[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7504-H7509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        TAX CODE NEEDS REVAMPING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk tonight about a number of 
issues, but before I do so, I wanted to commend the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina on a very, very important topic, one which I think is 
probably one of the biggest issues in America today, and certainly I 
appreciate your leadership on it. I am from Savannah, your hometown. As 
the gentlewoman knows, we have a tremendous problem because of so many 
teenage pregnancies.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I appreciate the gentleman recognizing this as an 
important problem, and part of the thing I have been trying to get my 
colleagues to recognize is we are part of the problem if we are not 
part of the solution. We as adults in society or parents or leaders or 
colleagues in this deliberative body, we have to make opportunities for 
young people to say yes to positive options, rather than their saying 
yes to negative ones.
  As the gentleman and I know, there are no good solutions to teenage 
pregnancy. Once they are pregnant, there are a lot of consequences to 
that action. There is a young kid raising a kid. That kid, as I said 
earlier, may have societal problems where they draw on the public for a 
variety of their assistance. They are sometimes behind in school, the 
young ladies sometimes repeat that cycle, and part of my bringing this 
issue up is to suggest that all of us have a responsibility.
  I am not here to hold them up in scorn. I am up here to say I care 
about young people, and if I care about them, I want them to be 
positive in life, and teenage pregnancy gets in the way of them 
developing themselves and being the adult that they could be.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I agree with the gentlewoman. I was speaking the other 
day in Brunswick High School, to the junior school, a lot of 16-year-
old kids. The young women in that class were particularly interested in 
a lot of issues, but we got on the success of abortion and so forth, 
and the subject of choice, and one of the things that I said is 
remember, you are 16 years old. Decisions about sex are tremendous, 
major league, life-affecting decisions. You may be pro-life, you may be 
pro-choice. Whatever your decision is, it is a major league decision 
when you get into that arena.
  So I would say to you, young 16-year-old boys and girls, be very, 
very careful. This is not deciding what kind of car you are going to 
drive, what you are going to study, what sport you are going to play or 
what band you are going to go to. This is a major league decision, 
whatever you choose.
  You need to be very, very cautious about it. Sometimes I think that 
we as adults do not talk to the kids enough. I have a 14-year-old 
daughter, and in talking to her, and then turning around and talking to 
my peer group parents, I am alarmed at what the parents are not talking 
to their children about.
  To some degree, and I would say it is my opinion, if my daughter gets 
pregnant, it is not her school's fault, at some point it is not my 
fault or her mother's fault, it is her fault. To put that kind of 
mentality in her where she is shifting the responsibility and saying 
you know what, look at yourself in the mirror, you have to take a major 
role here, and we are always reluctant to talk frankly with our young 
people, and yet in so many ways they can handle it. But we have got to 
put them on notice and talk to them.
  I find time and time again, parents are not talking to them. I have 
some drug statistics that I will share later on, it is just 
unbelievable that parents do not know what is going on with their kids.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I want to say to 
you young people can handle more than you think, and they are handling 
more than you realize. We are afraid somehow to converse with our young 
people, but we are conversing non-verbally with them. We give mixed 
signals that it is not important. We talk about those things that are 
important to us. We have somehow a reservation about talking about sex.
  I am old enough to know my mother had reservations in talking to me 
about it. I probably conveyed that similar reservation to my adult 
children, they tell me. But as we get older, we understand that we need 
to embrace that.
  I have looked at talking about sexuality very early, through your 
church, your home setting, as well as your school, so young people can 
see that this is not a mystery. This is God's way of procreation, but 
it is also having people to be positive about themselves. Just as a 
young man is positive about himself running around the track. He 
abstained from smoking and staying up. Why? Because he wants to achieve 
something.
  We want to have that same attitude in our young people, that they 
want to achieve something in life, so you have to say yes to this set 
of things, staying in school, making sure you do not put certain things 
in your body, you do not engage in premature sex, that you find those 
kind of development skills that challenge your mind. You take difficult 
classes. That is because you have a goal.
  So if we begin giving young people goals, rather than scorning them, 
I think you would have less young people in trouble. I commend the 
gentleman and express my appreciation for allowing me to interact. I 
know the gentleman cares about this issue.
  Although we come at it a different way, I think abstinence certainly 
is the number one issue. I also think we should do a lot about family 
planning. I just think to ignore that young people are engaged in 
conversation with people is to ignore reality. That is why family 
planning is so important. That is why I think parents ought to talk to 
the young people, because other young people are talking to them.
  You would be amazed. I just had a forum with a group to talk about 
the media's influence on them. You would be amazed at what young people 
are saying to each other about the subject.

