Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it has been more than 5 years since the terrorist attacks on September 11. In looking back, we have made great progress in uprooting the terrorists from their havens and liberating millions of people. We also have provided our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with new tools to combat these threats. Yet there is so much more to do. We are at war with terrorists, and we must protect our borders.

If we cannot control our borders, how can we prevent those who would murder us from entering our Nation? Millions attempt to enter our Nation illegally every year. Many are apprehended.

I commend our Border Patrol for their fine work under difficult situations; however, millions have crossed the border successfully in the past 5 years, and we do not know how many terrorists there are. Our borders are another battleground in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, according to the State Department, international corruption costs American companies that play by the rules many billions of dollars in lost exports. Corruption impedes government efforts to deliver basic efforts to citizens, weakens confidence in democracy, and is often linked to international criminal activity. It causes rampant economic inefficiency, interferes with capital markets, and obviously contributes to poverty.

Transparency International is a global not-for-profit organization dedicated to the fight against corruption. Transparency puts out annual reports on the state of corruption worldwide, trying to measure whether we are winning or losing that fight.

This fight is a top priority for the U.S. Departments of State, Justice and Commerce. My colleagues, since 1979, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, has had a convention against corruption

and continues to see it as a top global priority. All this reflects a growing international consensus that corruption is a problem that we must confront. That much is true. But working on anticorruption campaigns, all these entities treat the symptoms rather than the disease. The disease is oppression and lawlessness. The cure is freedom and the rule of law.

The annual Index of Economic Freedom, compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, provides a simple framework for understanding how open countries are to competition; the degree of state intervention in the economy, whether through taxation, spending or overregulation; and the strength and independence of a country's judiciary to enforce rules and protect private property.

One of the indicators in the index is the size of a nation's ``informal,'' or black market economy, which helps to measure this corruption. Charting the relationship between economic freedom and the size of the informal economy as a percentage of GDP, the Heritage Foundation found a positive correlation between these two factors. They reported, ``as economic freedom vanishes, the informal economy takes a larger share of GDP. The size of the informal economy in economically unfree and repressed economies is almost three times the size of the informal economy in free economies, and almost double the size of the informal economy in mostly free economies.'' The Heritage calculations demonstrate the perverse effect of economic repression on the moral behavior of simple, ordinary people and the continuation of the cycle of poverty that entraps them.

Access to credit in most developed countries is the key to a better standard of living. That access is incumbent upon proving income or property, for which you need a formal job and a legal title to that property.

When it is difficult for people to invest in business, whether a corner grocery store or a major factory, formal jobs are hard to come by. Jobs can be more easily had in the informal economy, where small and medium entrepreneurs can negotiate salaries and benefits, and tie them to performance. In cases like this, the government bureaucracy encumbers legal businesses, encouraging employers and employees to operate in the shadows.

Without a formal job, you can still get credit if you have titled property to offer as collateral. But while Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has shown that most of the poorest people in the developing world own property, they face innumerable bureaucratic hurdles in order to actually title that property as their own. In Peru, he says, ``to obtain legal authorization to build a house on state-owned land took 6 years and 11 months. To obtain a legal title for that piece of land took 728 steps.'' Other countries are similarly ridiculous. In Egypt, it takes 77 steps in 31 government offices and anywhere from 6 to 14 years. In the Philippines, it takes 168 steps through 53 offices and anywhere from 13 to 25 years to get legal title to this property.

An oppressive government system perpetuates the poverty of its citizens by making it impossible to claim their property rights and pursue legal employment. Equally important, the Heritage Foundation says that the resulting black market economy ``creates a culture of contempt for the law and fosters corruption and bribery in the public sector as a necessary means to navigate the bureaucracy.''

Mr. Speaker, when those folks, particularly international elites, take on corruption, they see it as just one more corporate scandal to be uncovered and think that will be that and we can fix it. One more capitalistic crime, they call it, that must be prosecuted. That is not it. That is not it at all. In reality, corruption indicates a simple lack of freedom and, more importantly, a consistent rule of law.

