimportant. As a society, we will have no hope of strengthening the bonds of marriage without a unified, national definition of marriage that promotes the ideal for our children, that of being raised by both a mother and a father. As an original cosponsor of this amendment for the last 3 years, I stand in strong support of the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I urge its passage.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I stand tonight in strong support of the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I consider this debate among the most important of my tenure in this House. I also want to make clear up front that this amendment is about reaffirming a national definition for one of our Nation's, and the world's, most important institutions, namely, marriage. This amendment does not, and I repeat, does not interfere with the right of State legislatures to change laws for their States, nor does it deny individuals the right to make sexual choices. The right to marriage will remain the same for everyone, that is, the right to marry another individual of the opposite sex. I find it unfortunate that we must act today on something as seemingly clear as the definition of marriage, but activist judges have forced our hand in this important matter. You see, poll after poll and vote after vote at the State level have indicated that the American public overwhelmingly supports the definition of marriage as consisting of the union of one man and one woman. Indeed, 44 States have enacted laws affirming this very definition. Moreover, in 1996, an institution no less than this very Congress and then President Clinton enacted the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage for Federal Government purposes as the union of one man and one woman. Contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere, the notion that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is not controversial. However, activists in the judiciary, as evidenced by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court deciding that there is no rational reason for restricting the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples, seem bent on redefining marriage for an entire Nation in direct opposition to the wishes of the vast majority of Americans and with a flagrant disregard for the millennia-old institution of marriage that has been responsible for the successful propagation of the human race. Since ancient days in all corners of the globe, men and women have left their own families to join together and form new families for intimate companionship and, importantly, the rearing of children. To those opponents of this amendment who contend that marriage in this country is broken already, citing statistics that half of marriages end in divorce, I must say that I agree with you. Admittedly, our debate today does not go to the heart of the problem, but rather addresses a symptom after years of degradation of the institution of marriage in America. Certainly it is a great tragedy when men and women divorce and children are not raised by both a mother and a father. While there are millions of men and women in this country who bravely and lovingly raise children by themselves, social science and our everyday experiences teach us that children raised without a mother and a father experience more poverty, more welfare dependence, more substance abuse, more physical illness, higher infant mortality, more homicide, more premature and promiscuous sexuality, more early unwed pregnancy, more juvenile delinquency, more educational failure, more conduct disorders and more adult criminality. It is also true that the future of marriage as a strong institution of America goes far beyond whether or not the Constitution is amended to reaffirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That fact, however, does not mean that the Marriage Protection Amendment is unimportant. Rather, it is exceedingly important. For as a society, we will have no hope of strengthening the bonds of marriage without a unified national definition of marriage, a definition consistent with the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.