[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5843-H5848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ASSURING THE FUTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
revise and extend.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, in the last year and a half
I have come here to the well of the House a number of times to talk
about subjects ranging from embryonic stem cells and the challenge of
deriving these cells ethically so that we might hopefully enjoy the
great potential medical benefits. I have come here to talk about
electromagnetic pulse, a very interesting consequence of the detonation
of a nuclear weapon above the atmosphere that produces a surge which is
very much like a lightning strike everywhere all at once or an
enormously enhanced solar storm. And I have come here I think maybe as
many as 18 times in the last year and a half to talk about a problem
which we as a country and we as a world face, and that is the peaking
of oil. We are shortly, I believe, if we haven't already, going to
reach the maximum production rate of oil in the world, and then the
world will need to deal with how we substitute renewables.
But tonight I come to the floor to talk about something that could
very easily become a victim, a casualty of the tyranny of the urgent.
All of us are familiar with this phenomenon in our personal lives, in
our professional lives; it is true for our country that very frequently
the urgent pushes the important off the table. Things you have got to
deal with today frequently push things off until tomorrow that you
might wait until tomorrow to address.
I want to spend a few moments this evening talking about something
that concerns me. We have 10 children in our family, I have 15
grandchildren and two great grandchildren, and I am concerned that I
leave them a country as good and great as I found when I was born into
this country in 1926.
The story that I want to spend a few moments on tonight begins with a
quote from Benjamin Franklin. There are several versions of this. I
have one here from the Dictionary of Quotations, requested from the
Congressional Research Service. It says, ``On leaving Independence Hall
at the end of the constitutional convention in 1787, Franklin was
asked, `Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?' ''
Of course, they were very used to a monarchy because that is what they
lived under as a colony of England.
According to Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate, he replied, ``A
republic, if you can keep it.''
Another version of this has the question asked by a woman who asked
him as he came out of the constitutional convention, ``Mr. Franklin,
what have
[[Page H5844]]
you given us?'' And his reply, ``A republic, Madam, if you can keep
it.'' And that is what I want to talk about tonight, a republic, and if
you can keep it.
So often when I hear people talk about this great country that we
live in, they refer to it as a democracy. A speaker can do this after
the opening exercises which very frequently may include a Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag. And you come to that part of the Pledge which
says ``and the republic for which it stands.'' And having just recited
that, perhaps without thinking about what it means, the person will get
up and talk about this great democracy that we live in and will talk
about our commitment in keeping the world safe for democracy.
What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? And why,
in our pledge of allegiance to the flag, does it say a republic? And
why did Benjamin Franklin emphasize, ``A republic, Madam, if you can
keep it''?
An example of a democracy, and I was interested to find that this was
a quote from Benjamin Franklin, too. A good example of a democracy is
two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for dinner.
You see, in a pure democracy, the will of the majority controls; and
that there are two wolves and one lamb and they cast votes on what they
are going to have for dinner, it very well might be lamb.
I kind of hesitate to use the next example of a democracy because I
really don't want to be misunderstood, Madam Speaker. But if you will
just think about it, I think you will realize that a lynch mob is an
example of a democracy, because clearly in a lynch mob the will of the
majority is being expressed.
{time} 2240
Are you not glad you live in a republic? What is the difference? A
democracy is majority rule. What happens is what the majority wishes.
In a pure democracy, there are no elected leaders. The people simply
vote, and that is what happens. The laws represent the current opinion
of the majority of the people.
In a republic, we have the rule of law. One example in our history
that helps me understand this is an experience with Harry Truman. Take
charge, Harry. You remember the characterization. The steel mills were
striking and the economy was already in trouble. In those days, it
mattered that the steel mills were striking. Today, much of our steel
is made overseas, and it might not matter so much. Then it mattered.
Harry Truman wanted to prevent a worsening of the economy as a result
of the strike of the steel mills. So he issued an executive order, and
what he did was to nationalize the steel mills. What that meant was
that the people who now worked for the steel mills were government
employees because he had nationalized them, and as such, they could not
strike. I remember that was a very popular action.
But the Supreme Court met in emergency session, and in effect what
they said, by the way, I think this is just one of two times that the
Courts have overridden an executive order of the President, and what
the Supreme Court said was in effect was, Mr. President, no matter how
popular that is, you cannot do it because it violates the Constitution.
