Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 54 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2654-H2660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FEDERALISM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the topic of
enduring consequence. Last month, the members of the Constitution
Caucus came to the floor to commend limited government as the guardian
of human dignity. Tonight, we would like to continue that conversation
by discussing one of the indispensable pillars of limited government.
America's guarantee of limited government and her bulwark of liberty
can be attributed to Federalism.
Federalism is the subject which we often forget here in Washington,
D.C. I believe this is a tragic irony because our great Nation is the
birthplace of this truly revolutionary political concept. Federalism is
not an abstract philosophy. Simply, it is the separation of power
between the Federal Government and State governments. It is one of the
cornerstones of our American experiment in self-government.
It was unheard of before the American founding and unfortunately is
all but forgotten today.
Until our Founding Fathers devised our unique system of government,
nations around the globe were dedicated to the faulty idea that power
or sovereignty was indivisible. The great wisdom of the American
founding was to reject this notion and build a robust government with a
system that carefully divided power on two different levels.
Yes, we are most familiar with the separation of three branches of
government--legislative, executive, and judicial; but too many in
Washington have forgotten that there is another division in
government--the division between States and Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, we have one of the greatest documents to govern our
country that has existed for over 200 years and has been one of the
documents that has guided so many Americans and people across this
country into personal responsibility, to the ability to take
opportunities that we have been granted in this country.
The 10th Amendment sums up this structural integrity of the
Constitution and the dual sovereignty of the Federal and State
governments. The 10th Amendment says this: ``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.''
As a former State legislator, I've seen this and been very frustrated
at times as a State legislator in the powers that the Federal
Government continues to assume and is basically overreaching the
responsibilities and the powers of the State government. Federalism, as
you know, was a huge debate and discussion as part of the founding of
our great Nation back when our Founding Fathers were discussing what
should be in the Constitution.
During the debate over States' rights and Federalism, there needs to
be a balance between what the States are responsible for and what the
Federal Government is responsible for. And our Constitution lays those
responsibilities out and defines those responsibilities very clearly.
I believe it's very important for us, as Congress and Congressmen and
Congresswomen, to refamiliarize ourselves with our Constitution and
realize that the boundaries that have been laid out by our Founding
Fathers are well defined. And the intent and the vision that was laid
out is one that is still applicable today.
I believe that the Federal Government continues to overreach as to
those boundaries--whether it's massive spending, whether it's an
overreach in our health care bill that just passed last year, whether
it's the stimulus package which the Federal Government is now assuming
the responsibility to stimulate our economy rather than trusting in the
American people.
It does not add anything to the Constitution that was not already
there in its structure, but in making the principle of Federalism more
explicit, the 10th Amendment underscores the importance of Federalism.
To see Federalism succeed, we must hold faith in the integrity of the
Constitution. A living document is just an empty vessel. Federalism is
neglected when politicians make the Constitution a blank slate for the
dominant political trends.
As James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 45: ``The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are
few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite.''
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read again the 10th Amendment of our
Constitution: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are

[[Page H2655]]

reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''
So, Mr. Speaker, I'd submit to you that many of the programs that the
Federal Government currently not only operates but also is proposing
under several different bills over the past several years really are
overreaching into the State governments' responsibilities and also into
what they are fully capable of doing.
Many times the frustration that we had of dealing with Medicaid and
the mandates that were handed down to the States were tying the hands
of our State governments.
Coming from the State of Indiana, I'm very proud of what has been
accomplished because of those who respect not only the simple economics
of balancing budgets and realizing that you can't spend more money than
what you have, but as a member of the Indiana House of Representatives
of 2005, I worked with our Governor and our Senate to see that Indiana
passed its first balanced budget in 8 years.
As we've discussed repeatedly here in Congress already, what about
balanced budgets, what about the responsibility of making sure that we
do not spend more money than what we have? Our Federal Government just
closed its budget with a $1.5 trillion deficit, and that's hard to
imagine that we could actually spend that much more money than what we
take in. Any Hoosier family knows that once that line at the bottom of
the checkbook hits red, there's a problem, and we need to reevaluate
what we are currently doing in our spending and our income.