Madam Speaker, it was recently reported that in order to stop boardroom media leaks, investigators hired by Hewlett-Packard used pretexting to obtain the phone records of directors and journalists. This disclosure demonstrates another nasty byproduct of having the availability of Internet-based personal information instantly available.

One of the major reasons for the growing pretexting problem is the lax data security at businesses that hold sensitive consumer information. The Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee which I chair has amassed an extensive record on these issues.

I have introduced H.R. 4127, the Data Accountability and Trust Act, which is designed to improve data security and attack the scourge of privacy-infringing practices, like pretexting, that continue to be exploited on the Internet. The DATA Act will go a long way toward protecting the privacy rights of all Americans, and I urge its consideration by the full House.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4583) to amend the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 to revise the requirements for labeling of certain wool and cashmere products, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4583, the Wool Suit Fabric Labeling Fairness and International Standards Conforming Act, introduced by my colleague, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee, and co- sponsored by my colleague, the ranking member of our subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois.

This is a simple bill, my colleagues, which is fundamental and has a fundamental purpose: to give consumers the information they need to make buying decisions about the products they want.

This bill would amend the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 to make specific and standard certain designations of fabric quality for certain wool products.

For years, high-end suits and other expensive wool garments have carried the label ``super'' and a number like 120 or 130, to designate the fineness of the weave of the wool and thus the quality and cost of producing the fabric. It is about time we make certain that there is a standard, internationally accepted definition of the ``super'' designation to ensure that unscrupulous garment manufacturers don't dupe consumers with simple phony labels. We owe that to the American consumer and to the great American textile industry that produces these fine products.

H.R. 4583 makes the ``super'' designation a standard designation of quality wool products. Likewise, the Wool Suit Fabric Labeling Fairness and International Standards Conforming Act creates a specific and standard definition of cashmere so that the term cashmere actually means a certain thing rather than serving as an nonspecific reference to a quality. The end result is a bill that establishes a legal standard for labeling ``super'' and cashmere wool products based on internationally accepted standards.

As I said, while these may seem a bit technical, standardizing the designation of a certain level of quality, no matter what the products, allows consumers and the manufacturers alike to be certain that what they are spending their hard-earned dollars on is real and is genuine. That is a laudable goal for any piece of legislation.

I therefore would like to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it on final passage.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time from my distinguished colleague.

I am delighted today that we are voting today on H.R. 5815 that includes about $85 million for the Gainesville, Florida Malcom Randall Medical Center to correct patient privacy deficiencies. My colleagues, north Florida and south Georgia veterans rely on this hospital, and it will be well served by this appropriation. Further, this bill authorizes a long-awaited hospital in Orlando. And like the hospital in Gainesville, there is a synergistic collaboration of VA, academia, and industry research all coming together to make things better.

We initiated the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) process a few years ago. It is a comprehensive, objective system-wide approach to projecting into the future the appropriate function, size, and location of VA facilities. Out of CARES and then- Secretary Principi's recommendation came the decisions on which we are voting today. It was carefully thought out, and I commend the chairman.

What we learned from CARES is nothing we don't all know: veterans, like many seniors, are retiring to Florida. Every day they are crossing the border coming into our hospitals in the southern States, and we need to put the care where the veterans are coming and where they are located, Mr. Speaker. So I look forward to voting on this, and I appreciate the chairman's help

I thank my distinguished colleague. As the gentleman from Virginia pointed out, we had a hearing on July 25, 2006, on this same issue. My colleagues, I think it was a balanced hearing. I think Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Sweeney were both there. Mr. Sweeney testified, also Chairman Goodlatte testified. I think it brought out the pros and cons of this.

Whatever is proposed, however, must have a full understanding of the ultimate effects on the American horse population and their caregivers, because arguments presented on both sides seem to paint a pretty bleak, bleak picture for a large number of horses. But I am concerned that H.R. 503 does not solve the problem of unwanted horses.

