[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 89 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3984-H3986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WEEK IN REVIEW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, today we did vote on the farm bill, as it's 
been referred to, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management 
Act. But as some of us have pointed out--and I attempted to establish 
through an amendment--this was not a farm bill. Eighty percent was 
about food stamps.
  It was a very brilliant move by Members of Congress back when the 
Democrats controlled the majority--the seventies, the eighties--in 
fact, after Vietnam, the post-Watergate era, the most liberal Congress 
until Speaker Pelosi took the gavel. They did a brilliant thing. They 
were able to take so much in the form of welfare, public assistance of 
all kinds, and put it into so many different budgets under the 
jurisdiction of different committees so that if at any one time someone 
went after one area that was multiplicitous, it was simply a 
duplication of other agencies' funds, then they could be marginalized 
and demeaned and have it said, you don't care about women or veterans 
or children or the poor, or whatever. It's worked well, in fact, to the 
point that we now obviously have about $17 trillion in debt more than 
we've had revenue coming in. Basically, we would be, perhaps, Greece or 
Cyprus, other countries that are basically on the verge of bankruptcy 
except that we produce our own money. And the dollar is the 
international currency, so it's allowed all this reckless overspending.
  So I think it's time--and I know there are many others that agree--
that we reform Congress to the point where all public assistance comes 
in one single committee, one area where all public assistance can be 
located. It will be easy to see all the duplications, all the waste, so 
much easier to see areas where fraud is running rampant when you put 
all of those public assistance measures in the same bill.
  I actually proposed an amendment that would strike title IV--which 
was the food stamp program, although it's been cleverly renamed the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP--has a real snap to it. 
But the goal was not to do away with that program. In fact, my friend 
across the aisle, Mr. McGovern, asked me: Are you wanting to do away 
entirely with the food stamp or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program? And I replied before the Rules Committee, on the record, 
before a television camera, into a microphone, no, I didn't want to do 
away with that program. But I did feel it needed to have its own time, 
its own discussion, and not be 80 percent of a farm bill.
  But what is really heartbreaking is not that children are not going 
to have food in America--because whether we bring a farm bill back that 
separates out the food stamp program so we can deal with that 
separately--not do away with it, but deal with it separately--or 
whether it comes back and we're into the rut of continuing to extend 
and extend, children will not be allowed to go hungry.
  But I think back about the Presidential campaign last year and about 
how much the politics around here has degenerated, such that when a 
Republican like Mitt Romney--or John McCain, back in 2008--says I 
disagree with my friend, my opponent, but I know he's a good man and he 
has a good heart. He wants to do good things for the country, we just 
disagree with how to get there. And yet what we have coming back, as 
Mitt Romney saw, was Mitt Romney, after saying he's a good man, a good 
family man, but I think he's wrong on these issues, what came back from 
the drones--the human drones that were speaking on behalf of the 
President--was, gee, he wants to push people off a cliff; he wants 
people to die of cancer; he wants them to get cancer. He's obviously 
painted as a very evil man.

                              {time}  1640

  That came back to mind today during some of the discussions. I heard 
our friend from Maryland, minority whip here, talking about the farm 
bill, blaming Republicans for not being bipartisan when three-fourths 
of the Republicans had voted for the farm bill. Yet our friends across 
the aisle did make it a very partisan measure, and not only made it 
partisan in the rhetoric condemning Republicans for not reaching out, 
things were said in the subsequent discussions when my friend from 
Texas had been here on the House floor, but comments from friends 
across the aisle like children were crying out here for food and 
Republicans, in essence, not only voted down their help but wanted to 
slap them down.
  I would never say that about a friend across the aisle. I think 
they're wrong in the way they want to spend so much more money than we 
have coming in it's bankrupting the country. I would never think for a 
moment that one of my friends from across the aisle wanted to slap down 
children. I just wouldn't bring myself to say that because I know it's 
not true. I think they're very wrongheaded on so many issues. But 
comments like taking not