{time} 1900

Either you start cutting spending or you start increasing your
income. As we all know with the difficult economic times that we're in,
increasing income is not always as easy as we would like it to be. So
what we need to do is control what we can control, and that is the
spending.
Today, Indiana is squarely in the black because of very difficult
decisions. It has a AAA credit rating, and is home to the fewest State
employees per capita in the United States. The initiative was taken
when times were difficult and in realizing that we were falling on
tough economic times.
As we move forward in this Congress, I believe that we need to take
the same principles and the same values that States have and local
governments have and families have across the country, and businesses,
who all realized that you cannot continue to spend more money than what
you are taking in.
Progressivism has been the greatest foe of federalism. Progressivism
believes in a government of, by, and for the experts, statisticians,
and bureaucrats. Federalism believes in government of, by, and for the
people and their unique communities. So, again, here I would argue that
communities and people are much more capable, because they know their
particular circumstances and how they are to manage not only their own
dollars but their own lives, whether it's education or whether it's
being involved in their church, in giving to their church or charity
groups.
But instead, we're seeing a government that continues to intrude in
taking more and more of those responsibilities, but also the rights
that we all have as citizens, in taking those away from Americans and
giving them to the Federal Government. We all know the Federal
Government is never capable of fully meeting the needs that every
individual has in our country.
Progressivism ends up elevating unelected experts to rule over the
entire Nation. Rules promulgated by an alphabet soup of agencies choke
out representative government, and Congress calls hearings to slow them
down. We are seeing that repeatedly right now, Mr. Speaker, with
hearings that we are having currently in our committees and in asking
questions of the bureaucracies on the rule-making decisions that they
are making every day. It continues to choke out not only our freedoms
and opportunities that we enjoy as Americans, whether it's in business
or whether it's as individuals, but also the bureaucracies are becoming
much more powerful.
Now that the Congress is not passing overreaching legislation, we're
seeing the bureaucracies taking on that role. And I believe that it is
crucial for us as Americans to step forward and to remind ourselves
what our Federal Government's responsibilities are. The Constitution
clearly defines those responsibilities. And I believe it's important
that we all become more familiar again with our Constitution and with
the responsibilities that the Federal Government is responsible for.
Likewise, federalism today should not be confused with nullification,
nor with the idea of secession. Federalism must be revived so that the
rights of citizens might be upheld and their duties fulfilled.
Federalism is the protector of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
I can only imagine at the time, as our Founding Fathers were debating
federalism and creating a Federal Government with the State governments
that they had at the time, that they never imagined that the Federal
Government would become as large and bureaucratic and bloated and
irresponsible as it is today.
When the Federal Government exercises control over health care,
welfare, housing, unemployment, and even the so-called stimulus of our
economy, there is less incentive for citizens to act within their
communities and States to fulfill the duties they once assumed. Civic
virtue suffers as power flows to Washington, D.C. Ordinary Americans
are neglected in this top-down solution.
Many argue that Washington knows better, that bureaucrats know
better, that the experts know better. But I know, growing up as a son
of a farmer in northern Indiana, that my parents, my grandparents, they
all knew what was important for our family. They knew what was
important to our community. Whether it was being involved in our
school, whether it was being involved in our church community, whether
it was being involved in our local economy or our government process.
Families and individuals can make those decisions, what's important,
and make those priorities, pass those priorities on to their families.
I believe that what's happening today in our country is that we're
seeing less and less not only interest, but also responsibility is now
being assumed by our Federal Government, because it continues to
overreach and to continue to take away the responsibilities of
local governments, whether it's a school board which would make much
better decisions for their local community and their school, whether
it's a county council that knows the challenges that they have with
their counties.

I know for us we have a lot of lakes and rivers, a lot of sandy soil,
sewer systems that need to be built to keep our environment clean and
better for our children and grandchildren as we pass on the resources
that we have. We are starting to have our hands tied more and more
because of regulations coming from Washington, D.C.
I believe that that is what our Founding Fathers intended. They
believed in ordinary citizens making extraordinary decisions for their
communities and that the structure of our Constitution protected that.
In short closing here, as I want to turn it over to my colleagues, I
would warn those who are in Congress that we think ourselves too wise
if we believe that federalism espoused in our founding documents is an
antiquated relic of the past. Governments are the products of fallen
men. Human nature is the same today as it was in 1787. When the Federal
Government grows beyond its original purpose, when it greedily claims
powers belonging to the States and local communities, it arrogantly
assumes that 535 Federal legislators and hordes of bureaucrats can
direct with perfect clarity the lives of over 300 million Americans.
I would be amiss to claim that I know the daily concerns of Buckeyes,
or those who are in New Jersey, or from Texas, or from Oklahoma, or
from California. But I know Hoosiers because I am one. I know and
believe these simple truths. The rich diversity of our Nation's 50
States impels us to greatness. There are legitimate concerns which must
be addressed by a well-balanced Federal Government. Yet the Federal
Government ought to defer to the States in those matters that the
States are best prepared for.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

[[Page H2656]]