Unfortunately, it provides no solution to the unfortunate reality of the life of these horses. Horses are a beloved part of our American heritage and deserve more humane approaches at the end of their lives. I think we all agree.

But this bill, H.R. 503, does not solve the problem. In fact, as many point out, it is a property rights issue; and we should be concerned ultimately where these horses will finally graze and who will pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we secure our southern border immediately. One overlooked reason is the Department of Homeland Security has issued data which indicates that each year, hundreds of aliens from countries known to harbor terrorists or who promote terrorism are apprehended attempting to enter this country illegally. Since 2002, the number of non-Mexicans apprehended while trying to enter the United States illegally has increased 343 percent.

This is of great concern to me and to others. In the words of former Deputy Secretary ADM James Loy of Homeland Security: ``Entrenched human smuggling and corruption in areas beyond our borders can be exploited by terrorist organizations.''

There have been reports, Mr. Speaker, that terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, have been operating, recruiting members, and maybe training terrorists in South American countries, including Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. This is particularly alarming when you consider that attempts to enter our country illegally from Brazil has increased 900 percent over the last 3 years.

It is imperative that we secure our borders now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, like my other colleagues, in support of H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of Foreign Direct Investments Act. Obviously, we all agree this is a bill that will strengthen the American economy by encouraging others to invest in America, while at the same time, fortifying our national security.

Myself and Ranking Member Schakowsky had a hearing dealing with this bill, which showed the importance of it. We had a very small part. I think the Department of Commerce is now co-vice chair in the bill, but I want to commend Mr. Blunt for his leadership on this, and also for the continuing leadership of Chairman Oxley, who did all the vitally important work for this. We had a very small part in it, my subcommittee, which is the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Trade.

We all know that open investment policy has made the United States a favorite destination for foreign direct investment, with over $115 billion invested in 2004, supporting over 5 million American jobs found in every State of this union, from car manufacturing plants in Missouri to aircraft production in my home State of Florida.

This bill will ensure that the United States is and will remain the world's benchmark for open, transparent investment policy. This openness and this transparency in our vibrant markets at home has basically allowed American companies to export those principles abroad, principles that ultimately increase prosperity and, most importantly, encourage better acceptance of the democratic and free markets, principles that form the bedrock of the American way of life.

So, again, I support this bill, I urge my colleagues to do so, and I thank my colleague for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment to this bill would clarify and reinforce the intent of Congress that nuclear cooperation into which the governments of the United States and India would enter is for peaceful and productive purposes and not military purposes. And I think a lot of us who view this bill have some concerns.

Now, the intent of this amendment is obviously woven throughout this legislation, but I thought an elevated position by a sense of Congress in what we are talking about perhaps would alleviate some of the colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts. It bears reiterating that this country stands for peace and not war.

While India has agreed to allow monitoring at 14 of their nuclear reactors to ensure fuel is not used for weapons, my colleagues, there are eight other reactors and an unknown number of future reactors that can produce material for military purposes, free of any oversight or control. It is, indeed, obviously, an improvement in the status quo for India to open up any of its reactors to oversight, but the dangers inherent in further assisting India's nuclear development are clear.

These are unsettling times in nuclear proliferation. Iran and North Korea, for example, have violated their responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and are producing or attempting to produce significant arsenals of nuclear weapons. Pakistan was aided and abetted with nuclear capability.

Support for today's legislation, and for broader cooperation with India, crosses party lines. We all understand that. We all support India. It is a burgeoning multiethnic, multireligious, free market democracy, has a firm rule of law and respect for personal liberties. These are all good. As such, India presents a hearty example, like the United States, for the world to follow. Clearly, the nation of India is and should be our friend, and we respect it.

