[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3490-3496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1910
                          CONSTITUTION CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). 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 am honored to represent the people of 
Indiana's Third District, and I am also proud to serve as a cochair of 
the Constitution Caucus here in Congress. The hottest fires make the 
strongest steel. After seeing Washington assail the Constitution, 
Americans went to the polls last November and demanded a return to our 
first principles. As a result, the membership of this caucus has more 
than doubled. We began this Congress by reading the Constitution right 
here on the floor. We have come here this evening in that same spirit.
  I rise today to continue a conversation that used to fill the halls 
of this great building. There was a time in our Nation's past when 
Members of Congress openly and passionately debated the interpretation 
of the Constitution. We are here tonight to renew that discussion.
  When we were sworn in, each of us took an oath to uphold and defend 
the Constitution. This means that we are required to interpret and 
apply it to our daily work. I am sure that we all take that oath very 
seriously. However, I am also sure that, without vigilance, we slip out 
of tune with the principles enshrined in that founding document.
  Today, we have an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to those 
principles, to limited government and individual equality. In the 
coming months, my colleagues and I will come again to the floor to 
discuss federalism, checks and balances, and enumerated powers.
  Today, however, we ought to begin by asking ourselves a very simple 
question: ``What is so wonderful about the Constitution?'' After all, I 
believe, the last election was a mandate to return to its wisdom and 
guidance. We ought to at least begin by asking why it should hold such 
prominence in our hearts. Why, for example, did Abraham Lincoln declare 
so forcefully, ``Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. 
That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our 
liberties''?
  The answer is elegantly simple. The Constitution enshrines the 
enduring principles of limited government, and limited government is 
the surest guardian of human dignity. The Constitution gave form and 
shape to the philosophy put forth in the Declaration of Independence. 
The Declaration, it has been said, was the promise; the Constitution is 
the fulfillment.
  I cannot overemphasize the truly revolutionary nature of our War for 
Independence. For the first time in human history, when a group of 
people overthrew an oppressive regime, they began by espousing a 
vigorous and eloquent philosophy: That all men are created equal. They 
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Even as 
lives, fortunes, and sacred honor hung in the balance, these men began 
with a summary of human nature.
  America was founded on the idea that humans have a specific 
character. We are wired a certain way. Our Founding Fathers understood 
two basic and profound truths about human nature. First, we are not 
perfect. We err. We will never reach perfection. To believe that man is 
perfectible is to engage in fanciful speculation. Second, in spite of 
our fallen natures, we are dignified and equal. We each possess reason 
and the ability to determine our own lives.
  As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, eloquently stated: 
``What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on 
human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If 
angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on 
government would be necessary.''
  How then can imperfect beings govern in a way that respects human 
dignity? The answer is found in limited government. Again, James 
Madison said this: ``You must first enable the government to control 
the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.''
  Limited government justly defends the dignity of the individual 
through specific and checked powers. Do not confuse limited for weak. 
Government ought to be strong in those areas where strength is required 
and specifically enumerated. In all other areas, the government must 
defer to the judgments of free men and women.
  In our Republic, the dignity of the individual citizen is paramount. 
It would be arrogant to believe that a few elite can discern and direct 
over 300 million souls here in America. I fear, with ballooning 
government and near unstoppable deficits being run every year, we are 
dangerously close to abandoning the principles that brought us here 
safely thus far. As regulations infringe on nearly every aspect of 
daily life, human dignity is endangered.
  Those of us here this evening are ready to work against this tide, to 
return our government to its proper role of defending individual 
freedoms. I am eager to continue this conversation in the coming 
months, because there is much work to be done.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the original founder of this caucus.
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for being here 
tonight as we talk about the Constitution. And who was it that said 
that the Constitution, it may not be perfect, but it's better than what 
we have now?
  As we talk about kicking off tonight's Special Order, this series 
here in the 112th Congress, I am pleased to be here with my colleague 
from Indiana and my colleague also behind me, the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop), to talk about these most important issues, the foundation 
of the Constitution.
  Back at the very beginning, back in 2004, 2005, there really were not 
that many Americans talking about the proper role of the Constitution 
and the