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Thank you, first of
all, first and foremost, for leading this caucus tonight and leading
this Special Order tonight as we speak about federalism as a safeguard
of a limited government. So we come here tonight to discuss that and
think about it in the larger sense, to discuss basically the
revolutionary principles that federalism is and its critical role in
our system of government that makes individual liberties possible in
this country.
As the founder of the Constitutional Caucus, I welcome a public
discussion on federalism tonight. It is such a crucial discussion, a
discussion of federalism, a discussion of the role of government in our
lives. And it lies at the heart of the American social contract between
the government and the people. You see, it's federalism that keeps the
Federal Government basically within its proper boundaries. So it is
crucial to an understanding of the American commitment to liberty and
to freedom and how well it will safeguard this generation and future
generations as well.
When we think about these topics, it's often easy to take for granted
our Federal system of government and the freedoms that it affords all
of us. But such a system was, by no means, preordained.

{time} 1910

And if you go back some 200-plus years, ordinary colonists, armed
with a desire to be free, rebelled against the world's mightiest empire
to achieve our independence from an obtrusive, overcentralized and a
faraway government.
And what was in its place? Well, in its place our Founders
established for the first time in history a national government of
defined and enumerated powers that is basically prohibited from
overstepping its confined jurisdictions.
So the Federal Government's powers were to be truly national in
scope, and the Founders believed that because States and local
governments operated closest to the citizens, elected officials who
were at that lower level, or the local level, would be the ones who
were most competent to make the laws that would govern daily lives.
Now, this was a message espoused by James Madison in Federalist No.
45. You know, Madison wrote back then: ``The powers delegated by the
proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and they are
defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite.''
So, you see, you have established this dual sovereignty, the
sovereignty of Federal and State governments. And it's underscored then
how basically in our Bill of Rights, as the 10th Amendment reads, as
the gentleman from Indiana already said: ``The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectfully, or to the people.''
The beauty of the 10th Amendment is not at first easily recognizable,
as some would say, on first blush that the 10th Amendment is almost
redundant. Some would say it offers nothing new from what has already
been written into the confines, or four corners, if you will, of the
Constitution. And so it is the limited powers of the Federal Government
that are articulated throughout the three sections of the Constitution.
In fact, however, the Founders, looking at the Bill of Rights,
initially believed that they were really not necessary and, actually,
that they could be seen as potentially dangerous. Why was this? Well,
both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists understood that the Bill
of Rights limited the powers of government.
But the perceived danger here of the Bill of Rights lay where? At the
potential for misunderstanding by future generations. This
misunderstanding basically comes about by this, by forbidding the
Federal Government from acting in certain areas, which is what the Bill
of Rights would do. It was argued then, what, that the Constitution
implied that the Federal Government could do what? It could act in all
other areas that were not expressly prohibited from engaging in.

But let's be clear, the 10th Amendment makes clear that the
Constitution provides no implied powers to the Federal Government. And
so it is here that we see Federalism for what it basically is. It is
the cornerstone, if you will, of the Constitution and the most
effective tool for the preservation of this, our liberty.
So the 10th Amendment inclusion as the final amendment in the Bill of
Rights is, therefore, no accident. It is, rather, as one might say, the
culmination of the Founders' vision of American democracy. It reaffirms
a commitment to a government strictly defined and with those limited
powers.
It is this institutionalization of armor, if you will, of liberty and
the perpetual struggle against this tyrannical government. This
amendment is, in short, the realization of the principles of the
American revolution.
And as we come to the floor tonight and every day here in this
Congress, we are heirs to that revolution. Unfortunately, today America
seems to have surrendered some of its birthright. The scope and reach
of the Federal Government is growing at a disturbing pace. The
incessant expansion of government has led to the bailout of the banking
industry and the auto industry, sweeping financial regulation, and the
proposal of cap-and-trade systems that would demand that rationing of
American economic prosperity and productivity.
The tentacles, if you will, of the Federal Government are tightly
wrapped around housing, education, transportation, unemployment
policy--you name it--in almost every aspect of our lives. The American
people, when you think about it, are controlled by the Federal
Government in almost every single aspect of their lives, from morning
to evening, from what light bulbs we are allowed to buy to the health
insurance we have to buy. It is all required under regulations by the
Federal Government.
Now, as I come to the floor, today is the 268th birthday of Thomas
Jefferson. If he were alive today, I doubt that he would recognize the
Federal Government as one that has remained true to the revolutionary
Founders of this country. Rather, I would imagine that he would see a
centralized and bureaucratic form of government that resembles the one
that he and the rest of the Founding Fathers rebelled against. That is
exactly what the Constitution and the amendments to it and the
principles of Federalism were meant to prevent.
Out-of-control spending may be the clearest sign now of where we are
today in having neglected these principles of Federalism. It is the
Federal meddling into the lives of the American people. What it has
done is resulted in the unprecedented and also, I would add, the
unsustainable level of funding that jeopardizes the very economic well-
being of the United States.
Our current path, therefore, threatens the American standard of
living and our prosperity, the American Dream and the American status
as a superpower.
You see, by nationalizing every issue, what we do there is we deprive
the American people of the benefits that Federalism would normally
bring. The Founders intended the States to serve as, as has often been
called, the laboratories of democracy, which would compel the States to
compete against each other to attract individuals and businesses, if
you will.
This competition would result in innovations and innovative
solutions, the greater accountability and transparency of public
servants and the diffusion of power that limits the reach of the
national government. Federalism, it's the constitutional guarantee of
that good government.
So we come here tonight, and we must renew our commitment to
Federalism, to the Constitution. By allowing this, our Constitution to
be interpreted, though, by the whims of the judicial and executive
branches, we have undermined the structural integrity of this document
as well as the safeguards that a limited government describes.
To conclude, at the beginning of this year, Members of this body take
an oath--to do what?--basically, to support and defend this
Constitution of the United States. We owe it to the people we represent
to remain true to that oath. Restoring adherence to Federalism must
begin where? Well, right here in this Chamber.
I hope that my colleagues will join me, as the Members are here with
me

