[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19232-19235]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         MARKING ANNIVERSARIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, anniversaries, marking anniversaries, is a 
very important thing to do, and we do that on a regular basis.
  In fact, just this past week, a great deal of attention was focused 
on that marvelous achievement when we saw Neil Armstrong 40 years ago 
take that first step on the Moon. We in just a few months are going to 
be marking the 20th anniversary of that amazing achievement, which many 
of us throughout our lifetimes thought would never happen, and that was 
the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and there are countless other events 
that take place that are regularly remembered.
  The importance of remembering events that have taken place, Mr. 
Speaker, is that we want to do everything that we possibly can to learn 
from those very tragic experiences and also from the good experiences 
so that we can ensure that the world is a better place.
  Eleven years ago at this very moment, there was a tragic occurrence 
here in our Nation's Capitol, and I remember it just as if it were 
yesterday. It was when we saw a madman come into the Capitol, what is 
now referred to as Memorial Door. At that door, he brutally murdered 
Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson of the U.S. Capitol 
Police.
  Mr. Speaker, in just one moment, colleagues of ours and Members of 
the U.S. Capitol Police are going to be, for 1 minute, taking a moment 
of silence to remember the lives of those heroes who were here, 
defending the U.S. Capitol. Earlier today, here in the House Chamber, 
we all know that, in remembering that occurrence of 11 years ago, we 
did have a moment of silence in remembrance of those great men.
  At this moment, since it is now 3:40, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
ask that we have 1 minute of silence to remember the lives of Officer 
Chestnut and Detective Gibson.
  Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to continue the train 
of marking anniversaries.
  Today, I rise to mark the occasion of the 220th anniversary of the 
First Congress and what is, perhaps, the most important milestone that 
was achieved in that first session of Congress, that being, of course, 
the passage of the Bill of Rights.
  Two hundred twenty years ago, James Madison, a Congressman from 
Virginia and the Father of our Constitution, introduced a package of 
constitutional amendments, sparking a great, historic debate in the 
House of Representatives and in the Senate. This came about despite the 
fact that Madison had opposed the inclusion of a Bill of Rights when 
drafting the Constitution.
  It came about because his constituents demanded it. Lives, fortunes 
and sacred honor had been sacrificed in the war that followed the 
signing of our Declaration of Independence, and many believed fervently 
that it would all have been in vain were it not for putting in place a 
Bill of Rights. The States, Mr. Speaker, went on to ratify 10 of the 12 
amendments that Congress passed, the very first 10 amendments to our 
Constitution, which collectively are known around the world as the most 
enduring and comprehensive guarantor of rights in the modern world.
  I believe there is great value in remembering our history as a nation 
and as an institution, and in examining the lessons that can be applied 
to our own era today. As we deal with the many challenges today--the 
worst recession in recent memory, two ongoing wars and a worldwide 
struggle that is going on against violent extremism--there is much to 
be gleaned from the great debates of our past, and the more we know 
about where we have been, the better we can understand where we are now 
and where we as a nation are headed.
  On May 4 of 1789, James Madison announced his intention to introduce 
a series of amendments that would constitute the Bill of Rights that 
many opponents of the Constitution had sought. Though 11 of the 13 
States had ratified the Constitution, there remained those who opposed 
the Constitution and the system of federalism it established. Chief 
among the complaints by those who had not supported the Constitution 
was, as I said, the absence of a clear Bill of Rights.
  As I've said, Madison, himself, had originally opposed the issue when 
he crafted and then, under the nom de plume Publius, joined Alexander 
Hamilton and John Jay and penned the Federalist Papers with the goal of 
defending the U.S. Constitution. But he came to see the value not only 
in explicitly delineating the rights of the citizens of the United 
States, but more importantly, he came to see the value in bringing 
unity to the Nation and in consolidating support for our Constitution.
  On June 8 of 1789, he introduced his proposal in the House of 
Representatives. Two hundred twenty years ago this very week, on July 
21, 1789, the matter was referred to the Rules Committee on which 
Madison served. After reviewing the proposal, the committee moved the 
amendment package to the House floor on August 14, marking the start of 
a very vigorous debate right in the House of Representatives where we 
are privileged to serve, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 19233]]