[[Page 3491]]

limitations that it does place both on the size and also on the scope 
of the Federal Government. But as the years went by, over the last 
several years at least, interest in the Constitution has grown as new 
government programs have whittled away basically at the protections in 
the Constitution that guarantee to us certain liberties to the people 
and authorities to the States. So, as we come here tonight, and as we 
have pointed out in the past, we will continue to highlight until 
Congress' recent course is reversed.
  This body has drifted away from the principles of limited government 
enshrined in this, the Constitution. This document, the finely crafted 
sections and verses that are in it, the guidelines and the limitations 
that we see in it of the powers of government it was written to impose, 
does not have the same personal meaning and importance to Americans it 
seems it had during the times of the federalist and anti-federalist 
debates.
  Is that because it is a different time, and now we're in a different 
age where we have long since forgotten what it is like to live under 
tyrannical rule? It may be, Mr. Speaker, because of that, or perhaps 
otherwise, it could also be because we don't simply cherish and study 
the Constitution like our forefathers once did.
  So we come to the floor tonight, through these Constitution hours, if 
you will, and we hope to, by them, increase the knowledge not only of 
this body but also of the American public as well. And we do so, taking 
a look at the intricacies and the nuances of this, the Constitution. 
Also, I think, we also help to shed some light on the circumstances and 
the times that inspired the Founding Fathers to write our country's 
founding document.
  Tonight, we specifically want to spend some time talking about 
limited government and its role in protecting human dignity. ``Liberty 
to all,'' President Lincoln once wrote, back in 1861, ``is the 
summation of the Declaration of Independence.'' He said further, ``the 
principles which have proved an apple of gold to all of us.''
  Yet the mere assertion of those principles for him was not enough. As 
Lincoln later pointed out, for liberty to have real meaning, it must be 
enshrined, and it must be enshrined in law. The Constitution, as he put 
it, is the picture of silver subsequently framed around. Then he went 
on to say that the picture was made not to conceal or to destroy that 
apple as it was framed, but rather to adorn and to preserve it.
  This, Lincoln said, drawing upon the book of Proverbs, is ``a word 
fitly spoken.'' So to understand America, you must understand our 
founding principles. To understand the Constitution and why government 
should be limited, you must then, therefore, understand also the 
Declaration of Independence.
  So, the structure of the Constitution follows the principles and the 
arguments of the Declaration, where it says, of course, all men are 
created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights. This great statement, that we are hopefully all 
familiar with, at the outset of the Declaration, a truly revolutionary 
claim at the time, is followed by a list of complaints lodged against 
the king at that time, King George III.
  To just spend a moment or two to go into this in a little bit more 
detail and to delve down into it, these then can be divided into three 
categories, corresponding with the legislative, executive, and judicial 
foundations of government.