[[Page H2657]]

tonight, in re-embracing this idea and this notion and this practice of
Federalism, one of the great pillars of the American founding
principles.
Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Garrett.
At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from the Fourth
District of Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you to the gentleman from Indiana for yielding.
I am here tonight to talk about the proper relationship between the
Federal Government and State and local governments, this issue of
Federalism, our Nation's founding documents.
When I was first elected, I embarked on a listening tour right after
November 2, during which I met with local officials from across my
district to talk about issues that they were concerned about, what was
on their minds, what challenges they were facing in their offices. At
each stop, local leaders talked about the problems facing their
communities; and even though every county is different, every community
is different, the Federal Government seemed to cause the same problems
in each one of them.
In one county in my district, I was told a story by a county
commissioner of the time that the commissioner asked his staff to count
all of the Federal and State mandates that they placed upon their
health and human services department at the county. They counted up the
mandates that they were under from national, State regulators,
Congress, State legislation, State legislatures. The county
commissioner actually asked his staffer to quit counting when he
reached 9,000 individual mandates that that one department, at the
county level, was under.
On this listening tour and since then, since being sworn in on
January 5, at the town meetings that we have held, it never ceases to
amaze me that one of the strongest moments of bringing applause to the
town meetings is when we talk about what happened on this floor when we
first started the 112th Congress, the time when we read, both Democrats
and Republicans, the Constitution of the United States before the
American people right here on the U.S. House floor.
When I talk about how we joined together in reading the Constitution,
people always applaud because it matters to them, because they believe
this country continues to be guided by that most fundamental document
of our country.
Those 9,000 rules, though, that that county commissioner was talking
about were created by Federal and State regulators who don't understand
the problems that each of our unique districts faces because they have
never been there. They don't know what it's like. They don't understand
that each county, each city, each school board knows how to govern
their jurisdiction better than anyone in Washington ever could, and
they do not understand that an unfunded mandate imposed on the entire
country does not work.