                              {time}  1545

  That debate carried on for 10 days, 10 days as Members passionately 
argued for and against the individual amendments, passing some, 
amending some, and rejecting others. On August 24, the House took its 
final vote and passed 17 amendments sending them over to the other 
body, to the Senate, for consideration.
  220 years ago this summer, the Senate began its debate on August 25. 
The debate carried on throughout the month of September and additional 
changes were made. Ultimately, a conference committee was convened and 
both the House and the Senate passed the final version on September 24 
of 1789, having whittled the package down to 12 proposed constitutional 
amendments. As we all know, the States went on to ratify 10 of those, 
and Mr. Madison's Bill of Rights was incorporated into our 
Constitution.
  Now, throughout that summer and early fall 220 years ago, many 
passionate arguments were made for and against the proposed 
constitutional amendments, but I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the most 
instructive debate came on June 8 when Madison first introduced his 
proposal in the House of Representatives. He argued vigorously for the 
need to pass a Bill of Rights, but he also presented a fair 
representation of the arguments against a Bill of Rights. He welcomed a 
fair, open, and spirited debate, and he wanted it to take place on the 
floor of the House of Representatives where it could be conducted in 
the light of day and within plain view of the American people.
  Though Madison had previously opposed the idea, he became 
increasingly ambivalent, and then ultimately, as we all know, 
supportive of the need for a Bill of Rights. But he remained 
sympathetic to the argument that rights that are enumerated are 
inherently limited. He noted that some believe, ``that a declaration of 
rights . . . is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said that 
in the Federal Government, they are unnecessary because the powers are 
enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the 
Constitution are retained by the people; that the Constitution is a 
bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people.''
  Madison, Mr. Speaker, understood, that the government does not grant 
the people their rights; rather, the people grant their government 
certain powers. For this reason, he sought to assuage these concerns by 
including in his proposal a provision clarifying that--and as I quote 
again from that speech--``The exceptions here or elsewhere in the 
Constitution made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so 
construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained 
by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the 
Constitution.''
  Congressman Madison knew that this was an important clarification to 
make, but ultimately he believed very deeply that despite the concerns, 
the imperative for moving forward was far more compelling.
  As I said at the outset, Mr. Madison very passionately believed in 
bringing unity to our Nation on the question of our Constitution. He 
saw this as the most fundamental of issues, and he believed very deeply 
in continuing to work towards consensus despite the fact that the 
necessary majority had ratified our Constitution already.
  In his speech on June 8, he expressed respect and understanding for 
those whose point of view on our system of Federalism was different 
from his, and he said the following: ``Yet still there is a great 
number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with (our 
Constitution), among whom are many respectable for their talents, their 
patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their 
liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its 
motive.''
  Mr. Speaker, Congressman Madison widely understood that Congress' 
capability as a representative body dependent upon the full support of 
those they represented, whatever disagreements on the various issues of 
the day there may be that exist, Congress' legitimacy in working out 
these issues would be called into question as long as there remained a 
vocal minority who opposed the very existence of the Constitution and 
our Federal Government.
  He noted that ``so far as to satisfy the public that we do not 
disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public 
councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future 
measures.''
  Mr. Speaker, he also saw the passage of a Bill of Rights as an 
opportunity to demonstrate good faith to those who were skeptical of 
the Federal Government and its powers, saying, ``those who have been 
friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity 
of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely 
devoted to liberty and a republican government as those who charged 
them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the 
foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing 
to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any 
apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to 
deprive him of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and 
honorably bled.''
  Mr. Madison viewed the unity of the Nation on the issue of our 
Constitution as far more important than any reservation some may have 
had on the need for a Bill of Rights, and he championed the need for a 
rigorous, very rigorous, debate on the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, he also believed that despite his earlier ambivalence, 
that the case for a Bill of Rights was ultimately persuasive on the 
merits because of the needs for checks and balances on the powers of 
the Federal Government. Though he found persuasive the argument that 
the government's powers are enumerated and therefore our liberties need 
not be, he recognized that explicitly enumerating the most important 
rights would help to place a check on the governments power.
  He noted, ``It is true the powers of the general government are 
circumscribed . . . but even if government keeps within those limits, 
it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which 
may admit of abuse to a certain extent.''
  Mr. Speaker, ever mindful that government is made up of fallible men, 
Madison believed wholeheartedly in the need to hold the Federal 
Government's power in check.
  He also understood that the issue of basic rights could not be left 
merely to the whims of majority rule. In fact, he feared this even more 
than the potential abuse of government, saying again in that June 8 
speech, ``I confess that I do not conceive that in a government 
modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather 
in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The 
prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be leveled against that 
quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses 
the highest prerogative of power. But this is not found in either the 
executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of 
the people, operating by the majority against the minority.''
  Mr. Speaker, had Madison not taken up the cause of the Bill of 
Rights, our Constitution may never have explicitly enshrined our 
freedom of speech, freedom of press, of religion, of assembly, of our 
right to petition our government. It may have never expressly 
guaranteed trials by juries of our peers or guarded against lawful 
searches and seizures, self-incrimination, cruel and unusual 
punishment, or double jeopardy.
  Today, we hold these enumerated rights to be as self-evident and 
fundamental as the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness that the Declaration of Independence claimed. We can't 
imagine our Constitution without the Bill of Rights. But what I believe 
is most instructive for us today is not the contents of Madison's Bill 
of Rights, but the manner in which he proposed it. The intellectual 
rigor which led him to champion this cause and with which he made his 
case to his colleagues and the American people was very important.
  That open, vigorous, comprehensive debate that was held in the United 
States House of Representatives and the tenure of that debate being, 
Mr. Speaker, as we've seen from the text of