                              {time}  1920

  So to step back for a moment, the list takes up over half of the 
Declaration, and the complaints there specify exactly where their King 
had failed. And so, too, why government by consent is therefore 
necessary. Now he refused to enact necessary laws, they said. Harmful 
ones took their places, they said. Judges entirely dependent upon the 
King's will were rendered mere puppets at the time; and when the King 
did act, he flooded American shores with soldiers and bureaucrats.
  Their complaints there were specific. The King suspended 
representative Houses for opposing with manly firmness invasions on the 
rights of the people, he wrote. He went on to say, he has obstructed 
the administration of justice. How? By refusing his assent of laws for 
establishing judiciary powers. He went on to say he was also guilty of 
imposing taxes on us without our consent and also suspending our very 
own legislatures and declaring themselves vested with powers to 
legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  Yet another complaint alleged against the King was that he ``erected 
a multitude of new offices and thereby sent hither swarms of officers 
to harass the people and eat out their substance.''
  So, when all power is taken from the hands of the people and 
accumulated in the hands of a single person, or single head, if you 
will, it breeds a similar power grab by who else? The bureaucrats, who 
have no job but to consume the productivity and resources of the 
people, of the populace. So the overweening Federal Government today is 
guilty of the same offenses of liberty as back then as well.
  Americans who are desperately trying to figure out and file their own 
income tax returns right now know this all too well, I think. And so 
the Declaration anticipates what we have here, the necessity of 
separation of powers and just society.
  So its message is clear: No single person or political force can 
rightfully possess all the powers of the one government. Only the 
Divine, only the Divine who is named in the Declaration of Independence 
as the Author of the laws of nature, also named as the Creator, also 
named as the Supreme Judge of the entire world, and finally also named 
as Divine Providence, only the Divine justly exerts complete power. But 
in the hands of a human being, such power is, as it's stated there, 
absolute despotism.
  Our Founding Fathers did not believe that human beings could be 
perfected. We were not divine. We were capable of both good and evil. 
James Madison later wrote in defense of the Constitution: ``As there is 
a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of 
circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human 
nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and of confidence.''
  So to assume that man's goodness will always direct his actions is to 
ignore reality. People, therefore, are imperfect and cannot be 
perfected. And so no edict of government will change that fundamental 
fact.
  To step back again, what, then, is the role of government? Calling 
government the greatest of all reflections of human nature, James 
Madison said that the government must start where? Well, with the 
understanding that men are not angels, as the gentleman from Indiana 
stated before. And as he said, were they perfect or angelic, no 
government would be necessary.
  Jefferson, Madison's friend, implicitly argued the same thing in the 
Declaration. So, today, when we speak of ``the government,'' we often 
think of an impersonal force, somehow out there and above everything, 
above human nature, if you will.
  But what is government? Government is composed of what you see here. 
It is composed of human beings, all of whom are imperfect. And so to be 
in the public sector or to be elected to office does not automatically, 
by any means, transform a human being into that angel. And so for that 
very same reason, that very same reason that human beings are not 
perfect, government therefore must be limited and its duties therefore 
must be delineated.
  Going back to what President Lincoln once said, he further elaborated 
on the importance of human dignity, which is our discussion tonight, 
back in 1861 where he said a couple of things, and I will close on 
this: ``Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have 
attained the result; but even these are not the primary cause of our 
great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself 
more closely about the human heart.'' And what is that? ``That 
something is the principle of 'liberty to all'--the principle that 
clears the path for all--gives hope to all--and, by consequence, 
enterprise and industry to all.''
  Over the course of this 112th Congress, this caucus and my 
colleagues,

[[Page 3492]]

hopefully, on both sides of the aisle will continue to sponsor these 
discussions, these Constitution hours, if you will, to expand upon our 
understanding of these core principles of limited government enshrined 
in our Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak tonight on this 
very important topic, and I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. It is my pleasure to now yield such time as he may 
consume to the fellow chair, the cochair of the Constitutional Caucus, 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. Speaker, 
it is a pleasure for me to be here and be part of this significant 
issue.
  In the Constitution it says that certain things are self-evident. And 
what are the things that were self-evident in the Declaration of 
Independence? I have to get words right, don't I? In the Declaration of 
Independence there are things that are self-evident. And what was self-
evident is that all men are created equal in a political sense. And 
because of that, because all men are equal, the Creator has given us 
certain inalienable rights.
  And then it goes on to say the next step in that process is once you 
have those inalienable rights, it is the purpose of government to 
secure those rights. That's what we are talking about here, that within 
the concept of our country, which was written and established in the 
brilliant prose of Thomas Jefferson, every individual has an innate--
almost divine--worth within them which signifies that they all have 
certain rights that are there from the Creator.
  In England, those rights were established in law starting with the 
Magna Carta and then building on, so that at the time of our country's 
founding, everyone knew what the rights of Englishmen were. Our 
Revolutionary War was not about taxes being too high. It was, not as 
some revisionist historians will say, about impressment of colonials 
into the British Navy. It was about the rights of Englishmen which were 
being denied British subjects living in America at the time. That's 
what they argued about. That's what in Philadelphia they were talking 
about is the denial of those individual rights which are basic to all 
people because we all have that spark of divinity and we have those 
inalienable rights.
  That's why as part of the debate that was established there was an 
exchange in which Benjamin Franklin took part in which he was talking 
with another person that said, there are more important things in life 
than simply having our rights protected. The fact is we are British 
citizens. To which Franklin then said, to be called a British citizen 
without given the rights of a British citizen is like calling an ox a 
bull. He is grateful for the honor, but would much rather have restored 
what was rightfully his. That's the key element to which we were 
talking here. With that, the Constitution was written as a 
fortification of those individual rights and freedoms.
  And it is the purpose of limited government to protect those 
individual liberties. The Constitution created limited government, the 
purpose of which was to protect our individual liberties.
  Now as I try and talk to my old students to try and sometimes define 
the term ``individual liberties,'' because it becomes somewhat vague in 
the minds of people, I look at individual liberties as the concept that 
individuals have choices in their personal lives. It is not the role of 
government to pick winners and losers in society, whether that be 
socially or economically. That is our rights as individuals.