{time} 1920

Each State and county in this country is unique and often has far
better solutions than those of the people here in Washington, D.C., can
devise. The Founding Fathers understood this very well and designed a
system focused on limiting the authority of the Federal Government and
on putting power closer to the people. Our Federalist system has long
served as the safeguard of limited government.
As a State legislator from the Eastern Plains of Colorado, I will
never forget the time that I received a call from a cabinet member from
the previous administration who was urging me to vote for a particular
piece of legislation because there was Federal money involved and that
the only way that Colorado would receive this Federal funding was if we
passed a bill that the Federal Government wanted. They were dangling
money out in front of us to pass a bill. That instance proved to me
what we continue to see today, which is the power shifting ``away''
from the States and ``to'' the Federal Government--but to what end?
Last year, Congress passed a health care bill that places increased
Medicaid obligations on already cash-strapped States, which have no way
to pay for them. Regulations from agencies like the Environmental
Protection Agency continue to drive up the cost of energy and force
American jobs overseas. Just today, we heard Senator Murkowski, Senator
Begich, and Representative Young testify before the Energy and Commerce
Committee on a bill about the need to pursue energy policies in Alaska,
polices that will allow them to access the resources of that great
State and to release, unleash, as much as 1 million barrels of oil a
day. The State is supportive. Witnesses for the Department of Natural
Resources testified. Unfortunately, the Federal Government continues to
block their progress. The Founding Fathers wouldn't even recognize our
country today as the one that they formed over 200 years ago.
Education is another area in which there is the employing of
Federalist principles. There is no better example of which we can talk
about the differences between the Federal Government and the State
government and how the Federal Government continues to overstep its
bounds. The Board of Education in Douglas County, Colorado, has taken
it upon itself to truly innovate in the area of education financing;
but the problem with the system in the Federal Government is that it's
a top-down approach. Since when is the Federal Government able to
better communicate the needs of children in a community than that
community, itself? There are some good initiatives in Congress out
there, like the A-PLUS Act, by Mr. Garrett from New Jersey, which would
allow the States to opt out of No Child Left Behind funding and use
that money toward programs they think deserve attention.
Along with Federal funding comes very prescriptive mandates. The more
Federal funding a school receives, the less it's able to listen to its
own community--to its teachers, to its parents and, yes, to its
students. The more it is forced to listen to the Federal Government say
``you can use this money, but you have to use it here, and you have to
use it this way,'' it's tough for a lot of States to say ``no'' to that
in these cash-strapped times. I look forward to addressing some of
these issues during the debates of the reauthorization of No Child Left
Behind; but we must put power back in the hands of teachers and
parents, who know best how to teach their children.
Health care is another challenge this country faces as Congress is
imposing an individual mandate on citizens to purchase federally
approved health insurance. This mandate is contrary to the Federalist
principles that we are talking about this evening. The bill forces
States to expand their Medicaid eligibility standards. According to the
Kaiser Family Foundation, by 2019, Colorado will see a 47.7 percent
increase in Medicaid enrollees as compared to the estimated national
average of 24.7 percent.
The health care bill was created by the Federal Government, and the
cost of its expansion has shifted directly back to State budgets.
Further, under the takeover of the health care bill, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services has the authority to enact and to execute
rules and regulations that local administrators are required to follow.
This takes the power away from States and local governments and wrests
it in the hands of the Federal Government.
What is more important, though, is the ingenuity and progress in
health care that has been established and accomplished by the States on
a State-by-State level. Through this process, they've made significant
improvements to our health care industry. Unfortunately, I believe the
health care bill that was passed in the last Congress is a step away
from that direction.
Last week, I had the opportunity to take my 7-year-old daughter to
Philadelphia to see the Liberty Bell, to visit Independence Hall, and
the National Constitution Center, to talk to the people who work at
Independence Hall about the great symbols of freedom in our country,
about the writing of those founding documents, about what it meant to
talk about freedom, about liberty, about our great Republic. I am
reminded of the time when, during recent events in Libya and Egypt, my
wife and daughter were watching television, watching the news, when the
President spoke on TV. They were talking about the fight for freedom
that continues in the Middle East, and the President mentioned how we
have to continue working for freedom around the globe.

My daughter looked at my wife and said, ``But we are free.''
To that, my wife looked at her and said, ``Yes, but we must always
continue to work for it, to fight for it.''

[[Page H2658]]

That's why we are here tonight, talking about how we can ensure those
fundamental liberties, those fundamental notions of freedom, that are
enshrined in our basic form of federalism.
With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you.
Next, I would like to yield to the co-chair of the Constitution
Caucus, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you.
Tom Nevins, who is actually a social archaeologist, gave an
interesting discussion about Ancient Central America in which he said,
in 1521, Cortez led a group of Spanish soldiers to what is today Mexico
City. There he found an Aztec society and an Aztec capital with 15
million inhabitants. Cortez gave simple instructions to Montezuma, II,
who was in charge at that time, which was, either give us your gold or
I'll kill you. For whatever reason, Montezuma gave him the gold, and
then he proceeded to kill him. In fact, in the siege of what is today
Mexico City, approximately a quarter of a million Aztecs died from
starvation in that siege, and within 2 years the Aztec empire was
totally controlled by the Spanish.
A decade later, the Inca civilization had the same thing happen to
them, led by Pizarro, who, once again, said, Give us your gold or we'll
kill you. They got the gold, and they proceeded to kill him. Also,
within 2 years, the Inca civilization was totally dominated by the
Spanish, which meant that both the Aztecs and the Incas were a highly
centralized government, a highly centralized society, a highly
centralized economic system, and because of that they were easy prey
for a smaller but a very well-trained and well-organized Spanish Army.
By the 1680s, the Spanish moved into the deserts of New Mexico where
they moved against the Apaches. There are two things that are different
about the Spanish efforts with the Apaches in New Mexico. Number one,
there was no gold to be taken. Number two, the Spanish lost. In fact,
for almost two centuries, the Apaches were able to hold at bay the
Spanish. One of the reasons they were is that the Apache civilization
was very decentralized. They had tribal leaders. Yet, as the tribal
leaders were either captured or killed, they just simply got another
tribal leader. The greatest of all is the one whose name we probably
mispronounce and call Geronimo.
As Nevin said, this Apache civilization was not loosey-goosey. They
had customs; they had traditions; they had a very sophisticated
society, but they also were decentralized. I am told that, in the
Apache language, the phrase ``you should'' simply does not exist.
Whereas, if we look at the thousands and thousands of pages that
produced ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, you will find the concept of
``you should'' being repeatedly inserted over and over and over again,
which means a centralized society has certain strengths and certain
weaknesses. Its greatest strength is the concept of uniformity.
Everyone can be coerced into doing the exact same thing at the exact
same time. A decentralized society has certain strengths and certain
weaknesses.

