[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 3 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E37-E38]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. CORRINE BROWN

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 5, 2011

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on clause 
7 of House Rule XII, which requires that Members submit a statement 
citing the constitutional authority for any bill introduced in the 
House of Representatives. Every member of this body takes an oath to 
support and defend the Constitution. Therefore, this new rule adds 
nothing to the responsibilities we have already pledged to undertake. 
It does, however, add to the costs of government. Publishing each 
statement in the Congressional Record will cost the taxpayers an 
estimated $570,000 each year for supplies, labor and delivery.

[[Page E38]]

  Furthermore, this requirement is a solution in search of a problem. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, only about two hundred 
and twenty acts of Congress have been held unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court since 1789. In the past ten years, the Court has struck 
down laws a mere seventeen times. The number of acts courts have upheld 
is surely in the thousands. So I ask, what is the Constitutional crisis 
this requirement addresses?
  The rule itself demonstrates the lack of urgency here. It requires a 
perfunctory statement without explanation. Committees need not consider 
the statement, no Member will ever vote on it, and Senate bills can be 
considered without one. By omitting any teeth, the rule clearly 
indicates that Members are already capable of ensuring that bills 
comply with the Constitution. In the rare instance we go too far, the 
courts are perfectly capable of correcting us.
  Sometimes, the Constitution itself must be corrected. For example, 
the original Constitution expressly allowed for slavery and counted 
slaves as three-fifths of a person. Certainly, I would not be here to 
make this statement if no one had challenged those provisions. Without 
the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution would not guarantee the 
rights to due process and equal protection that are now fundamental 
principles throughout American life. For over one hundred years, until 
1920, it failed to ensure that women had a right to vote. Imagine a 
country in which only white, land-owning men could vote--that is the 
world we would live in if we were bound by the words of the 
Constitution as written.
  Finally, while we respect the Constitution's limits on governmental 
action, we must remember that the framers purposely created a living 
document and intended it to grow and change with the country. The 
Constitution is a work in progress and what we do in Congress can help 
push it forward. Clauses we cite now may not exist or may be understood 
differently in the future. Pretending otherwise through empty (and 
costly) formalities does a disservice to its spirit and the causes of 
freedom and justice.

                          ____________________