However, my colleagues, India has refused to sign, as mentioned before, the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It refuses to accept full scope of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards over all its nuclear facilities, and India continues to produce fissile materials for its growing nuclear arsenal. These have been brought to our attention.

But, moreover, India is no stranger to violating international nuclear commitments to use nuclear assistance for civilian purposes. In 1974, it detonated a nuclear bomb manufactured using plutonium from a Canadian-supplied nuclear reactor, with heavy water provided by the U.S. Both countries had provided India with nuclear technology based on commitment to peaceful use.

Now, my colleagues, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn, wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal: ``There is every reason to suspect that Pakistan and China will react to this deal by ratcheting up their own suspicions and nuclear activities, including making additional weapons material and weapons.''

So, Mr. Chairman, we should avoid fanning the flames here of a regional nuclear arms race. I think all of us remember President Reagan's words when he mentioned in a radio address on April 17, 1982, ``A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought . . . ''

So I think this amendment is basically a sense of Congress, a straightforward sense, to give us more assurance that what we are trying to do here is to help them in a peaceful way. We seek friendship and peace with all nations, particularly India, but we will not purchase this friendship with nuclear arms.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

That is very good. I appreciate that. Can I just ask you a question? Nowhere in the bill does it

mention anything about private corporations or corporations in the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to talk about progress in Afghanistan. There has been a lot of publicity lately about questioning that progress.

My colleagues, since the onset of Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan has made real and substantive progress. To understand the degree to which this progress can be measured, it is important, of course, to remember the many obstacles that we faced in Afghanistan.

Consider, for example, that life expectancy is only 45 years; 71 percent of Afghans over 15 cannot read or write; 91 percent of all rural women are illiterate. Three out of five girls do not go to school, and most of the existing infrastructure has been destroyed. Under those conditions, we realize that progress still is able to proceed.

Now, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, James Kunder, the Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near East for USAID said, ``Historically, the vast majority of Afghans have not had access to electricity or safe water. In some remote, mountainous villages, the nearest paved road is a 2-week walk away. And when USAID first arrived in Kabul, much of the population had been severely traumatized after years and years of war. Most Afghans did not remember a time when conflict was not a major part of their lives.''

So, my colleagues, against this background, the overthrow of the Taliban by the United States and coalition forces, the rebuilding of roads and infrastructure, and the widespread participation by the Afghan people in presidential and parliamentary elections is a monumental and historic achievement. Afghanistan continues to confront obstacles, but the colossal steps forward that have already been taken should not be underestimated.

In order to increase business opportunities and develop a private sector in Afghanistan, the USAID's Alternative Livelihoods' Private Sector Development Unit opened their first Eastern Regional Business Development Center in Jalalabad. Now, my colleagues, this office works closely with local government, national and international communities, to promote business enterprises, effective services and full employment.

Approximately 6,000 businesses have already registered in one of the provinces. There have been successes in the agriculture sector as well, including 600 farmers in the Jalalabad region who have received training in harvest handling, packaging and marketing to improve their business opportunities. This program is developing a regional market information system to develop quality standards and retail marketing measures for farmers and business people.

Over 4,000 women in 13 districts have benefitted from the micro- enterprise development projects that train them and increase their income potential. Said one of these recipients, a mother of five in one province, quote, I learned how to sell and to market my products during the USAID training, so I now sell cheese in the neighborhood and in the nearest markets. The skill of cheesemaking has helped me and my family to stand on our own two feet and depend on this, instead of poppy cultivation.

Furthermore, Afghanistan's reconstruction has made considerable progress during the past 4 years. Recently, the World Bank reported that ``led by the government with international support, but relying most on the energy and initiative of the Afghan people themselves, reconstruction has resulted in solid achievements. Economic growth, unprecedented primary school enrollments, including for girls, great expansion of immunization, rehabilitation of major highways, a new and stable currency, promulgation of a new constitution, presidential and parliamentary elections, return of refugees and the demobilization of militias . . . Yet the challenges still remain enormous.''