  Mr. KINGSTON. On the subject of family planning, the most effective 
course is going to be at home in the family, not the extended 
institutional family.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. You know, all of our young people are not blessed like 
your young people and mine, and to ignore that is to dump them in the 
streets. They need some institution embracing them or somewhere where 
they get factual information and credible information, not the stuff 
they hear on the street.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I agree. Parents have got to come back into the 
formula. We are moving in the same direction on this.
  Let me say one thing that I have been appalled about with the 
parents. They are bombarded. When you ask parents, well, do you listen 
to your kids' rock and roll? And parents think rock and roll, they 
think the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd or Jimi Hendrix. They 
think of their rock and roll generation. They do not understand the 
Fujis or Tori Amos or some of the groups now that are out there. They 
are not singing ``I want to hold your hand.'' They are very explicit on 
sex. Sometimes those explicit sex labels or lyrics are not on the CDs 
that the kids are buying. Parents should take that opportunity to say 
``let me see what you are listening to,'' because now most of them have 
the words out there.
  I have had this happen with my daughter Betsy, because I like music, 
and I like to sit down with her. I cannot believe some of the stuff, 
the ``F'' word all the time; sex, all the time. What it does is it 
gives parents an opportunity to see what their kids are up against 
every single day of their life, but it also gives, between parent and 
child, an opportunity to talk. Sometimes parents say ``I am a little 
reluctant to talk to my kids about sex or whatever, and I do not know 
how to bring it up.''
  All you have got to do is open some of their magazines, maybe read 
some of the inscriptions in the yearbook, read some of the lyrics on 
their records and CDs. There is a volume of material

[[Page H7505]]

that is an entree for parents to get involved and started talking.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I agree. There is a lot of opportunity for parents to 
give monitoring guidance and advice about not only the magazines they 
read, the music they hear, the shows they look at, but that comes from 
parents being engaged with their young people and taking some 
responsibility and not leaving it indiscriminately to their young 
people to buy whatever they want or watch whatever TV they watch.
  Also parents ought to express concerns to the media. Still, it is a 
market-driven situation. If there were enough parents speaking out, 
young people are going to like different music from what their parents 
liked. What we call rock and roll, our parents called something else. 
So you should expect that. Young people want their music. Your music is 
called the oldies. They do not want to hear that stuff. My kids used to 
turn the radio when they got in my car. They knew where it was.
  So you have got to have an opportunity for them choosing their own 
music. So the idea is to set standards for them to select within their 
sphere. You cannot make them like what we like. That is inconceivable, 
for young people to embrace what their parents liked. But we can have 
standards by saying what is acceptable for your development, what is 
ideal for your character formation. Those are things that come from 
parents engaging, and not enough parents are there, so institutions 
must be engaged. To ignore that is to relegate too many young people to 
the street, and we will continue having what is happening already.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the young man for allowing me to interact in 
his special order.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I appreciate your leadership, and look forward to 
working with you as we wrestle with the issues.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the issues I wanted to talk about, that ties into 
this on the subject of age-appropriate parenting and marriage-based 
parenting, has to do with the kooky policy that we have in our Internal 
Revenue Code that says when two people get married, they pay more 
taxes. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that right now it is less expensive to 
live together than to get married.
  If we agree that marriage is a good institution and we agree that 
marriage-based parenting is the best way to raise kids, then we should 
have a tax policy that says when you get married, you either get a tax 
credit, or at least you do not have to pay higher taxes because of the 
union between a man and a woman. But right now we have what is called a 
marriage tax penalty, and it penalizes, of course, working folks.
  It is time for this Congress to act on the marriage tax penalty, to 
repeal it, so that people are not encouraged to live together and they 
are encouraged to get married, if that is what they want to do, or at 
least not be discouraged by the tax system.