You see, in a republic, we have the rule of law; and the law in this
Republic in which we are privileged to live is fundamentally the
Constitution. I have here a small copy of the Constitution. It is not a
very big document; but, oh, what an important document it is.
I hear us talking about wanting a democracy in Iraq, and I keep
asking myself the question, Is that really what we want in Iraq, a
democracy? You see, we have three groups there, the Shiia, the Sunni
and the Kurds, and the largest of these far and away are the Shiia.
They were oppressed for many years under Saddam Hussein by the Sunni,
and if we had a pure democracy there, surely the will of the majority
would be to oppress the Sunni and maybe the Kurds as they have been
oppressed for these number of years under Saddam Hussein.
I think what we really want in Iraq is a republic. We want the rule
of law, which says that you cannot discriminate against any people, any
ethnic group, that you cannot oppress any ethnic group.
I thought that what we wanted to do in Iraq represented a pretty
steep hill to climb. There is no nation around Iraq that has anything
like the government that we would like them to have. They are bordered
by countries which are dictatorships. We call them royal families, but
they are dictatorships. They have got lots of money, and so they can be
benevolent dictators, but nevertheless, they are really dictatorships.
Then they have countries that have kings, Jordan and Syria.
The only country that comes even close to the kind of government we
would like them to have is Turkey, but they have a very interesting
situation in Turkey. The most respected institution in Turkey is the
military, and three times in the last several years the military has
thrown out the government and told them to try again, that they are not
doing very well.
I have a quote here from Benjamin Franklin that I thought was very
interesting and relevant to Iraq. It says only a virtuous people are
capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, and you
see the attacks in Iraq, as a nation becomes more corrupt and vicious,
they have more need of masters.
I went to the Web to see what it had to say about democracies versus
republics, and I found this little discussion: in constitutional theory
and in historical analyses, especially when considering the Founding
Fathers of the United States, the word ``democracy'' refers solely to
direct democracy. By that, they mean where the people directly
determine what the laws will be, whilst a representative democracy
where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a
Constitution is referred to as a republic.
Using the term ``democracy'' to refer solely to direct democracy
retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian
circles. The original framers of the United States Constitution were
notably cognizant of what they perceive as danger of majority rule and
oppressing freedom of the individual.
For example, James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a
constitutional republic over a democracy precisely to protect the
individual from the majority. However, at the same time, the framers
carefully created democratic institutions and major open-society
reforms within the United States Constitution and the United States
Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of
democracy but mitigated by a Constitution, with protections for
individual liberty, balance of power and a layered Federal structure
forming what we now call a constitutional republic.
A couple of interesting observations about some of the limitations of
a democracy. I have one here from Benjamin Franklin; and whether he
knew it or not, he was paraphrasing Socrates because I think the
earliest quote came from Socrates. Benjamin Franklin said when people
find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the
republic. I think he really meant democracy, because if it is truly a
republic, then you cannot vote yourself money. Then you could not do
it. Socrates wisely observed that a democracy is doomed when its
citizens can vote themselves moneys from the public Treasury.
This concerns me. When more than half of the American people benefit
from big government, I think that will be a tipping point; and if you
think our deficits are big now, just watch what they could be when we
pass that tipping point.
The second part of his statement, if you can keep it, what were his
concerns? We cannot get inside Benjamin Franklin's head to know what he
was referring to, but we can only kind of surmise by putting this quote
in context.
In his day, 11 years after the Declaration of Independence, and by
the way it took us 11 years to write our Constitution, so let us have a
little patience in Iraq, please. Eleven years after writing the
Declaration of Independence, the United States of America, this new
fledgling country was far away from any other major power. It had just
about a decade before defeated the most important power of that day,
the superpower, the colonial superpower of that day, England; and so I
doubt that
[[Page H5845]]
Benjamin Franklin was concerned about the loss of this Republic from
without. We were isolated by these oceans. We had just defeated a major
world power, and so I doubt that Benjamin Franklin was concerned about
a threat from without.
Today, I have little concern for a threat from without. This one
person out of 22 in the world has about exactly half of all the
military in all the world. We spend about as much money on the military
as all the rest of the world put together, and I do not regret this
because I tell you, if we do not get that right, if we do not have a
military adequate to protect ourselves, nothing else that we do will
matter much, will it?
{time} 2250
I think that Benjamin Franklin was more concerned about a threat to
this republic from within.