Since 2001, the United States has dedicated $60.5 million for primary education to construct schools, train teachers, provide books and supplies. Currently, approximately 5.3 million Afghan children are enrolled in schools, and 40 percent of them are females.

In contrast, on June 11, 2006, the Taliban extremists burned a school and have been implicated or have claimed responsibility for damaging more than 45 schools, assassinating teachers and intimidating school- age children in the past year. Notwithstanding the Taliban threat, three volunteer teachers and 60 students traveled as far as 9 miles to attend the first day of school outside of their city in Afghanistan. That is progress.

The United States has provided more than $87 million to health care programs throughout Afghanistan. This funding includes programs to train women as health care workers, community midwives, and improving health care, including the construction of women's wings at hospitals and dormitories. As of March, 2006, USAID has completed 454 clinics that serve 340,000 patients per month. Overall, the U.S. has provided basic health services to more than 5 million people in 14 provinces. USAID has trained over 6,000 Afghan community health care professionals.

As we can see, Mr. Speaker, much progress has been made in Afghanistan, but much work still remains. We must continue this process towards a free and prosperous Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, the GAO recently reported that 9,000 credit card holders at the Department of Homeland Security used their official cards for more than $420 million worth of goods and services last year, making it the top purchasing agency in the Federal Government.

The purchases were made using government credit cards with a congressionally approved spending limit of $250,000 that the GAO said resulted in numerous cases of fraud and abuse of taxpayers' dollars.

Nearly half the purchases were made without prior written authorization, and 63 percent did not have evidence that the goods or services were actually received, the report said. How terrible and outrageous this abuse is. Surely the spending limit is too high.

It is very important that this agency enforce adequate internal controls to ensure that card holders are responsibly using their cards. I call upon the homeland security officials to stop this abuse.

Madam Speaker, today more than ever our energy supply is a matter of national security. Venezuela is our fourth largest supplier of crude oil, but since the Castro ally Hugo Chavez came to power, production has dropped sharply. As Chavez purchases Russian arms and assembles a regional anti-American coalition, many predict that decline will continue.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a GAO study found that a 6- month disruption in Venezuelan output would increase oil prices by $11 a barrel, costing our economy about $23 billion. Rather than respond to such a crisis after it arises, we should take the initiative to encourage exploration here at home, diversify our energy supplies by promoting alternatives, including nuclear power.

Finally, since the lack of freedom and democracy is synonymous with instability, we should consider the promotion of these values in Venezuela not only a moral imperative, but in our national interest as well.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from Missouri for yielding me time.

The question was posed by the gentleman from New York and others is this Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2389, constitutional? Is the whole concept of ``under God'' part of our Pledge constitutional? I submit this humble penny with Abraham Lincoln's picture on it. Do you know what it says on the side? ``In God We Trust.''

Behind the Speaker's chair, ``In God We Trust.''

At the Supreme Court they pray every day, asking for God's blessing. So Surely when we have a pledge, we should be able to use the word ``under God.'' Throughout our history this concept, as the United States being a providential Nation, has been the cornerstone of our success.

Would our Founding Fathers, if they were here today, decide to take ``under God'' from the Pledge? I do not think so. In fact, let's go and look at what the Founding Fathers talked about. This belief in our Nation being under God is a central part of our heritage. History bears this out.

Even before independence, a central theme among all forefathers was that our liberty flowed from our Creator. Josiah Quincy was one of these leaders. Not a lot of people know who he was. He was a charismatic leader in the American Revolution and outstanding lawyer. He wrote a series of anonymous articles for the Boston Gazette in which he opposed the Stamp Act and other British colonial policies. He, along with John Adams, bravely defended the British soldiers at a trial for the Boston Massacre, to show the world that the colonialists valued the rule of law above all.

In 1774, he was sent as an agent to argue the colonial cause for independence in England. He perished on the journey over. Yet, before he left, these are his immortal words that he uttered: ``For under God, we are determined that wheresoever, whensoever, or howsoever we shall be called to make our exit, we will die free men.''