                              {time}  1945

  A couple of things also that are affecting the family that I wanted 
to share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, on this subject of children. 
Right now, average middle school students, and this is a very recent 
survey, shows that by the age of 13, 40 percent of American students 
know someone who has used acid, cocaine or heroin. Thirty-four percent 
of the 13-year-olds have friends who are regular drinkers. Twenty-nine 
percent of the 13-year-olds in America can buy marijuana within a day, 
and 12 percent can buy it within an hour. Twenty-seven percent have 
friends who use marijuana, and one of four have attended a party in the 
last six months where marijuana was used. I do not think parents know 
to what extent the drug problem is in America.
  Now, let us go up a couple of years. By the time these kids are out 
of middle school and in their senior year, age 17, two-thirds can buy 
marijuana within a day, 44 percent within an hour; 62 percent have 
friends who have used marijuana, and 21 percent will say that more than 
half of their friends use marijuana. Half of the kids have seen drugs 
personally sold on their school grounds, and 60 percent of American 17-
year-olds attend schools where 60 percent of the kids drink on the 
grounds.
  We are losing the war against drugs. I think that the President 
certainly has a right to bring up this tobacco situation, and we need 
to reduce teen tobacco use. There is no question about it, and I think 
we can do a lot in that regard. Yet, while we are debating the tobacco 
wars, it is a shame that for the columns and the ink and the 
advertising and the air time that has been spent on tobacco, probably 
not even one-tenth has been spent on the drug problem. These are 
tremendous problems, Mr. Speaker.
  This is something that centrally affects all of the children in 
America, and if one does not believe it, talk to a 13-year-old, 14-
year-old, 15-year-old, 16-year-old, 17-year-old; find out from them 
directly, do not take my word for it. Sit down and talk to the kids. As 
somebody who goes to lots of high schools and lots of student groups to 
talk, I have seen these statistics are roughly true. I believe that is 
a tremendous crisis that is facing our country.
  Our country, as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, has lots of crises, 
and we as Americans, the great Nation that we are, we face crisis after 
crisis and we live up to it, and time and time again we pull through. I 
think a lot of the secret to our success is because of something that 
happened on this date in history, September 17 in 1787, and that was of 
course the signing and general ratification of the United States 
Constitution. Our Constitution, as my colleagues know, came as a result 
of the Articles of Confederation not being strong enough to meet the 
needs of the American system of government after the Revolutionary War.
  The thing about after the Revolutionary War, we spend a lot of time 
talking about Francis Scott Key, and we can stand on the gunnel of the 
ship with him as we see the ramparts in the air and the flying through 
the night, and we think about the glory of the great American 
Revolution. We think about Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox of the 
Revolution, hiding in the oak trees and the Spanish moss with the 
alligators and the snakes and the mosquitoes and running raids on the 
British soldiers, and them realizing that if somebody is willing to 
sacrifice that much for freedom that they probably cannot be defeated 
on the battlefield.
  We think about the Francis Marions of the world. We think about 
George Washington at Valley Forge. We think about Nathan Hale, a school 
teacher who went behind enemy lines to spy on Cornwallis, and who, when 
caught, with a noose around his neck, utters the words, ``I regret that 
I have but one life to give for my country.''
  Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that was moments after the British asked 
him what his last request was, and his last request was to write a 
letter to his mother and asked them to deliver it, and the British 
soldier took the paper and tore it up, and he turned around and made 
this great and wonderful lasting statement about America.
  That is our glorious Revolution, and yet sometimes we do not remember 
that once in war, after we take the hill, sometimes the work is not 
finished at all, but just beginning in a new phase, and that is where 
America was after the Revolutionary War. We had a weak executive. We 
had no, virtually no court system, and the power of the States was 
tremendous, so there was little State unity. It was clear that the 
Articles of Confederation needed to be rewritten. So a Constitutional 
Convention was called on May 14, 1787.
  Now, politicians being politicians, it took them from the 14th until 
the 25th until they had a quorum. Now, we think about how long it takes 
us to have a quorum coming over from Longworth and Cannon and so forth, 
but here they had to go by horseback and sometimes they did not even 
know there was a quorum call. But it took them a while, and finally 
they got a quorum and they went to work, and out of 55 delegates, 39 
made it until September 17 to sign the Constitution.
  It was a great period in history. A lot of the big minds, the great 
minds of our history were in the room: Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin 
Franklin, Madison, Washington, a lot of the great thinkers, and yet 
other people were gone. Thomas Jefferson was in France; John Adams was 
in Britain; Samuel Adams, not a delegate; Patrick Henry refused to 
because he did not like the idea of a strong, centralized government.
  They got together and in September passed it. It took until July 1788 
before

