[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21376-21377]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            GENERAL WELFARE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 27, 2005

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I recently spoke with a young high school 
student in the wake of the Katrina disaster. He was quite interested in 
discussing the taxpayers role in absorbing costs of reconstruction and 
relief in the affected areas. He was so enthusiastic, in fact, that he 
presented me with a research paper he drafted for his government class. 
The paper provides some interesting historical insights, and I submit 
it for the Record.

                            General Welfare

                         (By Zachary Robinson)

       The New Testament Christian School.--The year was 1829, and 
     the setting for a Constitutional test was the nation's 
     capital. A fire had swept through a large part of Washington 
     D.C. leaving many people homeless and in need of help. As one 
     might expect, many people wanted to help, including the 
     Congress of the United States of America. On the morning 
     after the fire, with compassionate haste, Congress voted 
     twenty thousand dollars of the nation's money to be

[[Page 21377]]

     given to the victims of the fire. One well known congressman 
     in particular voted in approval of this bill; his name was 
     Davy Crockett.
       When Crockett returned to his home state, he expected to be 
     greeted with much praise and approval for having extended 
     kindness to those in need with his vote in favor of this 
     bill. However, as he was walking down a small, country road, 
     he instead received a surprising rebuke! He met up with a 
     voter from his state. Asking this man if when the time came 
     to reelect Crockett as a Congressman he would vote for him, 
     the man, whose name was Horatio Bunce, responded to Crockett 
     by telling him that he would most definitely not! His reason, 
     even more shocking to Crockett, was because of the way that 
     Crockett had voted on the bill afore mentioned! A shocked and 
     confused Crockett asked him why he was not happy with his 
     position on this bill. Bunce then reminded him that no power 
     had ever been given to the Congress by the Constitution to 
     spend the public's money for the benefit of a special group 
     of people, no matter how desperate the situation was. Any 
     money spent by Congress had to be spent on something that 
     would benefit the whole country equally and not just a 
     special part of it. Crockett quickly realized that he had 
     been wrong failing in the true application of the 
     Constitution's original intent. He apologized to Bunce and 
     his other constituents for what he had done promising that he 
     would always remember the lesson that Bunce had taught him 
     that day concerning the Congress' power in the spending of 
     the people's money as clearly stated in the Constitution.
       After this occurrence, Crockett was faced with another 
     Constitutional decision concerning this same controversial 
     `general welfare' clause. Congress was to vote again on 
     whether they should give money to a special group. This time 
     it was an individual--a widow of a deceased naval officer. 
     When it came time to vote, Congressman Crockett rose and 
     boldly said the following:
       ``Mr. Speaker, I have as much sympathy as . . . any man in 
     this House, but . . . Congress has no power to appropriate 
     this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this house 
     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 . . . Mr. Speaker, I have said the we 
     have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. 
     I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this 
     bill, but I give one week's pay to the object, and if every 
     member of the Congress will do the same, it will amount to 
     more than the bill asks.''
       The bill was turned down as a result of this and Crockett 
     did give one week of his pay as an act of charity to the 
     widow, but, interestingly enough, not one of the other 
     Congressman did the same! This is an important point for us 
     to understand. When the Congressmen were going to give money 
     to the widow that was not theirs to give, the amount of money 
     to be given was to be large. But when it came to giving out 
     of their own pockets, they could not bring themselves to do 
     it! It seems that it is much easier for people to be generous 
     and compassionate with money that is not theirs than to meet 
     other's needs with their own.
       In Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1, clause 4 of the 
     Constitution of the United States, it states that Congress 
     has the power to spend money for the ``general welfare of the 
     United States.'' The key word in this statement is the word 
     ``general.'' When the writers included the word ``general'' 
     in this sentence, they wanted the people to know and 
     understand that Congress was only allowed to spend money that 
     would benefit the people of the United States as a whole 
     equally, not as a special group or just part of its 
     population.
       In fact, there is no provision in the Constitution for the 
     use of monies to be given to any special interest groups, 
     states, cities, or citizens. This would be called special 
     welfare and cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution! 
     Obviously, this clause is now violated all of the time as it 
     has been grossly twisted and misinterpreted ever since the 
     Supreme Court, which has no authority to write law, supported 
     this `special welfare' view of this clause in 1936. Now we 
     pay taxes and Congress uses them to pay for things that do 
     not help everyone equally in our nation but fall instead to 
     special people with special needs. This is wrong and goes 
     against what the founder's original intentions were for the 
     resource of the people's money that they have been entrusted 
     to protect.
       Members of Congress need to be reminded of what the 
     Constitution actually says and means so the abuse of this 
     power will not continue and true `general welfare' can be 
     reinstated! Also, in light of today's recent tragedies, do 
     not think I am advocating for the neglect of those in our 
     country who are truly in need. On the contrary, the much 
     needed special welfare for specific groups and crisis' can 
     and should be encouraged where it has always been best 
     served--at the local individual, town, and/or state levels. 
     Here is where it can most effectively be given and protected 
     meeting the needs where they can be more clearly understood 
     and aided.
       May we all become more respectful and responsible with the 
     interpretation of our Constitution concerning our nation's 
     money learning the lesson Davy Crockett learned so long ago. 
     May we also rise to the occasion when it presents itself and 
     dig deep in our own pockets giving what is ours to give when 
     our fellow countrymen are in obvious need. May we recognize 
     this is what makes our country so strong and great! This--our 
     individual liberty and character to do what is right knowing 
     one day it might be ourselves who are in need of a helping 
     hand!
       May God bless America!

                          ____________________