{time} 1930

Its greatest strength is creativity, flexibility and the opportunity
of its people to have options in the way they live. Now, I know, Mr.
Speaker, you and probably Mr. Stutzman are wondering what I am actually
doing here: I came into the wrong Special Order; like, what does this
have to do with the topic at hand? I think it does have to do with the
topic at hand because the idea at the Constitutional Convention was: Do
we have a centralized or a decentralized society and government here in
this country?
Indeed, they tried to separate powers horizontally between the three
branches of government, but more significantly, and more importantly,
vertically between national and State governments as a specific way of
trying to make sure that we had a decentralized system of government,
one that puts a greater emphasis on creativity, on flexibility and the
ability to ensure that our citizens had what they call personal
liberty, what I simply say are the options to make choices for
themselves in the way they wish to do that.
The Founding Fathers had a great fear of control. That is why they
rebelled against the British in the first place. They had a great fear
of bureaucracy. It is why in the Declaration of Independence they talk
about the swarms of officials who were sent here by the British
Government to devour from us our substance.
Today, we have in our government a Federal Government that apparently
tries to vacuum up as much power, as much money, and as much influence
as possible. Our government bureaucracy today in Washington is one that
is based on command-and-control style of leadership which builds a
heavy emphasis on rules. And obeying the rules of procedure is far more
important than just coming up with a commonsense solution to the
problem which happens to be at hand. In fact, one of the questions that
we have is, have we become, in essence, too big today? Have we become
more centralized than decentralized? And does that give some inherent
weaknesses to our society and our country that we have today? One of
the things that we have to do is try and rethink this entire situation.
Tomorrow, Members of this House will be inviting legislators from
around the country who are back here, and we will have a conference in
which State legislators will meet with Members of Congress to discuss
this very issue of what direction this country will be going in the
future and to recognize very clearly that this is not an issue between
the left and the right.
The idea of Federalism, of balancing powers of creativity and a less
centralized government, is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's an
issue of the direction of this country, because it's about people. It's
about whether people actually have options in their lives or whether
they don't. And when we recognize this, it becomes apparent that the
only way to make sense of the situation is to make sure that fewer
decisions in Washington are allowed to be directed towards the States
and local governments and that the people make more decisions in their
lives.
As Justice Rehnquist said, surely, there can be no more important
fundamental Constitution question than the intention of the Framers of
the Constitution as to how authority should be allocated between the
national and State governments. That's the battle which we still fight
for and struggle with here. And it's the one in which we cannot afford,
for the future of this country, to lose or to fail.
If sometimes when I was teaching school my students didn't quite
understand the significance of the fall of the Aztecs or the Incas,
then that was an annoyance. But if we, as Members of Congress, fail to
recognize the distinction between the centralization of power and the
decentralization of power, which was the very foundation of this
country, that is not an annoyance. That becomes a tragedy.

I am very grateful to the Constitutional Caucus, especially Chairman
Garrett of New Jersey and Representative Stutzman from Indiana, for
your leadership in organizing this. I am proud to join my good friend
from Colorado and, hopefully, my good friend from New Mexico as long as
he does not try and change any of my story about the Apache. That's my
story, and I'm sticking to it.
But this is important. This is one of those key issues. This is one
of the quintessential issues that will define where we go, either
forward to a brighter future or forward into a less secure and more
dangerous future. And I appreciate being able to be a part of it. I
thank you for allowing me to be here for a few minutes.
Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, for your comments.
Mr. Speaker, as I think about some of the comments that were made
tonight from Mr. Garrett and from Mr. Gardner, as well as from Mr.
Bishop, it brings back a lot of thoughts from experiences of serving
not only as a legislator but also as a farmer and as a businessowner of
a small trucking operation that we have, a family business, back in
Indiana. I think about how the freedom that we have comes from not the
Constitution; it comes from God. The rights that we have are God-given,
and the Constitution protects those rights.
I know that many times over the years we look at the Constitution as
a dry document. It doesn't seem to be exciting. It doesn't seem to be
one of great interest. But I can tell you today, Mr. Speaker, as we
watch our