[[Page H7506]]

the State of New York actually ratified it, but the Constitution was 
brilliant. It was profound, and it was concise.
  The major parts of it, part one, the legislative branch, the 
apportionment, at that time there was a lot of growth in the State of 
Virginia, some growth of Georgia coming on, but a question as to how 
many Members of Congress would we in Georgia have. It was decided 
through a tie, and I believe that Washington and Franklin were both 
very integral on this, George Washington actually leading the way, that 
we would have one Member of Congress per 30,000 people, so Georgia 
ended up with three Members of Congress and Virginia with 25.
  Now, when we think about our Congress today, we are at 600,000, and 
no doubt at the next reapportionment it will probably ease up to 
625,000 or something like that.
  The legislative branch was outlined in section 1. Also, the power to 
collect taxes and borrow money. Now, just think about that. We have 
certainly utilized section 1 of the Constitution to the fullest extent. 
Section 2 gave the executive branch strong authority. Section 3, the 
judicial branch.
  Now, one of the problems that I think we are experiencing in some 
parts of the judiciary, the judges can get in an ivory tower. We know 
the case last year, Mr. Speaker, of a judge who when a drug case got to 
his court, and the circumstances were such that a woman was driving 
around in a high-risk area in, I believe, New York City, some guys came 
out from the darkness. She opened the trunk, and they pulled out of it 
two duffle bags of cocaine. When this happened, the police sting 
operation moved in, and the people ran, and the judge threw out the two 
duffle bags of cocaine as inadmissible evidence because he said that in 
that part of the country, in that part of the city, it was appropriate 
to run from the police because the police are oppressive.
  Now, that was later, because of the public outcry, the judge backed 
down on that, but it is pretty bad when we have members of the 
judiciary who are so high in an ivory tower that they remove themselves 
from the real world.
  I think that can happen in any branch, but with our legislative, 
executive and judicial branches of government, we all have to keep each 
other in check from time to time, and certainly the judges have no 
hesitation of keeping Congress in check.
  Section 4 of the Constitution, the interstate commerce clause, part 
of that was how does a State become part of the Nation. When I was 
first elected to Congress in 1993, I believe one of the big issues was 
making Washington, DC, a new State, which was voted down, but that was 
actually outlined in the Constitution.

  Section 5, amending the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, since the 
beginning, we have had 4,900 proposals to amend the Constitution. I 
believe only 27 have passed. And Miss Johnson at Brunswick High School 
corrected me on that the other day, so if I am wrong, we are going to 
talk to Miss Johnson about it, but Miss Johnson is never wrong.
  We have votes on this this year. As my colleagues know, the Balanced 
Budget Amendment would be another amendment; and flag desecration, to 
prevent people from burning Old Glory or using it in certain manners, 
as they did in one art gallery where they put the flag, the United 
States flag on the floor and had, including young school children, had 
it arranged such that people had to walk on the flag to see the art 
exhibit. That would have been prohibited. Another so-called art exhibit 
had Old Glory stuck in a toilet halfway, and I guess in certain parts 
of the world, that is considered art. But the flag desecration 
amendment would have addressed things like that, and that was in 
section 5.
  Section 6, one thing we argue very often around here is the Nation 
rules over State, national government can supersede State laws, and 
that is something that of course we fought a war over, and some other 
issues. That is constantly argued about and debated year after year.
  Section 7 talks about how to ratify. As I said, actually New York 
waited almost a year to ratify the Constitution. North Carolina and 
Rhode Island actually held out for the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of 
Rights, as we know, were the first 10 amendments, including very, very 
importantly, the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of 
religion, freedom of the right to assemble.
  I reminded the school kids the other day, the right to assemble, how 
important that was to civil rights activists in the 1960s when the 
civil rights movement was at its heyday. Where did they meet? They met 
in churches, and they did not need a permit from the governor to do 
that, as in the early days of the colonies they had to have a permit 
from King George to get together and that was one way that they kept 
people from organizing.
  In terms of freedom of speech, we are having huge debates right now 
on what should be on the airways, what should be on the Internet. The 
number one hit area on the Internet today is pornography.
  Now, the question is, Mr. Speaker, should we have the right of 
freedom of information, freedom of speech on the Internet? I think most 
Americans would say yes to that. Okay, what about the 10-year-old? 
Should he or she have a right to it? People would say well, yes. Now, 
how do we draw the line? It gets a little more complicated the more we 
explore what our rights are and then what we are potentially exposing 
people to.
  Other things, do we want certain people to have access to how to make 
a bomb, and would that be something that we would want to guarantee 
that freedom of speech right to certain folks, maybe prisoners or 
something like that? Points to ponder.
  We have right now under the freedom of religion debated the Istook 
amendment. That is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would 
allow for nondenominational student-led prayer in school, and yet, 
there are some cases where that is going to be very controversial. We 
may and may not have a vote on that amendment. But again, it goes back 
to the First Amendment.
  The Second Amendment, well, we never, ever debated gun control in 
this body, Mr. Speaker. At least not this week, we will probably get to 
it next week. But we are always debating these things, and I think the 
fact that we are makes the Constitution a living, breathing instrument. 
It shows how profound it is. People do not realize that the American 
Constitution, while over 200 years old, is one of the oldest 
constitutions in the world. Britain, France, Japan, all the major 
nations of the world have had to rewrite their constitutions, but not 
ours.