Just 50-odd years after this, at the beginning of our country, a
young Frenchman by the name of Alex de Tocqueville spent several years
visiting our country. Already this new country was the envy of the
world, and Alex de Tocqueville wrote a thesis on his observation of
America. His two-part book, entitled Democracy in America, is still
hailed as the most penetrating analysis of the relationship of
character to democracy ever written. And this is how he summed up his
experience.
``In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to
the manors, but shapes the intelligence of the people. Christianity
there reins without obstacle by universal consequence. The consequence
is, as I have before observed, that every principle in a moral world is
fixed and in force.'' And then this great quote from Alex de
Tocqueville. ``I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of
America in her great harbors, her fertile fields, and boundless
forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her universal
public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in
her Democratic Congress and in her matchless constitution. But not
until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame
with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.
America,'' he said, ``is great because America is good. And if America
ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.''
Have you ever asked yourself the question, Madam Speaker, of why we
are so fortunate? This one person out of 22 in the world has a fourth
of all the good things in the world. How did we get here? We are no
longer the hardest working people in the world. That was a
characteristic that helped make us great. We no longer have the most
respect for technical education in the world. The Chinese this year
will graduate more English speaking engineers than we graduate, and a
big percent of our graduating engineers will be Chinese students. We no
longer have the best work ethic in the world. We no longer have the
most respect for the nuclear family. Why are we so fortunate?
I think, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons, and I want to spend just a
couple of moments talking about these, because I think that if we
aren't careful, we could be at risk of losing what our forefathers
bequeathed us and Benjamin Franklin's concern ``if you can keep it''
may be realized.
I think one of the reasons that we are such a fortunate people is
because our Founding Fathers believed that God sat with them at the
table when they deliberated and wrote the Constitution. I think that
they believed that God guided them in what they did.
You wouldn't believe from our history books today, which have been
bled dry of any reference to our Christian heritage, that our early
Congress purchased 20,000 copies of the bible to distribute to its new
citizens. You wouldn't believe that for 100 years this Congress voted
money for missionaries to the American Indians.
President Adams made an interesting observation, which I will just
paraphrase. He said that our Constitution was written for a religious
people; that it would serve the purposes of no other. He was the
President of the American Bible Society, as was his son, John Quincy
Adams, who noted in his later years that of those two presidencies, the
Presidency of the United States and the Presidency of the American
Bible Society, that he valued more the Presidency of the American Bible
Society.
I don't know if you noted, Mr. Speaker, but in the Declaration of
Independence, God is mentioned four or five times, depending upon how
you relate these statements. That is of considerable interest to me,
because we are now considering whether or not the Supreme Court would
look at if it is okay to say ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the flag. Let me read these references in our Declaration of
Independence to God.
It says, ``the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature
and of nature's God entitled them.'' And then in the next paragraph, it
says, ``we hold these truths,'' and all of us, Mr. Speaker, know these
words. We repeat them so often. ``We hold these truths to be self-
evident; that all men are created equal.'' Now, if you are created,
there is a God somewhere, isn't there? That ``all men are created equal
and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights.''
Mr. Speaker, never state or assume that the rights that you have come
from your government. These rights come from God, and it is the
responsibility of your government to make sure that they are not taken
away from you.
And then I look further through the Declaration of Independence, and
there is this one phrase here that when you read this, you just have to
smile. You wonder what was in the minds of our Founding Fathers. I have
no idea what King George had done that required them to write this
complaint, but, you know, it is prophetic. I think there is no better
way to describe our regulatory agencies. And they used such poetic
language then. What they said was, ``he has erected a multitude of new
offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat
out their substance.'' I smiled when I read that, and I thought what
better definition could we have of our regulatory agencies.
And then near the end of the Declaration of Independence, in the last
paragraph, ``we therefore, the representatives of the United States of
America in general Congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge
of the world.'' That has to be God, doesn't it? And then in the last
sentence of this last paragraph, it says, ``and for the support of this
declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
providence.'' Another reference to God.
So five times in the Declaration of Independence our Founding Fathers
referenced God. He was important in their life. They wanted him to be
important in their country.
And I don't know if you knew it, Mr. Speaker, or not, because we
seldom sing that far, but I have here the Star-Spangled Banner, written
by Francis Scott Key. I pass his grave several times a week. It is in
Frederick, Maryland. Let me read the third stanza of this. We seldom
sing that, and I doubt that one American in fifty could recite it for
you.