[[Page H2659]]

Federal Government--as we've started to do the debate of budgets, of
health care, and of our military actions around the world, and of the
size and the scope of our Federal Government--it is crucial for us, for
all of us, to remind ourselves and to reeducate ourselves on what our
constitutional role is.
As Mr. Bishop said, many times we talk about the horizontal
separations of our government with the executive, the legislative and
the judicial; but also we need to remember the vertical branches of
government, and we need to remind ourselves that the States actually
established the Federal Government.
I can only imagine as our Founding Fathers were debating this and
looking at the States that were in existence and thinking of the
challenges they faced, the challenges of military action against them
and how do they defend themselves, the discussion of taxation, and to
come together and to establish a Federal Government that was designed
to not only protect but to protect the rights, protect us physically,
but to also protect the rights of us as individuals. Now looking back,
Federalism is that balance of a Federal Government that complies with
the constitutional guidelines, whether it's our national defense,
whether it's our borders, or whether it's commerce and currency, the
responsibilities are limited.
But as time has gone by, the Federal Government has continued to grow
and to pursue and to take away those responsibilities from States and
from our local communities. As Mr. Gardner mentioned, the different
local community visits that he has made, it reminds me of ones that I
made as well in Indiana, whether it's talking with the mayor in
Kendallville about the challenges with fire and police, whether it's
the Topeka Town Council and the challenges they have with economic
development, or whether it's Nappanee with their sewer challenges, Fort
Wayne or Angola with streets and sewers and things that they know what
they want to do and what they would like to accomplish that are all
affected by Federal Government one way or another.
And it drives costs up for not only them but ultimately for the
citizens. As spending continues to accumulate and increase, we have to
remember that the American taxpayer, the American citizen, we as
citizens are the ones who ultimately are going to be responsible paying
that bill.
And as we come into our budget process over the next couple of days,
I think that we should be reminded and would be remiss if we did not
take the opportunity to look through the scope and look through the
eyes of what our Founding Fathers imagined and intended for our country
through the Constitution as we face $14 trillion of debt. States, local
governments, and families don't have the ability to continue to borrow
dollars; specifically, States and local governments don't have the same
ability that the Federal Government has. And so they are disciplined.
And so they realize that the decisions they make affect local
communities.
The Federal Government and we in Congress need to take on that same
discipline and realize that the spending that we authorize today is
going to affect our children and our grandchildren. I have two
children, two sons, a 9-year-old and a 5-year-old; and I know that they
are going to have to assume the responsibilities and the consequences
of what happens today in Congress.
And I refuse to stand by and allow for more spending and for the
Federal Government to continue to grow. I want to see a country that
respects the individual's life and liberty and our local communities'
decision-making at the local levels and at the State level rather than
a government, a Federal Government that continues to believe that they
can authorize and tell the American people what to do and what they
cannot do.