                              {time}  2000

  It is a great, great document. On this date we, as Americans, should 
be as aware of September 17 as we are of July 4. I want to mention some 
names. Mr. Speaker, I will submit all these names, but I want to read a 
few names, because I want to show what these people were.
  George Washington, a planner, a soldier, a statesman;
  Nathaniel Gorham from Massachusetts, a merchant;
  Rufus King from Massachusetts, a lawyer;
  From New Hampshire, John Langdon, a merchant;
  William Samuel Johnson, from Connecticut, a lawyer;
  Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, a shoemaker;
  David Brearly, from New Jersey, a lawyer;
  Benjamin Franklin, a printer, a statesman, a scientist, a 
philosopher;
  Thomas Mifflin from Pennsylvania, a merchant;
  Robert Morris from Pennsylvania, a merchant;
  John Dickinson from Delaware, a lawyer;
  Jacob Broom from Delaware, a surveyor;
  William Blount from North Carolina, a landowner;
  Hugh Williamson from North Carolina, a physician;
  Charles Pinckney, from South Carolina, a lawyer and a soldier;
  William Few, from Georgia, a lawyer and member of the State 
legislature;
  And Abraham Baldwin from Georgia, a clergyman.
  They came from all walks of life, and they got together and formed 
almost a perfect document, or to the world of government certainly one.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia. Indeed, 
as he recalls those who signed the

[[Page H7507]]