[[Page H3985]]

only food, but their utensils or table and just leave them with the 
floor, how could we do such a thing?
  Yet, when we look at the food stamp bill that had 20 percent farm in 
it that did not pass today, it certainly wasn't for a lack of work by 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Frank Lucas. Chairman Lucas 
and I don't always agree on things, but I know that man and he is a 
good man, and I did appreciate hearing Mr. Hoyer commenting as much. 
Frank Lucas worked very, very hard on this bill and he actually got 
reforms in here.
  There were actually amendments passed that some didn't like, but it 
was a bipartisan bill. There were some Democrats that voted for this 
bill. That makes it bipartisan. Not like ObamaCare that was rammed down 
the throats of Americans and the Republicans, without having input, 
without having any opportunity for amendment really, just forced upon 
Republicans in the country.
  In fact, there's never been a Congress that has been as closed to 
amendment, as closed to input from the other side, as we witnessed when 
the Democrats took the majority in January of 2007 until they lost the 
majority in November of 2010. Those years saw more closed rules, no 
amendments possible. It was unbelievable the way our friends across the 
aisle were so abusive with the process and preventing almost half of 
the country from having any voice in anything that went on.
  When I hear our friends across the aisle talk about a lack of 
bipartisanship, it's a little difficult. What really is a bit 
heartbreaking is to hear people across the aisle speak so eloquently as 
I sat here listening today, hearing people speak with such incredibly 
persuasive words and expressions and with such venom and passion that, 
if I did not know the truth, I actually would be believing how horrible 
and evil and nasty and child hating Republicans really are.
  However, I know people on this side of the aisle as well. There is 
not anybody that has been elected to Congress--there's no other way to 
get to the House. There is nobody that's been elected on either side of 
the aisle that wants to see a child suffer because of anything we do. 
It is very offensive to have people on one side of the aisle attribute 
those kinds of feelings that we wanted to hurt children. Really? It 
sounds so real and so true.
  How can we ever have legitimate debate in this House of 
Representatives when anybody can stand and attribute such evil 
motivation on the side of the other and make it sound so real? Do we 
have any chance of saving this country when people can come to the 
floor and make such ridiculous allegations sound so persuasive and 
true? You can't have debate like that.
  On the other hand, I have looked in the eyes of constituents of mine. 
As I go all over my district, down to a wonderful little community, it 
brought us recently for a town hall. I go all over the district. One of 
the things that really makes me proud is to be introduced as having 
been to some community more than any other Member of Congress. They 
thought, Oh, well, he is from Tyler. He wouldn't care about us here. I 
care about the whole district. I know all of the people that are 
elected, they do care about their district.
  But when I look into the eyes of constituents who want to provide for 
their children, they want them to have the best that they can provide 
for them, and they talk about standing in line--I've heard this story 
so many times from people who are brokenhearted about it and sometimes 
get angry just thinking about what they've seen and what they've heard.
  But standing in line at a grocery store behind people with a food 
stamp card, and they look in their basket--as one individual said, I 
love crab legs, you know, the big king crab legs. I love those. But we 
haven't been able to have them in our house since who knows when. But 
I'm standing behind a guy who has those in his basket and I'm looking 
longingly, like, When can I ever make enough again where our family can 
have something like that, and then sees the food stamp card pulled out 
and provided. He looks at the king crab legs and looks at his ground 
meat and realizes, because he does pay income tax, he doesn't get more 
back than he pays in, he is actually helping pay for the king crab legs 
when he can't pay for them for himself.
  People across the aisle want to condemn anyone who is working and 
scraping and can't save any money and is trying to decide how in the 
world do we ever get ahead, can we ever get ahead. They're cutting back 
my hours at work. We're doing the best we can, and yet I stand in line 
and see multiple people paying with food stamp cards for things I 
cannot afford.
  How can you begrudge somebody who feels that way? How can you 
begrudge anyone who steps up on behalf of constituents who feel that 
way? We don't want anyone to go hungry. And from the amount of obesity 
in this country by people we are told do not have enough to eat, it 
does seem like we could have a debate about this issue without 
allegations about wanting to slap down or starve children.
  Because when I think of children, I think about those also who are 
growing up right now. They have no say in the amount of money we're 
spending in this Chamber right here, billions and billions and 
billions, with so much waste, fraud, and abuse.