``And where is that band who so vauntingly swore that the havoc of
war and the battle's confusion, a home and a country should leave us no
more? Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No
refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight or
the gloom of the grave: And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph doth
wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.''
And then this last verse: ``O thus be it ever when free-men shall
stand between their loved home and the war's desolation; blest with
victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land praise the power that
hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our
cause it is just, and this be our motto: In God is our trust! And the
Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave o'er the land of the free
and the home of the brave.''
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if our courts might somehow declare the Star-
Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional
because they mention God?
{time} 2300
Now I have a wonderful quote here from Benjamin Franklin. The time
was June 28, 1787. Benjamin Franklin was 81 years old, Governor of
Pennsylvania, and probably the most honored member of the
Constitutional Convention. The convention was deadlocked over
[[Page H5846]]
several key issues of State and Federal rights when Franklin rose and
reminded them of the Continental Congress in 1776 that shaped the
Declaration of Independence.
By the way, one of the issues that divided them and almost prevented
us from having a Constitution was the concern that they somehow draft a
Constitution that would assure that the large States could not trample
on the rights of the smaller States. And this is what he said:
``In the days of our contest with Great Britain when we were sensible
of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. Our
prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us
who were engaged in the struggle,'' and it was the struggle for
independence, ``must have observed frequent instances of superintending
providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy
opportunity to establish our Nation. And have we now forgotten that
powerful friend? Do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?''
And then this part of the quote which I really love:
``I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs
of men.
``If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is
probable that a new Nation cannot rise without His aid. We have been
assured, sir, in the sacred writings that except the Lord build the
house, they labor in vain that build it.''
And then a request that set a precedent that we honor to this day.
This very day in this Congress we follow the tradition that Benjamin
Franklin started with this request:
``I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the
assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in
this assembly every morning before we proceed to any business.''
Mr. Speaker, I often reflect on the fact that the only place in our
great country that you cannot pray is in our schools. And I wonder what
our Founding Fathers would say about that. So I think that one of the
reasons that we are such a blessed country, a blessed people, is
because our Founding Fathers believed that God sat with them at the
table, that He guided their efforts, and I think we put at risk this
privileged position that we have in the world if we deny that heritage.
And I am concerned as the Ten Commandments come down from the
courthouse walls and the nativity scenes disappear from the public
square and the Supreme Court is going to take a look at whether it is
okay to say ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
A second reason that I think that we are a great, free country is
because of the enormous respect that our Constitution shows for the
civil liberties of our people. The ink was hardly dry on the
Constitution before our Founding Fathers were concerned that it might
not be clear that their intent was to have a very limited central
government; that essentially most of the rights, most of the power
should stay with the people. And so they wrote the first 10 amendments,
which we know as the Bill of Rights. They started as 12 in that process
of two-thirds vote of the House and two-thirds vote of the Senate and
ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures; and 10 of
those 12 made it through, and we know them as the Bill of Rights.
And, Mr. Speaker, as you go down through those Bill of Rights, you
will see that time after time it talks about the rights of the people.
And, by the way, that first amendment, so simple the establishment
clause of the first amendment that it really is quite a marvel how it
is misinterpreted. You see, our Founding Fathers came here to escape
two tyrannies. One was the tyranny of the Church and the other was the
tyranny of the Crown. In England there was a state church. It was the
Episcopal Church. And in most of the countries on the continent of
Europe, there was a state church. It was the Roman Church. And those
churches were empowered by the state, and they could, and did, oppress
other religions.
I have such great respect for our Founding Fathers because when they
came here, they did a perfectly human thing. In Old Virginia Roman
Catholics could not vote. But when it came time to write these first
amendments to the Constitution, they finally had figured it out that
that was not what they came here for. They came here to establish a
country that provided freedom to worship as you chose. So they wrote a
very simple establishment clause, and it meant just what it says:
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.''
Please do not establish a religion. And, furthermore, do not prohibit
the free exercise thereof, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That is all it means.
Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers would be astounded if they could be
resurrected and see that we had interpreted this very clear language as
requiring freedom from religion. You see, they meant it to assure
freedom of religion, and there is a big difference.
I mentioned that they came here to escape two tyrannies. The second
was the tyranny of the Crown. And I know my liberal friends do not like
to reflect on it and they really abbreviate the second amendment,
which, they say, reads the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed. That is in the second amendment, but that is
not the second amendment.