document that was ratified as the Constitution of the United States, I 
am reminded that in just a few hours, in the Valley of the Sun in the 
Sixth District of Arizona, many who reference this Constitution will 
gather to celebrate the vibrancy of this document and its importance.
  As the chairman of the Congressional Caucus founded during the 104th 
Congress, I would say to my colleagues in this institution, and Mr. 
Speaker, to those who watch throughout our Nation and around the world, 
that it is this document that we swear to uphold and defend when we 
take the oath of office.
  The challenge for us, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is not one that can be 
summed up with some sort of political phraseology. There are those here 
in this body and elsewhere in this town who talk about reinventing 
government. There are others who have written, part of the Fourth 
Estate who have written, as journalists, that this new conservative 
majority in Congress is here for a revolution.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I do not believe what we are all 
about is a reinvention or a revolution. I think, instead, that we would 
be better off as a country and as a Congress representing those in our 
country to really try to work for a restoration, a restoration of what 
this document intends, enumerated powers specified in the Constitution 
of the United States.
  Sadly, what we have seen over the years is that many have taken this 
document, and they have put it up on the shelf. It is dusted off from 
time to time in commemorative weeks for historical observance, but our 
challenge is to live the Constitution. It is a remarkable document, 
founding this great Republic. If we remember, if we restore what this 
document means, with its limited and enumerated powers, then we will 
serve the American people well.
  I would say that certainly there are differences of opinion. We 
champion those differences of opinion. There are those who claim that 
this document has great implied powers. That debate should continue. 
That is the essence of our constitutional republic.
  But I think it would be important to remember that as one author put 
it, Catherine Drinker Bowen, in that remarkable title that reviews the 
history of the Constitutional Convention, that what our founders were 
about was putting together what she titled in her book ``The Miracle at 
Philadelphia''; the fact that people from different walks of life, 
enduring hardship, covering great distances, would embrace a notion 
that has continued to thrive over two centuries, the notion that here 
in this Nation, the people are sovereign, a thought that was 
groundbreaking 2 centuries ago, where, in the kingdoms of Europe, and 
indeed throughout the world, the notion was that power was conferred 
from God on a sovereign, someone sitting upon a throne. Here, our 
notion of governance is that God confers rights on people first, and 
then people confer power on the government.
  Small wonder, then, that the document starts with the three words, 
``We, the people.'' And to understand the eloquence and the miracle of 
that accomplishment in Philadelphia is something that I think all too 
often we perhaps minimize or perhaps try to put in a special 
relationship. These were very human people with very human failings.
  The book, ``Miracle at Philadelphia'' encapsulates some debates that, 
quite candidly, Mr. Speaker, were less than civil, emotional 
outpourings, honest disagreements; and yes, from time to time, dare I 
say it, personal attacks. But even through the midst of that type of 
strife came this remarkable document.
  It would be my hope that as we continue to work through this 105th 
Congress, that we work together, acknowledging differences, coming to 
the floor in this remarkable Chamber, where 435 of us have been chosen 
by our fellow citizens to represent them.
  It would be my hope that we would do more than simply take this 
document out and dust it off and speak of it eloquently in 
commemorative fashion, but to remember that this is a living document, 
a Constitution of enumerated powers that, if we remember and restore 
that intent, we will have what Thomas Jefferson spoke of when he talked 
about a limited but effective government. That is what we should 
rejoice in and that is what we remember tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, as pleased as I am to join my colleague, the gentleman 
from Georgia, I am also very pleased to join one of the newcomers to 
the people's House who joined us here in the 105th Congress, our good 
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
really was quite inspired in hearing the gentlemen speak of what is 
being celebrated this week as a truly momentous occasion, the history 
of the world.
  We tend to overlook it, but the little booklet the gentleman is 
holding in his hand, I carry one of those in my briefcase. Every once 
in a while, especially traveling back and forth between here in 
Washington on the train, just the other day I read through it. I try to 
read through it every once in a while when we are dealing with an issue 
that a portion of the Constitution may deal with specifically. I just 
find it very helpful.
  But as I was thinking about participating in this discussion tonight, 
I thought of doing something a little bit differently, and in talking 
to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and those that may be viewing hopefully back 
home in New Jersey, I will talk a little bit about the four people from 
New Jersey who participated and signed the Constitution.
  For my friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and my 
friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], and the chairman 
from Louisiana, I will give a little history on the four gentlemen.
  William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton, David Brearly, and William 
Livingston.
  William Paterson was born in Ireland in 1745. When he was almost 2 
years of age his family emigrated to America, disembarking in 
Newcastle, Delaware. In 1750 he settled in Princeton, New Jersey, which 
is part of my district in central New Jersey, and became a merchant and 
manufacturer of tin goods. His prosperity enabled him to attend local 
private schools in the college of New Jersey, which is now referred to 
as Princeton University.
  Paterson studied law at Princeton under Richard Stockton, a very 
famous name for those of us in central New Jersey, and later was to 
sign the Declaration of Independence. Near the end of the decade he 
began practicing law in New Bromley, in Hunterdon County, also a county 
in my district.

  Then he moved to South Branch, a section of Somerset County, which is 
my home county. In 1779 he located in New Brunswick, central New 
Jersey, which is the town that I was born in. The War for Independence 
broke out. Paterson joined the vanguard of the New Jersey patriots, 
served in the provincial Congress from 1775 to 1776, the Constitutional 
Convention in 1776, several other capacities. He also held a militia 
commission, and from 1776 to 1783 he was the Attorney General for New 
Jersey, a task that occupied so much of his time that it prevented him 
from accepting election to the Continental Congress in 1780.
  In 1789 he was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate, and he played a 
pivotal role in drafting the Judiciary Act of 1789. The next position 
was Governor of his State, my State, for 4 years. He began working on a 
publication called the Laws of the State of New Jersey. During the 
years of 1793 through 1806 he served, and I did not know this until 
this evening, he served as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme 
Court, and served with distinction.
  Jonathan Dayton was born in Elizabethtown, now known as Elizabeth. He 
practice studied law and established a practice. He sat in the 
Continental Congress through 1788. He became a foremost Federalist 
legislator, and although he was elected a representative, he did not 
serve in the first Congress in 1789, preferring, instead, to become a 
member of the New Jersey Council and Speaker of the State Assembly.
  However, he did serve in this body, in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, from 1791 to 1799, and became Speaker in the Fourth 
and Fifth Congresses. The city of Dayton, Ohio, was named after him. He 
owned extensively landholdings there, I am told over 250,000

