[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 15839-15845]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 15840]]

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 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

[[Page 15841]]

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 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

[[Page 15842]]

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 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.

[[Page 15843]]

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 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

[[Page 15844]]

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 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

[[Page 15845]]

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.

                          ____________________