                              {time}  1650

  Yet those very little children who have no voice in what we're doing 
are going to have to pay for our extravagance and our waste and our 
fraud and abuse. What kind of parent would want that? I don't know of 
anybody on either side of the aisle who would want that, but it is what 
we are producing.
  I didn't vote for the farm bill--because it's not a farm bill. I 
believe we need to have a debate where we bring all the public 
assistance into one place so we see what's there and so we can cut out 
as much waste, fraud and abuse as possible, where we can make those 
cuts, because when we're spending the billions and billions and 
billions we are for food supplement, whatever you want to call it, and 
when there is story after story of people who are caught selling 
interest in their food stamp cards or what they buy with their food 
stamp cards, can we really not come and have a discussion about how we 
can quit putting a heavier and heavier burden on children who have no 
voice in this Congress?
  Can we not have a debate and a discussion without demonizing people 
who say, Look, I care about the children who are growing up and who are 
going to be born and who shouldn't have to pay for the extravagance and 
the narcissism within this generation? Can't we have that discussion 
without demonizing one another? I would hope that we could get to that 
point.
  One comment about Tea Party extremism killing the farm bill. When a 
small reform is made to the food stamp program and when this additional 
requirement is added that, for those who are able to work, they will 
need to work, is that evil and mean and just so totally in disregard of 
those who are ``getting'' from everyone else?
  We heard this when Congress wasn't a blip on my radar. We heard this 
over and over as Newt Gingrich and the new Republican majority after 40 
years or so came into this body as the majority, and they said, We are 
going to reform welfare--and they did. President Clinton didn't want 
it. He fought it tooth and nail. Just like the balanced budgets, he 
fought it, he fought it--and he used his veto more than once--but 
finally, it's signed into law. When it's clear to President Clinton 
that there are votes here in a bipartisan way to override his veto, he 
might as well sign it. Now, today, how wonderful it is when he extols 
the virtues of his two terms as President--the virtues of what the 
Republican majority did when they finally reined things in.
  Now, I was told as a freshman and as a very staunch conservative, 
don't even bother to go to the Harvard orientation for new Members of 
Congress because it's just so liberal. They vilify those of us who 
think like we do in that we need to be more conservative in our 
spending, but I went anyway as I enjoy a good debate, and we had 
several. I was struck, even at the liberal Harvard Law School, where 
they've totally forgotten the reason for their founding and of what was 
required of students in those early days as they prepared them to live 
a life in total submission to their savior Jesus Christ. It's amazing 
when you go back and read the things that the students were taught and 
what they had to take an oath to believe, but they're at Harvard.

[[Page H3986]]

  We had a dean come in with charts, who explained, ever since the 
Great Society legislation in the sixties--I know some think maybe it 
was born out of less than noble ideas, but I believe it was born out of 
the best of intentions. They saw people needing help, so let's give 
them money, let's give them help. Gee, there were deadbeat dads around 
the country, so let's give the single moms a check for every child they 
have out of wedlock. Back then, when there was between 6 and 7 percent 
single moms who were struggling to get by, over the years, we have paid 
for more and more children out of wedlock. As philosophers have said, 
if you pay for some activity, you're going to get more of that 
activity. Now in this country we are getting what we've paid for.
  We are past 40 percent single moms and are on our way to 50 percent, 
in large part, I think, because this Congress decided--well-
intentioned--to try to help single moms instead of trying to help them 
reach their God-given potential. Maybe help them with daycare. Get back 
in high school. Finish high school. You can earn so much more if you 
finish high school than if you never do. Get a little college, and 
you'll make more. That's what the statistics tell us. If we care about 
the people, why wouldn't we want to push them?
  These charts from this dean at Harvard showed that, since the Great 
Society legislation, a single mom's income when adjusted for inflation 
for about 30 years was a flat line. Single moms on average did not ever 
improve their situations.
  Then along came what was portrayed as being these evil Republican 
Congressmen and Senators who said, We're going to reform welfare. We're 
going to require people to work who can. They pushed people out of 
being on the dole of the Federal Government, and they pushed them into 
starting to pursue their God-given potential and what they could do for 
themselves and to feel good about themselves because they're providing 
for themselves.
  He pulled out a chart to show a single mother's income when adjusted 
for inflation and after welfare reform--when people were forced to 
work, they could--and wow. For the first time in about 30 years, a 
single mom's income went up when adjusted for inflation.
  So who cared more--those who said, You Republicans are evil for 
trying to make people work who are getting child support from the 
government or are getting welfare? How evil you are. Are they in the 
more virtuous position? Or those who say, I know this will work. I know 
every human being has potential that God put there, and we want them to 
move toward that. We do not want to pay them to be a couch potato and 
to pay them to keep having children out of wedlock and to pay them for 
not pursuing what they're capable of pursuing for themselves and that 
wonderful feeling when you accomplish something for yourself? Who is 
more virtuous in that situation?
  I can tell you, from the rhetoric, that my friends on the Democratic 
side were the virtuous ones and that the Republicans were the evil, 
mean-spirited, self-involved people because they wanted single moms to 
reach their potential and make more money--and it happened just like 
that. So then President Obama comes in, and what does he do? Right off 
the bat, he wants to eliminate the work requirement. I think he was 
motivated out of good intentions, but we're back to where we were.
  We want for the people who have been getting food stamps, if they can 
work, to work. Let's push people toward reaching their potential. 
That's not evil. That's a good thing. People are also free to worship 
whoever, whatever or no one if they wish in America, but there are 
those who say, Well, gee, you're a Christian. The Christian thing is to 
give people money if they need it.

