[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5452-5453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           FEDERAL BUDGET NEEDS TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from 
Utah who just spoke previously, a fellow member of the Congressional 
Constitutional Caucus, who had indicated that we come to this floor on 
a regular basis to address what the Founding Fathers intended with the 
American public and the other Members of this body, their intention for 
the framework of the Constitution and the framework of the government 
of the various levels.
  James Madison stated in Federalist Papers No. 45 that the role of the 
Federal Government is limited and defined, whereas that of the States 
and the people, their powers are broad and numerous.
  To remind this body, the caucus' function primarily is to focus upon 
the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which in essence says that all 
powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are 
retained by the States and the people respectively.
  When you read that and when you think about that, it is really pretty 
simple what the founders were trying to do there. And when the 
Constitution was ratified in 1787, they probably thought it was pretty 
simple, too. They thought they had probably in place a plan that would 
be existing for future generations would understand that the role of 
the Federal Government would be limited, that the sovereignty of the 
States and of the people would be respected. They probably thought to 
themselves that there is probably no way that they could have written 
it even more clearly than they did; that future Congresses should 
follow suit, should be ones to limit what the Federal Government does, 
and to retain to the people and the States what their responsibilities 
are.
  Unfortunately, if you simply look out any of the windows of this 
building on this growing city that we have before us in Washington, 
D.C., you see representative of what is a growing Federal Government in 
all facets of our life. I am sure that our founding fathers would be 
disappointed in the largesse of the government, the excessive spending, 
the number of line items that is now in the budget. As a matter of 
fact, the budget is something that we were just debating and discussing 
on the floor of this House for a number of hours. I serve on the Budget 
Committee and have the opportunity to discuss it there as well.
  What would our Founding Fathers think if they were to see our 
spending levels today? Would they ask the question that I think we all 
should be asking: Is it inconsistent the size and scope that the 
government has grown to today? Is it inconsistent in the nature of the 
spending that the government has grown to today?
  If the Founding Fathers were with us today, I think they would give 
us a resounding no to what we are doing. They would say that it is 
inconsistent, that we have grown too large.
  But we are all leaving here now and going back to our districts. Many 
Members will be going back and using this time to get involved with the 
media. We are actually in a 24/7 media cycle in this country now with 
the advent of all the communications that we have, whether it is in 
press and press releases or whether it is going on the radio or TV or 
e-mail. Many Members use this as an opportunity simply to go back to 
their district and to brag about all the money that the Federal 
Government is spending, all the new areas that they are enveloping as 
far as their responsibilities, just as the one that the gentleman from 
Utah was just talking about as far as the delineation of wetlands and 
how it impacts upon the people back at home.
  Maybe this is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared, that we have 
grown so far apart from where the money comes from and where it is 
spent. Their goal was that the money should be spent closest to the 
people. That way, the people would have the greatest voice in how it 
was going to be spent. Unfortunately, we have just the opposite today. 
The inverse is true instead.
  Let me just give you a couple examples that come to mind. Think about

[[Page 5453]]

your local board of education and the schooling. Parents know who their 
teachers are, parents know who the principals are, parents know who the 
board of education is in their town that run their schools. But do 
parents know who the bureaucrats are down here in Washington, D.C. that 
now control education dollars that go back to those schools? People 
back at home know about the pothole in their front streets, people back 
at home know the name of their local mayor who may be responsible for 
making sure that street is paved. But do people know who the 
bureaucrats are in the U.S. Department of Transportation who are 
responsible for the transportation dollars that may or may not get back 
to their town to fix their potholes, but may instead go to someplace as 
the infamous bridge to nowhere?
  Maybe this is exactly what our Founding Fathers were thinking of when 
they were looking at a government so far away across a broad ocean in 
England, and realizing that that English government was no longer 
connected to our government here, and so that is why they put the 
limits on it that they did.
  We could go down with other examples, with the growing deficit that 
we have today, with the subpar service that we have in such agencies as 
FEMA, and ad infinitum as far as this goes, as far as the overgrowth 
and the problems that they have.
  I just simply ask that our Members do this, and I think that the 
American public should be asking that their Members do as well: Is what 
we do the best for the schools? Best for medicine? Best for care best? 
For bridges? Best for all other services? Is it in line with what our 
constitutional framework says and what our Founding Fathers intended?

                          ____________________