Our Founding Fathers uttered similar statements time and time again, my colleagues, yet perhaps never more eloquently than the Declaration of Independence when even Thomas Jefferson penned the famous lines that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''

This same man who first wrote about separation of church and state also acknowledged, ``The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.'' And so over the years our Nation's leaders have freely expressed their beliefs in a higher providence for this country.

In our darkest hour, President Lincoln during the Civil War and later President Kennedy during the civil rights movement reaffirmed that this Nation was founded under God, and that all men and women living here are entitled by God to equal liberty.

Even more recently, in the midst of the Cold War, my colleagues, President Reagan argued that ``freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.''

So the whole idea of under God has been passed on from generation to generation. We are blessed by this concept. The Constitution was drafted to guard our liberties, obviously, our God-given liberties, and wisely established a system of checks and balances for our government structure. Mr. Akin pointed these out. The power of Congress to limit jurisdiction of the courts is one of those primary checks on the power of the judiciary. So this is all according to procedures that our Founding Fathers established.

Article III, section 2 grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts. So what we are doing today is according to the Constitution.

The Pledge Protection Act invokes the constitutional powers and removes the Pledge from the jurisdiction of Federal courts. I ask you to support this act. I urge my colleagues for future generations to acknowledge our providential point in history.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Would you agree that we here in Congress can have the right in the separation of powers to overrule the Supreme Court?

Not to overrule, but to pass laws here to check the balance of the Supreme Court?

Mr. Speaker, the argument that embryonic stem cell research can contribute to life-saving research is emotionally persuasive, but it is never justifiable to deliberately end one life, even to save others. There are alternative sources of stem cells without engaging in research that purposefully takes a life. We debated an alternative stem cell bill on this floor yesterday, and it is unfortunate it did not get the support of those Members here today crying aloud how we are denying vital lifesaving research.

Furthermore, we are already funding such research. In 2001, President Bush announced federal funding for the embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created. There are 78 of these approved lines and only 22 of them are currently being used in federally funded research. These lines are so useful that they are used in 85 percent of the published embryonic stem cell studies in the world.

In fact, President Bush's policy is generous. In 2005 NIH spent $38 million, up $13 million from 2004. Most importantly, the current ban on embryonic research does not prevent private funding for embryonic stem cell research. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Newport Beach bond trader Bill Gross are among several private donors who have provided millions of dollars toward embryonic stem cell research.

Proponents also claim that the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world in embryonic stem cell research and that increased federal funding would close the gap. The fact is the United States leads the world in embryonic stem cell research. A recent Nature Journal publication states that U.S. scientists contributed 46 percent of all stem cell publications since 1998. Germany comes far second representing 10 percent of studies, and the remaining 44 percent derive from between 16 other countries.

It is unnecessary and morally offensive to use taxpayer money to expand embryonic stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting President Bush's veto.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague also for his point that values are important here in Congress. That is why we are here. So I rise in support of the rule and support of the amendment.

In 1996, we passed in Congress the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, so this is not a new issue, back in 1996 to protect the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, DOMA does not go far enough to protect States from courts that choose to drastically alter marriage laws. This amendment is greatly supported, greatly supported by the majority of Americans. As pointed out earlier, 20 States, 20 States voted and elected to define marriage as between a man and a woman by overwhelming majorities.

On average, these States have approved constitutional amendments with 70 percent approval ratings. Additionally, 23 other States have enacted laws that similarly limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman, and my State is among them, Florida. Yet, not one State, I say to my colleagues over there, not one State has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals. Explain that to me. Why, if there is so much concern over there, why a State has not permitted it?

Without this amendment, activist judges would be able to force recognition of same-sex marriage upon States that have democratically voted not to sanction these unions. This is a miscarriage of judicial power. I urge my colleagues to support the democratic process and support the Federal marriage amendment.