                              {time}  1700

  In Romans 13, it talks about the government is supposed to be an 
encourager of good conduct. An encourager, it would seem, to reach your 
potential, not to kill your potential. To encourage people to reach for 
the stars, not kill a NASA program and force people to teach to a test.
  If we want to keep having a country that is worthy of so many places 
around the world trying any way they can to get into this country, then 
we must protect this country. That's what our oath involves: protect 
the country so it's not overwhelmed. Prevent this country from becoming 
one massive welfare state, but encourage the greatness in people.
  We're not going to help that when we see a leader of a country like 
Syria, an Assad, who has killed so many people, who we would not want 
to support to stay in that position, but he's being challenged by 
people who we know are involved with al Qaeda and al Qaeda-type groups 
and who want to subjugate other Muslims and Christians or kill Coptic 
Christians, as we've seen in some places, kill others, Jews, 
Christians, with whom they disagree. Do we really want to help either 
one of those?
  Back before they had to teach to the test, people learned a little 
bit about history, and they had to learn before World War I. You don't 
find enough people that can talk intelligently about World War I any 
more.
  In fact, we see the polls that say there are more people that can 
name the Three Stooges than can name the three branches of government 
because the tests they've been teaching to have the same requirements 
for everyone. We were doing better when they were local requirements. 
The local people knew best. But back when people were learning history, 
they found out and we were tested on and taught that World War I came 
about because of what we were told were entangling alliances.
  What do we see around Syria? Well, Iran is propping up Assad. Russia 
says we are going to send in the best anti-aircraft defense if you 
start a no-fly zone there. Yet this President, without the support of 
Congress, just like he did not have when he went into Libya--and we 
know how that's turned out. At least four people are dead that wouldn't 
be otherwise. But giving money to Syria, really? A billion dollars is 
what I was reading today. How about taking that billion dollars that's 
going to cause all kinds of death and that will probably in some way, 
some day end up causing the deaths of Americans and Israelis, allies of 
ours, Coptic children, Jewish friends, they're going to kill people 
that were never intended because it's not well enough thought out of 
this administration rushing into Syria.
  Well, we didn't rush in. That's for sure. Perhaps if the President 
had decided early on to go in, then it wouldn't have been so massive an 
al Qaeda movement within the rebels. But we know they're there.
  This is not the thing to do, to get involved in a country where the 
United States national interests will not be served if Assad stays in 
power, and they will not be served if the al Qaeda rebels take over. So 
why are we spending a billion dollars? Why are we sending help to 
either side in that scenario?
  Let's help people at home. Let's use that money to secure our 
borders. Because when it comes to immigration, if we really want to 
care, it's time to secure the borders so legal people coming in do so 
legally and then we'll get an immigration bill passed in no time flat.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________