                              {time}  1930

  It is the right to have choices in my life. You know, I look around 
the world in which we are, and it seems like all the time I am given 
choices and options, even when I don't want them. I can pick a cell 
phone plan from a myriad of options that are there. If I want a 
breakfast cereal, there is a whole row of choices that are there. Even 
if I want Pringles potato chips, there are 16 kinds of varieties for 
me.
  The entrepreneurial world has understood that people in America want 
choices and options. That's their liberty. It is only government, 
especially here in Washington, that seems to see that one size fits all 
and mandates so that the government chooses winners and losers rather 
than allowing that for individuals. It is only us it seems who have not 
learned what is yearning within the soul of all Americans that they 
understood when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and then 
formalized the Constitution of the United States.
  I wish to quote someone here, and I don't know who actually wrote 
this, but it is brilliant so I am going to claim that I said it: In the 
first 150 years of this country, under the Constitution, we can sum up 
in the following way. In the early years of this country, measures to 
expand government's power beyond those enumerated in the Constitution 
rarely got out of Congress because they were stopped by the objections 
in that branch. Constitutional objections in Congress.
  Members of Congress actually debated whether they had the power to do 
whatever it was that was being proposed. They didn't simply assume they 
had the power and then leave it to the courts to check them, Congress 
took the Constitution and the limits it imposed on congressional action 
seriously. Then when constitutionally dubious bills did by chance get 
out of Congress, Presidents vetoed them not simply on policy but on 
constitutional grounds. Indeed, the first six Presidents thought the 
veto was supposed to be used only for constitutional purposes. And 
finally, when that brake failed, the courts stepped in. In short, the 
system of checks and balances worked because the Constitution was taken 
seriously by a sufficient number of those who had sworn to uphold it. 
We seem to have forgotten that in probably the last 60, 70, maybe even 
100 years.
  If I can give a religious reference, at some time the children of 
Israel, as we read in the Old Testament, wanted to have a king so they 
could be likened to all other nations. They went to the prophet who 
tried to dissuade them, but they were insistent that they have a king 
to be likened to all other nations, so the king could do marvelous 
things. And, indeed, they had a king. And the first kings did great 
things. They unified a nation; they built a beautiful temple. But 
ultimately, those kings became the millstone around the neck of the 
people that brought them down to destruction.
  We have a change that took place almost 100 years ago where people 
decided to change what the Federal Government was designed to do. It is 
not that they did not understand the Constitution. They understood it 
perfectly; they just didn't like it because it prohibited us from doing 
marvelous things. We have now run through almost two generations, three 
generations of individuals under a system of government in which we 
look not to limit what government does to protect individual liberties, 
but to try to make sure that government does those marvelous things. We 
have come to a period of time where economically and socially we are 
now in a period of distress simply because we forgot the original 
foundation of this country, the purpose of the Constitution, the joy 
and brilliance of limited government whose sole purpose should be to 
protect individual liberties, not for government to do marvelous 
things.
  If we restore ourselves to that purpose and reinvigorate the concepts 
for which this country was established, which I do believe to be the 
concepts of federalism and limited government here, then indeed we have 
a chance of restoring this country and solving our problems. If not, we 
face very dark and difficult times indeed.
  For the first 150 years, they understood that. They acted that way. 
We can do the same thing again. We have the same spark of divinity 
within us that they had back then. We can do it; we should do it.
  I thank you for this opportunity of being here. I know you have other 
speakers who will speak on this particular issue far more eloquently 
than I, and I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.