[[Page H7508]]

acres. The city of Dayton, named after him, many believed to be his 
greatest monument.
  One of the two other people, David Brearly, was born in Trenton, New 
Jersey. He attended but did not graduate from Princeton; the College of 
New Jersey, now Princeton. He was elected Chief Justice of the New 
Jersey Supreme Court, a position he held until 1789. His career was 
short. He presided at the New Jersey Convention that ratified the 
Constitution in 1788, and served as a presidential elector in 1789, and 
President Washington appointed him as a Federal district judge. He 
served in that capacity until his death.
  The last person, William Livingston, was born in Albany, New York, in 
1723. He became a member of the Essex County, New Jersey, Committee of 
Correspondence, and in 1776 he left the Congress to command the New 
Jersey militia as brigadier general, and held this post until he was 
elected later. He was the first Governor of the State of New Jersey. 
Tom Caine served as the Governor of our State in the 1980s, and he is a 
direct descendent of William Livingston.
  He served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, though his 
gubernatorial duties prevented him from attending many of the sessions. 
I am very proud of these four gentlemen from New Jersey.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would say, Livingston also sat on the 
committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence.
  Mr. PAPPAS. That is correct.
  Mr. KINGSTON. He is a very important historical figure. The gentleman 
actually had a fifth delegate named William Churchill Houston who did 
not sign. And it is interesting, because in Georgia we had a William 
Houstoun who also did not sign. They spelled their names slightly 
differently. The one in the New Jersey was H-O-U-S-T-O-N and the 
Georgia one is H-O-U-S-T-O-U-N.
  As was the case with so many of the delegates, they had to go back 
home and conduct business or see about family or whatever, and not all 
of them made it to the actual signing, but boy, did they make their 
imprint on history, not just for all of us, but in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, I thank my colleagues from Georgia and New 
Jersey, and I think about those who helped to write our Constitution 
but also those blessed in history to help draft the Declaration of 
Independence. I think of so many who gave so much, and indeed history 
has well-chronicled the hardships of many of those who signed our 
Declaration.
  As eloquent as the first few words in the Constitution of the United 
States are, that wonderful, beautiful Preamble, I am also struck by the 
faith and the determination of our Nation's Founders in the final words 
in the Declaration. Those words we should remember.

       And for the support of this declaration, with a firm 
     reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually 
     pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred 
     honor.

  Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that for some reason, as years pass, we 
tend to view these events perhaps not through rose colored glass but 
with an unwillingness or, dare I say, ignorance of the hardships many 
of these people faced. Several signers of the Declaration saw their 
personal fortunes fall as the cause of this Nation rose. Others gave 
their lives. Others saw their families destroyed. It was not some 
small, some item done without consequence.
  For as great as the impact was on the world, it can be argued the 
impact was felt also in a much more personal way by those who pledged 
their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that this is a living document, our 
Constitution now, which we celebrate this week, over two centuries and 
a decade being applied, being the foundation of our constitutional 
republic, and after that beautiful Preamble----
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield. Would the gentleman go 
ahead and read the Preamble or should I? I think we should remind 
everybody about this.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would be honored.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Back years ago schoolchildren were required to memorize 
this. What a shame that is no longer the case.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia for pointing that 
out, and let me indeed read the Preamble.

       We the people of the United States, in order to form a more 
     perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic 
     tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
     general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
     ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this 
     Constitution for the United States of America.

