    [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2025)]
    [House]
    [Pages H905-H907]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       DESTRUCTION OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY

      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Haridopolos). Under the Speaker's
    announced policy of January 3, 2025, the Chair recognizes the gentleman
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for 30 minutes.
      Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we just got done with a very interesting
    week in which this House passed a budget bill, and now we proceed
    actually to the more difficult process in which, sometime over the next
    4 months, we plan on passing both the reconciliation bill and
    appropriations bills.
      Between the two, we deal with all of government spending. As a
    result, we have an opportunity to look at programs and examine programs
    the way we haven't before, particularly because we have someone as
    President who is somewhat of a person who promises change. Clearly, his
    election meant that they want fundamental changes in government.
      Mr. Speaker, different programs have different goals. Just so the
    public understands, the appropriations bills are for what we call
    discretionary spending. The reconciliation bills are what are referred
    to as mandatory spending. Between the two bills that must eventually
    pass or several separate appropriations bills, we will be looking at
    virtually all of the Federal Government.
      Mr. Speaker, different programs have different goals, and obviously
    one of our goals has to be to reduce spending given that we have over
    $35 trillion in debt.
      Some of these programs also have goals that are perhaps intentional
    and perhaps unintentional. These are the goals that I am going to
    address today.
      By the way, this is relevant whether we are running a $1 trillion or
    over a $1 trillion increase in debt every year, or whether we were, in
    fact, in a surplus situation.
      I am going to look at some programs, which, again, maybe
    intentionally, maybe unintentionally, penalize people who are raising
    children while they are married.
      We had a hearing a couple of weeks ago in a subcommittee which I have
    been fortunate enough to chair. In that hearing, Robert Rector, who
    works for the Heritage Foundation, found approximately 90 programs in
    which eligibility depended upon having a small income.
      In other words, you would lose eligibility for these programs if you
    either worked and, depending on the program, made more than $12,000,
    made more than $25,000, made more than $50,000, or had somebody else in
    the household making more than this amount of money.
      This would include if, say, a single parent had a husband or a wife
    and the single parent was not working or making very little. If they
    married someone with an income of $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000, they
    would lose the benefits from that program.
      We are all familiar with some of these larger programs. I think most
    people wouldn't be able to name all 90, but there are things like
    FoodShare. There is the earned income tax credit, which requires a
    little bit of work, but

    [[Page H906]]

    as you work your way up and get a higher income in the company where
    you work, you would lose that.
      Low-income housing, which I think is maybe the worst program of the
    bunch because you are given housing if you are a young person, allowing
    you to get out from having to live with your parents as a benefit for
    having a low income.
      Medicaid; TANF, a cash benefit; childcare; Pell grants; payments for
    children with some disabilities, all of these programs are conditioned
    upon not making too much money and, of our primary concern today, not
    marrying somebody who makes too much money.
      Frequently, these programs are, in certain ways, more generous than
    the middle class normally receives. A perfect example would be section
    42, low-income tax credits. I have known people who have looked for
    housing, and the housing they get is not as lavish as the housing
    available in low-income housing.
      The programs are set up in a way that the owners of the low-income
    housing are encouraged to build very modern, very upscale apartments
    that maybe some of the average people cannot afford. As a matter of
    fact, a lot of the average people may still be living with their
    parents for a while even after they get married.
      We have our Medicaid program, which is a fine program, providing
    healthcare for the poor. Again, there are a lot of people out there
    working who may have a $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 deductible on
    their medical payments, and of course the government program has, in
    most cases, no deductible.
      We have the FoodShare. All you have to do is talk to people who work
    in the food stores, and they will say that frequently people on the
    FoodShare program can afford types of food that the people who are
    working at the grocery store feel they cannot afford. Not only do we
    have these programs which are conditioned upon not marrying somebody
    with an income, but they even have benefits that are sometimes superior
    to people who are not taking advantage of these programs.
      I mentioned Robert Rector and what he said at the relevant hearing.
    The penalty for getting married obviously varies from person to person,
    but, in his example, a young person who married a father or mother of
    their children would be penalized by $28,000.
      It is, therefore, not surprising that, if my colleagues ask around,
    they will find examples of people who are living together but not
    getting married because they want the benefits. Inevitably, they will
    find the percentage of people getting married when they have children
    falls because the generosity of the programs is such that there is a
    feeling of: Why would I get married at all?
      These programs also cause cheating or breaking the law because, of
    course, they frequently don't catch it if you are getting cash off the
    books. All of these programs encourage working for cash. They also
    encourage, I think, earning money by doing things illegally because
    that is another thing that is not reportable.
      We were in a different hearing the other day, and there was a feeling
    of one of our witnesses who, I think, I would have to say leans toward
    supporting the Democratic Party. They didn't like the fact that
    sometimes people are stuck in the muck and are not making as much money
    as other Americans.