[[Page 3493]]


  Mr. STUTZMAN. Next I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, 
District Three, Jeff Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. As a new Congressman back in January, I 
was never prouder than when I took this floor to take part in reading 
the United States Constitution. That day, I brought with me to the 
podium a copy of the Constitution that I carry in my pocket every day.
  Ronald Reagan, in his farewell address to the American people in 
January 1989, said: Ours was the first revolution in the history of 
mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three 
little words, ``We the people.''
  We tell the government what to do, President Reagan stated, it does 
not tell us. A simple phrase, ``We the people . . . '' put down by our 
Founding Fathers who defined self-government. Self-government. Those 
words ring true.
  I think daily about that government that they formed--a limited 
government, one with powers for each branch that are clearly spelled 
out in this document, clearly defined. And, you know, we are a long 
ways from the limited government and enumerated powers that they 
strived to corral.
  I am concerned that we don't read and study the United States 
Constitution enough in our public schools like we used to when I grew 
up. I am worried that we the people don't know or remember why our 
Founding Fathers divided power into three separate branches of 
government, why they defined the powers of each, and why they were 
inclined to spell out our liberties in a Bill of Rights.
  They formed this government that has lasted well over 200 years. But 
after they formed that government, they decided that they better spell 
out the liberties. In fact, they had to do that in order to have the 
States ratify this great document.
  Everywhere I travel around my beloved Palmetto State and around this 
country, I ask folks: What are your First Amendment rights? And almost 
to a person, they mostly answer: Freedom of speech. But, you know, let 
me remind you here today that the first thing our Founding Fathers 
addressed was your freedom of religion. In fact, the first sentence in 
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution says Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
  They do that before they address your freedom of speech, before they 
address your freedom of the press, before they address your right to 
peacefully assemble or your right to petition this government for 
redress of grievances. Folks, I remind you that our freedoms are slowly 
being eroded in this country, and I believe that we as Americans need 
to get back to doing what we did in that first week in this United 
States Congress, and that is take this document out, read it, 
understand what our Founding Fathers were trying to do when they said 
we the people will govern ourselves.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. Very eloquently said.
  I would like to touch on a couple of things that the gentleman from 
South Carolina said, Mr. Speaker. As we did have a great opportunity to 
read the Constitution on the House floor, I found it not only to be one 
that should be a lesson for all of us, but also one that will remind 
each American of the great document that we have that governs our land.
  I would like to read just a couple of statements that some of our 
Founding Fathers made that I believe are so important for each one of 
us to remember today. First of all, I would like to start with George 
Washington, who is my political hero. What a great man who not only was 
so willing to sacrifice and was willing to serve his great country, and 
he could have been king if he was wanting to, but instead knew that 
limited power was going to be the real answer to America's new 
Constitution and to its new Government.
  George Washington said: ``The power under the Constitution will 
always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes 
and for a certain limited period to representatives of their own 
choosing. And whenever it is executed contrary to their interest or not 
agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be 
recalled.''
  Mr. Washington was referring to elections. I think what has not only 
solidified our government for years and years has been that it is the 
people, the people's government. The people have the ability to recall 
those who are elected to go to their representative capitals, whether 
it is in the State governments or here in Washington, D.C., and if 
their wishes are not received by the people, the people can recall them 
back to their State and elect someone new.

                              {time}  1940

  Also, I would like to read another statement by Thomas Jefferson: 
``On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the 
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested 
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out 
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in 
which it was passed.''
  Thomas Jefferson was our third President and was one of the great men 
who took part in building our great democracy and our Republic here in 
the great country of the United States.
  I would also like to refer a little bit to my time in having the 
opportunity to serve in the Indiana State legislature and knowing that 
Thomas Jefferson was a Federalist who believed in States' rights. And 
one of the things I have seen in my short time in Washington is that 
the States have so much flexibility, have so much more ability to serve 
the people, as well as our local governments. And that is one of the 
reasons that I believe the Constitution was formed to protect that 
local control.
  As we've seen time and time again, there is more influence by our 
Federal Government in reaching further and further into our communities 
with more mandates, with more legislation that continues to take away 
our freedoms.
  And having the opportunity to serve in the State legislature in 
Indiana, I would also share that we can see how each State has 
different needs, and the Constitution addresses that by limiting the 
powers of the Federal Government. And we're seeing more and more waste 
of tax dollars, something that I believe that the American people are 
tired of, and they want to see Washington fix its problems just like 
the American people do every day in tightening their own belt.
  We tighten our belt in our small family farming operation back in 
Indiana. We do that with our family budget. And people are asking 
across the country, If we can do it, why can't Washington?
  And we're seeing overlap of Federal and State and local governments; 
and I believe if we would get back to the constitutional roles, the 
constitutional role that the Federal Government is given, and focus on 
the priorities that our Founding Fathers gave to us and the 
Constitution as a government, then we will be more effective, we will 
serve the people who have elected us to serve, and instead of 
infringing upon the responsibilities and the rights of those in our 
States that we will have a more efficient government and we will also 
have a government that is closer to the people and one that I believe 
serves best when government is close to the people and will serve and 
respond to the needs of them.
  At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  Thank you for being here and I look forward to your comments.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate being here to participate in the Constitution Caucus's 
comments on our Constitution.
  We labor under sometimes, basically all times, the misguided idea 
that we're the smartest people that ever walked the face of the Earth, 
that no new ideas are created except through us. Sometimes it's helpful 
to look back at some of the things folks who have gone before us have 
said to help us reflect on those and see how they apply to today's 
circumstances.