The second amendment, you see, deals with their concerns that never
ever would a small oligarchy in the seat of government be able to take
over and oppress the people. So this is what they said: ``A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''
I asked them, Mr. Speaker, what do you think that means? You know,
they do not want to think what that means, so they change the subject.
But in most of these first 10 amendments there is explicitly stated or
implicitly stated the rights of the people: the right of the people
peaceably to assemble; the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And over and over it is talking about the right of the people.
Notice, Mr. Speaker, that this does not say ``citizen.'' I am not
always pleased with the decisions of our courts, but I really believe
that this Republic we live in is so essential to who we are and our
favored status in the world that words do matter. And when the Court
says that illegal aliens are people, they are protected by the
Constitution, Mr. Speaker, maybe we need to amend the Constitution to
say when you read ``people'' in the Constitution, please read that as
``citizen.'' But that is not what it said. And I am very concerned that
we do not rationalize away the clear wording of the Constitution. I
think the enormous respect that we have for the rights of the
individual, for the civil liberties of individuals, has established a
milieu, a climate, in which creativity and entrepreneurship can
flourish.
{time} 2310
I think that is one of the reasons that we are such a privileged
people. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we permit any erosion of
these rights given to us by God and guaranteed to us by our
Constitution, that we put at risk the favored status that we have in
the world.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that it may already be happening. I
think that Benjamin Franklin may have had a concern when he said if you
can keep it, that we might just ignore the Constitution. And I think
with all of the best intentions that we are walking that path. We are
doing that today.
I want to talk about three things that we spend a lot of time on here
and we spend a lot of money on in our country. I am not saying, Mr.
Speaker, that we shouldn't be doing these things. What I am saying is
that if we want to do them, we need to amend the Constitution, because
I don't think there is any basis in the Constitution for our
involvement in these three things.
First, let me note how we rationalize that it is okay to do these
three things. First let me mention what they are, because that will
relate to the rationalization.
The first of these is philanthropy. I have a very interesting quote
from Davy Crockett on philanthropy. A second of them is health care. A
third one is education.
How do we rationalize that it is okay for us to be involved in this?
Well, they go to the preamble to the Constitution. They read ``We the
People of the
[[Page H5847]]
United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare.''
There it is. They say ``welfare,'' so we now can be involved in
philanthropy because it is there in the preamble to the Constitution.
I would note, Mr. Speaker, if they read on and came to Article I,
Section 8, which defines the responsibilities of the Congress, that
they would note that it says there ``provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States.''
They are talking about the corporate welfare, not welfare as we use
it today instead of philanthropy.
The second justification they use is the commerce clause, ``to
regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and
with the Indian Tribes.'' So they rationalize that if it crosses a
State line, we can have control.
Now, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that if that was the intent of the
Founding Fathers, they never, ever, would have written the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments. The Tenth Amendment, by the way, is the most violated
amendment in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment, this was written in
old English and kind of legalese. ``The enumeration in the Constitution
of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.''
What does that say in everyday English? What it says is that just
because the Constitution doesn't identify a right as belonging to the
people, unless it specifically is given to government, it belongs to
the people.
Then the Tenth Amendment, this is a really interesting amendment.
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.''
In common, everyday English, what this says is if you can't find it
in Article 8, the Federal Government can't do it, because Section 8 of
this Article enumerates the powers of the Congress. I will read those
in just a moment.
I had a very interesting experience here in this very spot probably
12, 13 years ago when I first came to the Congress. I was given 3\1/2\
minutes of debate time. That is a long time, as those many viewers who
watch C-SPAN recognize. We were voting on something that I thought was
unconstitutional.
So I took my Constitution and I turned to Article I, Section 8. That
is just the words between my two thumbs here, by the way, it is less
than 2 pages in this small document, and I went through it summarizing
each of the articles there. The Congress has power to lay and collect
tax. Boy, we know how to do that. To borrow money. We are doing that
big time. To regulate commerce, to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization. It goes on.
Then I finished my debate and I turned to walk up that center aisle,
and the recording clerk, who is recording everything we say here
tonight and was then, came walking up the aisle after me and tapped me
on the shoulder and asked me, ``What was that you were reading from?''
They take down what we read, but they like to have a written copy if
they can.
I thought that that was very interesting. The recording clerk, who
sits here day after day listening to Members of Congress, heard the
Constitution so infrequently that when it was read, the recording clerk
didn't know it was the Constitution.