[[Page 19234]]

that June 8 speech, 1789, as was introduced by Mr. Madison, he had 
great respect for the views of the Members with whom he disagreed. He 
argued with civility, comity, and respect. He did not impugn his 
adversaries' motives and, in fact, defended them.
  He passionately sought consensus on the fundamental issues and placed 
it above his own ambivalence on lesser concerns. He urged his 
colleagues to act based on ``the principles of amity and moderation,'' 
to ``proceed with caution,'' but that ultimately they must act 
resolutely ``to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be 
perpetual.''
  He clearly did not believe that decisive action and a full, open 
debate were mutually exclusive. In fact, he saw them as being fully 
intertwined, that elevating the debate above reproach would give this 
body the moral authority to act decisively and appropriately as a truly 
representative body.
  In his closing remarks that day, June 8, 1789, Mr. Speaker, 
Congressman Madison said, ``If we can make the Constitution better in 
the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame 
or abridging its usefulness in the judgment of those who were attached 
to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations 
as shall produce that effect.''
  Let me repeat that final phrase, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Madison said, ``we 
act the part of wise and liberal men.'' By that, one can only surmise 
that he meant we're not here to grandstand. We're not here to demagogue 
or turn the important issues of our day into political footballs. We're 
not here to attack those who hold different views or stifle debate or 
prevent opposing views from being heard. We're not here to become mired 
in petty arguments and partisan politics. We are here, Mr. Speaker, as 
we all know, we are here--and James Madison set the example of this--we 
are here to deliberate. We are here to honestly and openly confront the 
difficult challenges we face together as a country, to ensure that our 
constituents' concerns, whether they represent the majority or the 
minority view, can be voiced and discussed in the House of 
Representatives.
  I believe very much in this Madisonian model of rigorous yet civil 
debate. So it's with great dismay and sadness, Mr. Speaker, that I have 
seen the tenure of our debate deteriorate and the legislative process 
grow ever more closed in recent years. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that 
Republicans and Democrats alike have shared in the blame for this 
deterioration, but there is no doubt whatsoever, no doubt, that that 
deterioration has accelerated dramatically in the past few years.
  We've seen the opportunities for open debate become rarer. What's 
more, the level of debate and transparency allowed has been inversely 
proportional to the significance of the legislation in question. The 
more consequential, the more complicated, the more controversial a bill 
may be, the less opportunity there is for the kind of intellectually 
rigorous debate that James Madison called for and exemplified.
  One by one, Mr. Speaker, the traditions and precedents of this House 
have been disregarded. Perhaps the most significant of these has been 
the abandonment of openness in the appropriations process which, as is 
the tradition, we are in the midst of consideration this summer, and we 
have only one appropriations bill left to be considered, the Department 
of Defense Appropriations bill next week.