[[Page 3494]]

  A couple of those things, one is from a speech that Robert Kennedy 
made on the Day of Affirmation address that he gave in South Africa 
back in 1966. And while much of what he talked about, the revolution of 
youth and the civil rights movement and other things, are not germane 
to what we're talking about tonight, there is a section that is 
particularly relevant to this conversation, and I would like to read 
into the Record his comments in some of those early paragraphs.
  He started off by saying: ``We stand here in the name of freedom.''
  ``Freedom'' is that wonderful word that conjures up inside of all of 
us those kinds of feelings that are unique to just certain words. 
``Liberty'' is another word that does that, that has that kind of 
visceral experience inside each one of us. It's different but 
nonetheless inspiring almost every single time you hear that.
  Kennedy went on to say: ``At the heart of that Western freedom and 
democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is 
the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for 
his benefit. Therefore, the enlargement of liberty for individual human 
beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any Western 
society.
  ``The first element of this individual liberty is the freedom of 
speech, the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself 
apart from the dumb beasts of the field and the forest; to recall 
governments to their duties and obligations; above all, the right to 
affirm one's membership and allegiance to the body politic, and to 
society, to the men with whom we share our land, our heritage and our 
children's future.
  ``The essential humanity of men can be protected and preserved only 
where government must answer, not just to the wealthy, not just to 
those of a particular religion, or a particular race, but to all its 
people.
  ``And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our 
Constitution, must be limited in its power to act against its people so 
that there may be no interference with the right to worship or with the 
security of the home, no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties by 
high officials or low; no restrictions on the freedom of men to seek 
education or work or opportunity of any kind so that each man may 
become all he is capable of becoming. These are the sacred rights of 
Western society.''
  Senator Kennedy got it right. These are the sacred rights of Western 
society, and we are in danger of having those rights trampled on by 
this continued growth in the size of our Federal Government.
  If you look at the trajectory that we find ourselves on from a 
financial standpoint, you can have estimates by think tanks on the 
left, estimates by think tanks on the right, the CBO, the GAO--all of 
these have 75-plus-year projections on the path that we're currently 
on. If you stack each of those projections on a light table to look 
through all of them at the same time, there's not a chigger's whisker 
difference between the path that we're on.
  Nobody disagrees that the path that we're on is absolutely 
unsustainable. I tell my constituents back home we're very much like 
the fellow who fell off the 10-story building. As he passed the fifth 
floor, he said, So far so good, so far so good. Well, we are that guy; 
and although our financial wreck is 10, 15, 20 years down the road, we 
are in a free-fall that has an abrupt immediate stop somewhere in our 
future.
  We are bright, intelligent, smart people, present company excepted. 
We ought to be able to look at those projections, Mr. Speaker, and take 
action. We have for 5 years now, 6 years this August, failed to reform 
Social Security. When I first joined Congress in 2005, that was one of 
the leading issues on our table at that time. And, yes, we got 
distracted about whether or not part of it should be personally owned 
and part of it should not; but at the end of the day, we had set the 
predicate for why Social Security needed to be adjusted. Most of us 
spent that first 8 months in 2005 trying to lay out to our constituents 
exactly what the issues were that are familiar to all of us in this 
Chamber. That lasted until the end of August 2005. And then Hurricane 
Katrina happened and distracted us from the goal of getting it done, 
and we have not touched Social Security since.
  We've continued to choose each and every year to not adjust and not 
renegotiate Social Security. That choice has a consequence, and the 
consequence is that we're adding about $600 billion of unfunded 
mandates to the debt of future generations of Americans because we 
choose not to take action.
  That choice is ours to take. It is our freedom to take that choice. 
It's our liberty to take that choice. But collectively both sides of 
the aisle--this isn't a Republican issue or Democrat issue--both sides 
of the aisle have, for good or for bad--I would argue for ill--chosen 
to not address a fundamental spending issue that, among those that we 
have to face, I would argue is the least difficult.
  Let me finish a quote from George Washington in his first inaugural 
address. George Washington declared: ``The preservation of the sacred 
fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government 
are finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the 
American people.'' Trust is placed in the people precisely because they 
are, in the words of the Declaration, equally created and endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
  We have that precious gift in our hands: those of us in the 435 of us 
who get to vote in this House, the 100 on the other side of this 
building who get to vote, the man, the woman who occupies 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue. We have the tools of choice in our hands. Do we 
choose to preserve liberty and freedom for future generations, or do we 
choose to continue, as that fellow falling off the 10-story building 
said, So far so good, so far so good? I argue that we should not. I 
argue let us use our intellect, let us use our will, let us use the 
wisdom of the American people who last November made a pretty dramatic 
statement as to what they thought we ought to do.