When asked that question, I said, ``Oh, it is the Constitution.'' And
the clerk said, ``Can I see it?'' And so I had it open like this. ``Can
I copy it?'' They took it and copied it on the copy machine. I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this reflects a trend that we somehow need
to deal with.
What have we come to? Much of what we do here, as I said before, I
don't find any basis in the Constitution for. I am not saying we
shouldn't do it. All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is I have a big concern
that when we simply ignore or rationalize the Constitution so that we
can do something that is not specifically permitted by the
Constitution, I wonder tomorrow how we might be rationalizing away
these great civil liberties, these great rights given to us by God and
protected by our Constitution.
Health care. By the way, we don't really have a very good health care
system in our country. We have a really good sick care system. If you
think about it, you really don't get involved in that system until you
are sick. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, if we had a better health care system, we
would be spending less money on our sick care system.
Also education. In a moment I am going to read this in the
Constitution. It is very short. I want you to stop me, Mr. Speaker,
when I come to that part in Article I, Section 8, that says it is okay
for us to be involved in health care, that it is okay for us to be
involved in education, that it is okay for us to be involved in
philanthropy.
By the way, I have never met anybody who had a good, warm feeling on
April 15 because so much of their tax money goes to philanthropy. I
think that is a great tragedy. The Bible says it is more blessed to
give than to receive, and yet I find no one who has a good, warm
feeling on April 15 because so much of the tax money that is taken from
them is used in philanthropy. What a shame, that the government has
usurped the role of philanthropist and our people are denied that
experience.
I had a really interesting experience in our church. Our kids don't
go out trick-or-treating, so they went out before Halloween and left
bags at the homes and said, ``We will come back on Halloween. If you
put some food in there, we will make up some food baskets for
Thanksgiving.'' So they did that, and with the ladies in the church,
they made up food baskets.
Then they called the welfare people and said, ``We need some needy
families that we can take these food baskets to.'' The welfare people
were indignant. ``What do you mean, needy families? Families that need
food? What do you think we are here for?'' And I thought, what a
tragedy that government unconstitutionally, I believe, has usurped the
role of philanthropist.
{time} 2320
The Government unconstitutionally, I believe, has usurped the role of
philanthropists. I have here a very interesting experience from Davy
Crockett, who was a Congressman. And if you will do a web search for
just Davy Crockett and farmer, it will come up. Because it is a very
interesting story.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a
bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a
distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it.
The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose.
Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in
support of the bill. And this is what he said: ``Mr. Speaker, I have as
much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for
the suffering to the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this
House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy
for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the
balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that
Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money
as an act of charity. Every Member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own
money as we please in charity, but as Members of Congress, we have no
right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
Now, how did Davy Crockett get to that position? This is a very
interesting story. You will find it fascinating reading. We do not have
time this evening to go into it. But Davy Crockett, before this, was
out campaigning. Before that campaign ride on his horse there was a
fire that they could see from the steps of the Capitol in Georgetown.
And they went there and several wooden buildings in those days were
burning.
Davy Crockett and other Members of Congress worked very hard to put
out the fire. And when the fire was finally out, there were a number of
people who were homeless. And among them were women and children. And,
of course, their heart went out to these women and children.
So the next morning in the Congress here, the primary item of
business was
[[Page H5848]]
doing something about those poor people who were victims of the fire.
And so they voted $20,000 for these victims of the fire. And that done,
they went onto other business and Davy Crockett forgot about it.
Then about a year later, he was out campaigning. And it was mostly
rural then. And he was on his horse. There was a farmer with his team
who was plowing. So Davy Crockett times his horse so that he gets to
the farmer just as he comes to the end of the row.
He speaks to the farmer. And the farmer is very cold. And finally he
tells him, he says, ``Yeah, I know who you are, you are Davy Crockett.
I voted for you last time you ran, but I cannot vote for you again.''
And then he made a very interesting statement. He said, ``I suppose
you are out electioneering now. But you had better not waste your time
or mine, I shall not vote for you again.''
Davy Crockett said, ``this was a sockdolager'', I don't know what a
sockdolager is, but that is what he said. And this is what the man
said: ``You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have no
capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting the
honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the
man to represent me.''
Well, Davy Crockett was finally convinced that he had not understood
the Constitution. He asked the man, gee, I really would like to
apologize. I would like to explain to the people that I am now a new
man, I understand the Constitution.