                              {time}  1600

  Now, throughout our 220-year history, the House of Representatives 
has considered its annual appropriations bills with an open debate. In 
recent history, this open appropriations process has been one of the 
very few opportunities that Members of the House have to get to freely 
offer amendments and have a debate on the issues that matter most to 
them.
  Unlike the Senate, we have a Rules Committee on which Congressman 
Madison sat in the House of Representatives. The modern Rules Committee 
sets the terms and conditions of debate on almost every major bill that 
comes to a vote. These terms and conditions have become increasingly 
more restrictive, shutting out all amendments to more legislation than 
ever before and significantly limiting the number of amendments on 
others.
  But, Madam Speaker, the open appropriations process has always been 
held sacrosanct because we have no greater constitutional duty in this 
body than holding the power of the purse.
  We have the very serious responsibility of spending the taxpayers' 
hard-earned money, and this responsibility deserves to be considered 
under a completely open and transparent process. There have been times 
in the past when some limits have been imposed. This has almost always 
been done by unanimous consent, both parties coming together to 
expedite matters after a period of open debate. There have been other 
instances of debate restrictions on individual appropriations bills 
that have been put into place for various reasons.
  But, Madam Speaker, those have been the exceptions to the rule. And 
the rule has been an open, good-faith process in which any Member, 
Democrat or Republican, I underscore that again, any Member, Democrat 
or Republican, can offer any amendment that conforms to the rules of 
the House. I am proud to say that this is certainly the spirit in which 
Republicans operated during the 12 years that we held the majority, and 
during 8 of those I was privileged to serve as chairman of the House 
Rules Committee.
  But this year, we have seen a very troubling reversal of this 
practice. Madam Speaker, from the very outset, before a single vote was 
cast or a single word of debate was uttered, the appropriations process 
was restricted. Rather than granting the traditional and customary open 
rule to our appropriations bills, they imposed a preprinting 
requirement.
  Now, the preprinting requirement means that rather than a free-
flowing and rigorous debate that has always characterized our 
appropriations process, Members were required to submit their 
amendments in advance to be printed in the Congressional Record.
  And now this may seem like a reasonable requirement at first glance, 
and many on the other side of the aisle argued that it was a very 
reasonable request. Why shouldn't amendments be submitted in advance of 
debate? In practice, there are a number of ways that unfortunately this 
stifles the Madisonian debate.
  First of all, appropriations bills are often debated over the course 
of a number of days. I mean, 10 days on the Bill of Rights. We have had 
3, 4, 5 days on appropriations bills for many, many years. When a 
deadline is imposed prior to the start of debate, in effect this 
requires amendments to be submitted 2, 3 or even 4 days in advance of 
when debate on the relevant section of the bill is considered.
  Secondly, the Budget Act prevents Members from offering amendments 
that increase the overall cost of an appropriations bill, and that's a 
correct thing. This means that if a Member wants to increase funding 
for a particular program, the amendment must also cut funding elsewhere 
by an equivalent amount.
  But what happens if the offset contained in one amendment has already 
been zeroed out by another? That Member would no longer be able to 
offer his or her amendment, and the deadline having come and gone 
before the start of debate, there would be no opportunity to redraft 
the amendment with a different offset.
  What's more, Madam Speaker, there are many logistical issues beyond 
Members' control that can prevent them from getting their amendments 
properly submitted prior to this artificial deadline. Legislative 
Counsel, faced with a deluge of requests as Members scramble to get 
their amendments drafted and submitted, can be too swamped to handle 
every request. Likewise for the Government Printing Office. This is a 
self-compounding problem, Madam Speaker, as Members submit multiple 
versions of the same amendment, just in case their offsets of course 
are altered by another Member's amendment. It compounds the problem.

[[Page 19235]]