  Mr. Speaker, after that beautiful Preamble comes Article I, section 1 
of the Constitution. And I believe that is something where we need to 
remember and restore the intent of our Founders of the past. ``All 
legislative powers herein grant,'' it reads in Article I section 1, 
``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress 
of the United States,'' and yet one of the historically seismic shifts, 
if you will, in our opinion, constitutional republic has come in this 
century as this institution has ceded its power to a branch of 
government not articulated in this document but one, Mr. Speaker, that 
I believe historians will comment on, a fourth branch of government, 
the regulatory state.
  With that in mind, I believe we should heed what Article I, section 1 
of the Constitution says, and that is why I have introduced in the 
House and in the other body Senator Brownback of Kansas has introduced 
the Congressional Responsibility Act; understanding that as industries 
have developed; that as life in these United States has changed over 
the years, that there must be a modicum of regulation; that as Theodore 
Roosevelt pointed out earlier in this century, it was good to involve 
experts, men of science in government, helping us draft regulations to 
ensure the safety of food product, to ensure transportation safety, to 
ensure cosmetic safety, and as we have seen with many different 
industries that have literally been born in this century, aviation, 
broadcasting, a variety of different endeavors, there needs to be 
regulation but, again, we should remember Article I, section 1 of this 
document.
  So what the Congressional Responsibility Act would do would be to 
simply say that when regulations are promulgated by these executive 
agencies within the Executive Branch, that in addition to a time of 
public comment; that before these regulations, these proposed 
regulations, are published pell-mell in the Federal Register, that 
those proposed regulations be returned to the Congress for an up or 
down vote in expedited fashion. And if voted down, well, then those 
proposed regulations would be sent to a respective committee of 
jurisdiction and those regulations, proposed regulations, would be 
treated as any other proposed law.
  Because here is the curious occurrence that exists today, and it is 
this. What we have done unintentionally, what we have done, born with 
the best of intentions, has been to transfer power not only from the 
people to their elected officials but ofttimes now to bypass elected 
officials and put the power in the hands of the unelected.
  Mr. PAPPAS. If the gentleman would yield, Mr. Kingston.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would gladly yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAPPAS. If the gentleman would yield, I wanted to respond to my 
friend from Arizona. I experienced the same thing as a county elected 
official in my State of New Jersey; that the unelected bureaucracy, at 
whatever level of government, tends to desire to have more of the 
decision-making; that we as elected officials are accountable to our 
constituency for. That is something that is pervasive in all levels of 
government. What happens here at the Federal level, so difficult for 
the public to understand and to deal with, is the size of it, the scope 
of it and the sense that it is so distant; that there is an inability 
for the public, the taxpayer that provides the funds for these 
programs, to have any kind of an effect on the programs and the 
regulations that are enacted that affect our daily lives.
  I have just been pleased to be a part of this special order, to again 
celebrate something that we have and are so fortunate to have as 
American citizens. I think we take it for granted, and this

[[Page H7509]]

opportunity to highlight an amazing document that an amazing group of 
people wrote, and were it not for divine providence, as they refer to 
it, the hand of God, we would not be here as Americans today.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleagues for this opportunity and also to 
point out that this is a living document that we need to restore. That 
is our mission here in the 105th Congress as we work to honestly engage 
each other in debate and problem solving; as we work within this 
constitutional republic.
  I mentioned earlier the work of Catherine Drinker Bowen and her book 
``Miracle at Philadelphia.'' Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the miracle 
that should continue to astound the world is that we, as human beings, 
for all our failings and frailties and disagreements and challenges, 
have been able to preserve this constitutional republic for two 
centuries and a decade.

  Indeed, the miracle occurred not in Philadelphia two centuries ago, 
although that was important, the miracle occurs in Phoenix, AZ; in 
Phoenix city, AL; in Flagstaff, AZ; in Savannah, GA. The miracle 
endures, and our challenge is to preserve it, to protect it, to defend 
it and to represent those who sent us here to the best of our 
abilities. And it is my privilege to yield to my colleague from Georgia 
for his closing thoughts.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. The interesting 
thing, along the lines of the words of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth] in 1997 were said nearly 100 years ago by Grover Cleveland, 
and these are his comments that I want to close with. It says, Mr. 
Speaker, and I quote:

       The man who takes the oath today to preserve, protect, and 
     defend the Constitution of the United States only assumes the 
     solemn obligation which every patriotic citizen--on the farm, 
     in the workshop, in the busy marts of trade and everywhere--
     should share with him. The Constitution which prescribes his 
     oath, my countrymen, is yours; the government you have chosen 
     him to administer for a time is yours; the laws and the 
     entire scheme out of civil rule, from the town meeting to the 
     State capitals and the national capital, is yours. Every 
     voter, as surely as your chief magistrate, under the same 
     high sanction, though in different spheres, exercises a 
     public trust. Nor is this all. Every citizen owes to the 
     country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of fidelity and 
     usefulness. This is the people's will impressed upon the 
     whole framework of our civil policy--municipal, state, and 
     federal; and this is the price of our liberty and the 
     inspiration of our faith in the public.

                          ____________________