He said, if you will get a few people together and have a barbecue, I
will pay for it. He said, well, we won't need you to pay for it. But if
you come a week from this coming Saturday, we will have a barbecue. And
Davy Crockett came and there were 1,000 people there that he spoke to
and apologized for his vote in the Congress.
Now, I want to read from the Constitution. And I want you to stop me,
it will not take very long to read. I want you to stop me, Madam
Speaker, when I come to that part that says that it is okay for us to
be involved in education, in philanthropy, and in health care.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imports and excises, to pay the debts, to provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties,
imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States; to regulate
commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes; to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and
uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United
States; to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,
and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; to provide for the
punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the
United States; to establish Post Offices and post roads; to promote the
progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
and discoveries; to constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas,
and offenses against the laws of Nations.
I will not read the rest of this, because I tell you all of the rest
of the Constitution deals with just two things, and read it to affirm
that this is correct.
All of this part deals with the Congress and its responsibility for
the military. We declare war. This is not the King's army. We declare
war. Raise and support armies and so forth.
Then the last couple of paragraphs here deal with the District of
Columbia, and then to make all of the laws necessary to enforce the
above. Now, where, Madam Speaker, was there any reference to our right
to be involved in these three things? I am not saying that we should
not be doing these things, I am simply saying that if we are going to
do them, I am very concerned that we should not do them by ignoring the
Constitution.
If they are good and proper things to do, we should have amended the
Constitution. We have done it 27 times. I do not mind doing it again.
But I really mind ignoring the Constitution. Because let me tell you
why, we are engaged now in a war. I have no idea when the war will end.
Civil liberties are always a casualty of war. Abraham Lincoln, my
favorite President, suspended habeas corpus. And during World War II,
we interred the Japanese Americans. My friend, Norm Minetta, with whom
I served in this House, Secretary of Transportation, several years
younger than I. He says, ``Roscoe, I remember holding my parents hand
as they led us into that concentration camp in Idaho.''
That war is over. And we are now a bit embarrassed that we did that.
The civil war is over. And we got back habeas corpus. But I am
concerned that we not permit this war to result in an erosion of our
civil liberties. I do not know when the war will end.
I have a great quote here. It is probably not from Julius Caesar,
because it did not appear in print, as far as we know, until what, 01.
It probably was not passed down by word of mouth until that time. But
this ascribed to Julius Caesar.
I think it so reflects this inherent reaction of people to a war
situation. ``Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order
to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed
a double-edged sword, it both emboldens the blood just as it narrows
the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch, and the
blood boils with hate, and the mind is closed, the leader will have no
need in seizing the rights of the citizenry, rather the citizenry,
infused with fear and blinded by patriotism will offer up all of their
rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what
I have done, and I am Julius Caesar.''
That is probably not Julius Caesar. But it does, I think, reflect a
common tendency on the part of people.
Benjamin Franklin, I do not know if he was the first to say it, ``if
you will up your freedom to get security, at the end of the day you
will neither have freedom nor security, or you will deserve neither
freedom nor security.''
{time} 2330
We are now at war. When will this war end? I want to make very sure
that I bequeath to my kids and my grandkids more than an ever
increasing debt, more than an energy deficient world. I want this great
free country to be bequeathed to them just as I got it from my fathers.
This was a great new experiment. We weren't certain it was going to
succeed. I am reading here from the Gettysburg Address, and Abraham
Lincoln recognized this as an experiment which might not succeed. I
don't know if you have thought about that in this Gettysburg Address.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent, a new Nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
Not so in England and Europe, was the divine right of kings.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether this Nation,
or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
And then he ended that Gettysburg Address with almost a prayer, that
this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall
not perish from the earth.
This has been a great experiment. We are the most blessed people on
the planet. It has been said by a number of people that the price of
freedom is eternal vigilance.
What will our children inherit? Unfortunately, we are going to
bequeath to them an enormous debt, the largest intergenerational debt
transfer in the history of the world. We are going to bequeath to them
a world with deficient energy to run a society as we run ours. Will we
also bequeath to them a Constitution gutted by apathy where the civil
liberties of our people are at risk?
Mr. Speaker, the world needs the United States and for the United
States to be the great free powerful country that it is. I believe that
we need to be very vigilant in protecting these great civil liberties
given to us by our Creator and guaranteed to us by our Constitution.
____________________