  All of these problems inherent to the preprinting requirement have 
the effect of limiting debate and the ability of rank-and-file Members 
of both political parties, again, Democrats and Republicans, from being 
able to fully participate in the appropriations process; and yet it was 
imposed at the very outset this year before we had begun consideration 
of one appropriations bill.
  Now, that was only the beginning. As we started the already 
restricted debate on our very first appropriations bill, we got to 
exactly page 2, line 7 before the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee had had enough. One page, seven lines was apparently his 
capacity for even a partially, even though it was limited, a partially 
open debate.
  So he promptly shut down the entire process. We returned to the Rules 
Committee late that night where the Democratic majority imposed a 
structured rule for the consideration of the bill. They decided that 
they alone would be the arbiters on which issues could be debated, 
which amendments would see the light of day. They were saying 220 years 
of history be damned. This closed process has been repeated for every 
single appropriations bill that we have considered.
  And for those, Madam Speaker, who have followed the debate here, our 
colleagues know that we have just completed 11 of those 12 
appropriations bills and have only one remaining next week. I will make 
my commitment that, as has been the case for every single one of them, 
we will try to make an open rule in order upstairs in the Rules 
Committee on this.
  As I say, with one remaining appropriations bill, we know that it 
will most likely be considered under a highly restrictive rule that 
shuns the traditionally open debate with which we have handled our 
constitutionally mandated power of the purse.
  I believe that it is no accident that the abandonment of open debate 
on our appropriations bills has coincided with the most profligate 
spending in our Nation's history. It's no coincidence that our deficit 
has exceeded that $1 trillion mark just halfway through the year at the 
same time that the Democratic majority has shut out meaningful debate 
on their spending practices.
  As disastrous as the consequences of this reckless and unchecked 
spending spree will be, I fear that even greater damage will come as a 
result of the utter disregard for the traditions and precedents of this 
great body. Looking back at that historic debate on the Bill of Rights 
220 years ago this summer, it's so instructive because it illustrates 
just how far we have digressed from the high-minded example that James 
Madison laid out for us.
  The civility, the respect for opposing views, the intellectually 
rigorous and open debate, the deep belief in the importance of building 
consensus, all of these elements, Madam Speaker, all of these elements 
that characterized the debate led by Congressman James Madison 220 
years ago have been gradually hollowed out, leaving us with little more 
than empty, partisan rhetoric.
  Perhaps most troubling of all is how quickly this has become, and it 
really saddens me to say this, the new normal. More than a quarter of 
this entire body has served less than two terms. For over 25 percent of 
the House of Representatives, limited debate and bills written in the 
dead of night appear to be standard operating procedure. A closed 
appropriations process is just the normal way of doing business. 
Rancorous debate and demagoguery is simply the way we operate now.
  If we do not urgently consider our history and our traditions as an 
institution, if we do not make an effort to come together very soon and 
work to restore civility and open debate, these traditions will be lost 
forever.
  Of course there will always be significant divergence of opinions. We 
were meant to have a great clash of ideas here in the Congress. Our 
Founders very intentionally designed a system in which we would hold 
ourselves accountable by this very divergence.
  Benjamin Franklin wrote very famously in 1789, ``A plural legislature 
is as necessary to good government as a single executive. It is not 
enough that your legislature should be numerous; it should also be 
divided.'' Franklin went on to say, ``Numbers alone are not a 
sufficient barrier against the impulses of passion, the combination of 
interest, the intrigues of faction, the haste of folly, or the spirit 
of encroachment. One division should watch over and control the other, 
supply its wants, correct its blunders, and cross its designs, should 
they be criminal or erroneous.''
  Madam Speaker, we certainly have seen a great deal in recent weeks of 
the haste of folly and spirit of encroachment that Franklin spoke of.
  When debate is stifled, these checks and balances that the Founders 
envisaged are drastically diminished, and the result is both a 
poisonous atmosphere and, sadly, reckless public policy. In fact, the 
latter inevitably follows the former. A bad process begets bad 
legislation. And the respect, civility and comity that used to govern 
this body are destroyed in the process.
  Madam Speaker, my fear is that irreversible damage has already been 
done. But I'm standing here today to remember history. By remembering 
history, by honoring our tradition, by looking back to our Founders and 
the example that they gave us 220 years ago this summer with that 
rigorous, open debate, I believe we can begin to restore our 
institution. We can once again engage in great debates, in a clash of 
ideas, and do so with respect for our adversaries and a sincere desire 
to ultimately reach consensus.
  This is the model, this is the model that James Madison presented in 
one of the most important debates in Congress' history. The great 
challenges we face today are no less deserving of this kind of debate.
  If we are going to effectively and appropriately deal with the 
economic, energy, health care, environmental, national security and 
other issues that are before us, we must immediately reverse the very 
dangerous course on which we have embarked.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the Democratic leadership to restore 
deliberation in this body. This body is known as the greatest 
deliberative body known to man; and, sadly, we are losing that. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again engage in 
exchanges characterized by what Madison described as the ``principles 
of amity and moderation,'' to once again act the part, act the part as 
Madison said on June 8, 1789, act the part of wise and liberal men.
  We must do this, Madam Speaker, if we are going to successfully 
address the great challenges of our day.

                          ____________________