                              {time}  1950

  We now need to take those reins of choice in our hands and lead this 
Nation to a sustainable Federal Government that does not mortgage our 
grandchildren's future and that does not hand off to them an America 
that is less prosperous and that has less opportunity for standard of 
living increases that you and I enjoyed as we stepped into adulthood.
  If we continue to ignore the problem and stick our heads in the sand, 
as the ostrich sometimes does--a pretty unflattering position, quite 
frankly, for any of us, including for the ostrich--then the future 
generations will simply ask: Why did they do that? They saw it coming. 
They understood the consequences. They had within their power the 
ability to make it different.
  We have chosen so far not to do that. We have chosen so far to expand 
the Federal Government at an unprecedented rate. We have chosen to take 
away from States the rights to conduct those affairs that are 
individualized, that are properly left to the States and to our local 
governments and that are, quite frankly, left to us alone, as 
individuals. We have chosen as a Nation to empower this Federal 
Government, year in and year out, to take away our freedoms and our 
liberties.
  All I can say to that, Mr. Speaker, is shame on us. Shame on us if we 
don't right this ship of state by shrinking the size of this 
Government, by limiting what it does in our day-to-day lives, by 
getting back to the fundamental founding principles that our Founding 
Fathers built this country on: that of a limited Federal Government, 
one with limited powers and everything else being reserved to the 
States and/or to the local municipalities--or not at all--and left to 
the people.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express these 
comments tonight, and I yield back.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you.
  I would like to yield again to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. Again, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for hosting 
tonight's Special Order dealing with the

[[Page 3495]]