{time} 1940

So with those thoughts in mind going into the budget process, I
believe we have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to challenge the status
quo. We hear a lot of comments on this floor about what the changes are
that are being proposed in the budget that just passed out of the
Budget Committee last week and is going to be debated here on the floor
tomorrow. I believe we cannot demonize the situation that we are in and
use scare tactics with the American people. We need to be factual. We
need to be honest. We need to realize the realities that we are in as
Americans, because we are all in this together. This is not a
Republican problem; this is not a Democrat problem. We see finger-
pointing on this floor all the time. And frankly, I know as a freshman
Congressman, that is not why I came here. I came here to fix the
problems we have because of a bloated government and because we have
overstepped the boundaries of our constitutional role.
If we do not face the fact that we have trillions of dollars of debt,
that we are overspending--and we have to also realize that we cannot
raise taxes on the American people at a time when the economy is
struggling, when American families are struggling and paying bills. By
raising taxes, we only drive the cost of doing business higher and we
drive the cost of living higher. Money cannot be circulated through the
economy dictated by the Federal Government to stimulate or drive our
economy. The American people do that much better.
I believe as we again debate the budget, we need to realize that if
we want to pass on a better future for our kids and our grandkids, for
our country, for ourselves, if that's the way people need to look at
it, I believe we lay out the situation, whether it is with Medicare and
realizing that we cannot continue down the road with the program as it
currently stands. If we want to hand that off to our children and our
grandchildren, some modifications have to happen.
I believe if we as Republicans and we as Congress, specifically
Republicans in the majority here in Congress, lay out the plan and we
make the case that something needs to be done, the American people are
with us. They realize the debt that is hanging over us, and they
realize the deficits that are over us cannot be sustained and we are
going to have to make changes. But we cannot make progress in a
bipartisan fashion if we continue to use scare tactics, and I believe
that going back and looking at the constitutional role of our Federal
Government, that all of us as Americans realize, as the many
generations before us did in the challenges that they faced, that we
are up to the challenge. So, Mr. Speaker, as we move into tomorrow, I
believe that our constitutional responsibilities will be defined by
what we do and what we say and what we vote on in the upcoming years.
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
One of your comments reminded me of a story shared with me by a
constituent several years ago. They talked about their time attending
law school. They were talking about in their constitutional law course,
they were starting with the Bill of Rights, going through the
amendments reading cases. And when they approached the 9th and 10th
Amendments of our Constitution, the law professor of this particular
class said we are just going to skip the 9th and 10th Amendments
because nobody really knows what these do anymore. And they went right
on and beyond the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Our discussion tonight has been on the issue of federalism, has been
on the issue of the powers that rightly rested with the Federal
Government versus the States. And here we are dealing with a law
school, a public law school where this individual was told we're going
to skip the 9th and 10th Amendments because nobody knows what it means.

I believe the American people have a great interest in what the 9th
and 10th Amendments mean. I know that many of our public law schools
have audit opportunities, and I believe the people who are interested
around this country in what students are being taught, what public law
schools are teaching regarding the Constitution, regarding the 9th and
10th Amendments of this country, they have a right to audit that class
and maybe they should start attending some of these law school courses
to learn just exactly what our schools are teaching when it comes to
federalism, the 9th and 10th Amendments, the liberty amendments of this
great Nation.

[[Page H2660]]

I just thank you for the opportunity to share that story with the
gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you.
It is probably all too common, unfortunately, because this document,
I believe, as I said earlier, is one that doesn't appear to be
exciting. But when you read it and when you realize what it does for
our freedom and that it protects our rights as individuals of this
great Nation, it is so important for us to understand, and if we don't
know, to find out, to listen to others who have gone before us, whether
it is our Founding Fathers or whether it is those who have served in
different capacities, whether it is in schools or whether it is in
government, there is a reason for it. It is the 9th and 10th
Amendments, and it is the 9th and 10th points of our Bill of Rights. I
think that is what of our Founding Fathers meant. They meant it to be
at the end to give those responsibilities back to the State governments
because they knew that the Federal Government wasn't going to be
responsible. They couldn't absolutely take care of everybody with the
role and the size that the Federal Government was at that time.
We are in a situation today where I believe many Americans believe
and they know in their heart what is right, and that our Constitution
protects those rights and that we believe in freedom. We believe in
that entrepreneurial spirit and that we can go out and make something
of ourselves.
As I said, I am the son of a farmer and have the opportunity to serve
in Congress, which is a humbling experience, but at the same time
knowing that we have a responsibility for our kids and for our
grandkids, for our country, for the freedom that we have, for the
opportunity we have. I believe that this is a perfect time for us to
know what the Constitution says, to understand it and to apply it.
Whether you are on the school board, which is one of the most important
positions I believe any individual can run for, to be involved in our
children's education, whether it is on the city council, town council,
county council, State government, those are all such important,
township government, are all so important because an engaged person
involved in the community, involved in the government, can make a
difference. That is what I believe to be so fascinating is that this
document empowers us as Americans. It doesn't take power away. It
doesn't give power strictly to the Federal Government. It is one that
believes in the American people.
As I mentioned before, with the budget debates coming forward, if we
continue to go down the path of higher spending, higher taxes, of more
regulation, that we only take away opportunity. We take away the
empowerment that was given to the American people, and that we all
should be grateful that we can go back to the Constitution and have
this discussion and have this dialogue about the responsibilities of
the Federal Government and making that case to those of us in Congress
and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the responsibilities
and the opportunities that State governments, local governments, not
only can they do, but they can do it better because they can meet the
needs of their local communities because they hear from local citizens.
I believe that government that is closest to the people serves the
people better.
With that, I appreciate each of my colleagues this evening being part
of the Constitutional Caucus discussion here on the House floor. I am
looking forward to many more. I know that each of us have great
responsibilities in front of us in realizing what the Federal
Government's role is, according to this document, and that we take
these very seriously in the upcoming days and that we don't continue to
grow the size and the scope of government.
I thank the Speaker for the time.

____________________