      This woman did not seem to realize that one of the reasons that
    people sometimes make less money is because they shouldn't try to
    improve their lot in their employer's company because, if they improved
    their lot, they would lose some of these 90 benefits.
      Mr. Speaker, a question is: Is this a penalty for getting married? It
    has had a huge impact on society. I point out that in the 1950s, 4
    percent of the children in this country were born out of wedlock. That
    number is now over 40 percent. America has fundamentally changed
    because of these programs.
      The question is: Was this on purpose, or was it an inadvertent
    problem caused by these programs? I think most people would say that
    people didn't realize what they were doing. The fact that we have had
    the number of children born out of wedlock skyrocket from 4 percent to
    over 40 percent was an oversight.
      One thing I think America should realize is there were always
    radicals out there who were trying to get rid of the American family.
      Karl Marx, back in the 1800s, made it clear, I think, because he
    wanted the government to have the absolute power, that he felt that, to
    have his socialist paradise, we had to get rid of the family.
      In the 1960s, the leading feminists, who were celebrated by the left
    at that time, made it clear that a goal of theirs was to get rid of the
    nuclear family.
      Here is Kate Millett, who has been described as the mother of women's
    studies classes which dot our universities around the country: ``The
    complete destruction of traditional marriage and the nuclear family is
    the `revolutionary or utopian' goal of feminism.''
      Linda Gordon, another prominent feminist: ``The nuclear family must
    be destroyed. . . . Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of
    families now is an objectively revolutionary process.''
      Michelle Barrett, in the book ``The Anti-Social Family,'' wrote:
    ``The family sucks the juice out of everything around it, leaving other
    institutions stunted and distorted.''
      There is no shortage of radical feminists. I could quote Angela
    Davis, who some on the left view as a hero, as another person who was
    antifamily.
      More recently, Black Lives Matter, during their ascendancy a few
    years ago, in documents written by their founders, wanted to get rid of
    the Western-prescribed, so-called nuclear family.
      Even after that was out there on the internet, before they took it
    down, a significant number of people in this institution, I think,
    showed up at rallies, or whatever one would call them, sponsored by
    Black Lives Matter, a group that at least initially said they were
    against the traditional family.
      It is entirely possible that one of the reasons we have all of these
    programs is because some of the powerful feminists and Marxists that
    influence what goes on in this body were in favor of destroying the
    nuclear family.
      Mr. Speaker, people can say that there is nobody in this conference
    who would yield to these radical feminists. I remind the public that
    the radical feminists are for abortions at 8\1/2\ months.
      Mr. Speaker, my colleagues would say that nobody here would be for an
    abortion like that--oh, my goodness--but there are individual States
    that have that law right now, and that is what the radical feminists
    wanted.
      My colleagues would say that nobody would allow transgender women in
    women's sports, but, again, that is what the radical feminists want.
    They want to blur the distinctions between men and women, and almost
    all Democrats in this institution follow along and vote to allow
    transgender women in women's sports.
      There is the same thing about transgender women in women's bathrooms.
    My colleagues would say that nobody in Congress would be for
    transgender women in women's bathrooms, but, in fact, the Democratic
    Party is overwhelmingly for that.

                                  {time}  1315

      Now, ask yourself, if the Democratic Party is for these things, all
    of which would have been considered absurd 40 years ago--8\1/2\ month
    abortions, transgender in sports, transgender in women's bathrooms--is
    it too much to conclude that one of the reasons our government's
    programs are designed to destroy marriage is because the power of the
    radical feminists and the power of the Marxists in the Democratic
    Party. It has to be in there for some reason. It is something that we
    should look out for.
      I will point out one more time that I think this is the most critical
    debate that we are going to have over the next 4 or 5 months as we
    debate our appropriation bills and as we debate our reconciliation
    bills. This is a debate we should have regardless of whether we are in
    a difficult financial plight or not.
      I want to emphasize that I don't care if we are running trillion-
    dollar surpluses around here, the idea of putting out programs,
    substantially generous programs whose effect is to destroy the family,
    is wrong.

    [[Page H907]]

      While I certainly know many single parents who are doing a tremendous
    job and have done a tremendous job, when I talk to people in different
    fields, they say the explosion in families without a mother and father
    at home is causing other problems for society. When I talk to law
    enforcement, they feel one of the root causes of crime is the breakdown
    of the American family.
      I am sure, like everybody around here who has been in politics for a
    while, you sit in these committee hearings and hear the problems of
    high crime and murders and such, and people have suggestions as to how
    to deal with them, but we don't spend enough time pointing out that one
    way that would certainly reduce the crime rate, maybe back down to
    where it was in the 1950s, is to do what we can to build up the
    traditional family rather than what we do now, which is trying to have
    as few people as possible in the family.
      The second thing that I am told is that families of all backgrounds
    can have problems with drug abuse. Right now, we have over 100,000
    people a year dying of drug abuse. It can happen everywhere, but again,
    when I talk to the professionals who deal with this,
    disproportionately, the 100,000 people who die every year are from
    difficult family backgrounds. This drug culture, I think, would be less
    strong in America if we did more to promote the traditional family
    rather than doing all we can to make sure the traditional family is
    weakened.
      The third institution I will point out that is harmed by this
    government's policy of penalizing traditional families is education. I
    know my friends on the other side of the aisle like to claim they care
    about education. When I have talked to school superintendents, when I
    have talked to teachers about the additional money that has to be spent
    on children with certain problems, again, those kids are
    disproportionately from families in which you don't have both a mom and
    dad there.
      Again, I know a lot of families like that who do a fantastic job, but
    I am pointing out that if you really cared about education, you would
    look at these programs that have caused the children who are born into
    a family with only one parent there to have skyrocketed from 4 percent
    to over 40 percent.
      I ask the chairman of the relevant committees that are going to have
    to deal with the appropriation bills and deal with their designated
    spending limits on the reconciliation bill to pay particular attention
    to the programs that are designed to penalize the nuclear family, which
    is so despised by Karl Marx and some of the radicals who were around in
    the 1960s and 1970s.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              ____________________