Constitution. More specifically tonight, we are spending a little time 
talking about, as the previous gentleman just did, unlimited government 
and its role in protecting human dignity.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas was just referencing the issue with 
regard to the unsustainable projection and trajectory of spending at 
the Federal level, and with regard to the burden, therefore, that we 
place on untold generations that follow after ours. You have to then 
ask: What sort of respect does this generation have for the human 
dignity of future generations who encompass their lives with the 
specter of having limitations on their abilities to make fundamental 
choices for themselves because of the obligations that have been placed 
upon them by this generation?
  Earlier, I spoke about the Divine, and I think you need to do so when 
you're asking the fundamental question, as we're doing tonight, with 
regard to the issue of human dignity. I was quoting, not from myself, 
but from Lincoln and also from our founding documents, which speak of 
the Divine and name the Declaration as the Laws of Nature by the 
Creator--the Supreme Judge of the world, the Divine Providence. All 
areas of this, as is set forth in our documents, talk about human 
dignity coming not from man, himself, but from the Creator, from the 
Divine. Then it's the imperfect--man, human beings--who distort that in 
some way. Government, as I said before, being not perfect and not 
capable of being perfected, has the obligation to protect human dignity 
as best it can, but it obviously does so in an imperfect manner.
  The gentleman from Utah talked about its not just occurring over the 
recent decades but over the last generations--probably going back over 
100 years, he said. Actually, if you think about it, it was probably to 
the beginning of--what?--the Progressive Movement, I guess you would 
say here in this country, where there began this distortion of the 
understanding of the Constitution.
  The Progressive Movement elaborated upon the powers of the Federal 
Government to expand in areas that never were envisioned by our 
Founders. As a matter of fact, as I talk about the Progressive 
Movement, we have the Progressive Caucus here on the other side of the 
aisle, I guess, which speaks about these things all the time but in a 
much more favorable light than we talk about it from this side of the 
aisle. So, if you go back about 80, 90, 100 years, to the Progressive 
Movement, it began to crimp upon the human being and the rights of 
man--basically, therefore, what we're talking about tonight, human 
dignity--in some very profound and fundamental ways.
  What are some of the basic issues that a man is able to decide about 
himself? What he is able to eat and what he is able to grow to eat.
  It was the Progressive Movement. It was during the time of Roosevelt, 
who finally said the Federal Government knows better when it comes to 
what man can eat and what he can grow for himself, and he put a 
limitation on an individual farmer as to what he could grow in his own 
backyard to sustain himself and his family. The Federal Government 
said, No, we are going to have the long arm of the powers of the 
Federal Government reach into that farmer's backyard and dictate to him 
that, no, he cannot grow those particular crops even though he was not 
selling them, and they were not in the stream of commerce, and he was 
not transporting them across State lines, and interstate commerce was 
not involved whatsoever. Rather, the Government said: We, the Federal 
Government here in Washington, can constrict him as to the very food 
that he provides for his own family.
  Now fast-forward to this generation and to this past Congress, and 
you'll see that the same sort of thing goes on here. It's not only food 
but all the regulations that entwine in that area, which have grown 
into a multitude of regulations over the years--from food to water. 
Washington now dictates your very own water use, and we're all familiar 
with that infamous decision with regard to the toilets that you have in 
your own house and with regard to the water consumption that you have. 
These are not even things that you can decide for yourselves. The 
Government steps in.
  How about the lights that you turn on? How are you going to 
illuminate your home so you can have a light to read your book in the 
evening? Now the Federal Government says that is not the province of 
man. That is the province of the Federal Government's to dictate as 
well. So, in each area, we take one more chip away at individual human 
dignity--in deciding how you're going to control and live your own 
life. Washington is now the arbiter in those things.
  We rise now to, perhaps, one of the most fundamentals after food and 
water and light--and that's health care. Of course we saw what happened 
in the last session of Congress here when the Federal Government said 
that we here--the bureaucrats, the elected officials, the politicians--
know better than you as to just what sort of health care you need, as 
to just what sort of doctor you should see, how often you should go, 
and all the other myriad of decisions that were wrapped up in that 
semblance of: How do I take care of my own human body? How do I take 
care of my own health decisions?
  Now we have passed a bill, under our objection, of course, on this 
side of the aisle, but with the complete support on the other side of 
the aisle and with the White House as well, saying, No. Washington can 
now dictate those areas to a point that we have never seen before in 
the history of this Government and in the history of this country, 
which is that the price of citizenship is the purchase of a particular 
product that the Federal Government bureaucrats dictate. The price of 
citizenship, the price of freedom, the price of liberty--the price of 
being an American--is now dictated to you by the Federal Government and 
by bureaucrats here in Washington. They will dictate and control your 
health care just as the previous Progressive Era politicians said they 
would dictate with regard to the food that you grow, with regard to the 
water that you use, with regard to the lights that you light--and now 
in the area of health care as well.
  So where do we then end up going from all this? What is the next 
step?
  As I said before, government is not perfect, and man cannot be 
perfected, so we should not look to the government, as we said before, 
as the angelic beings who are going to give us all the right rules and 
regulations in this area. We should not look to the government to 
provide for us in these respective areas. Rather, that we are 
individuals made by our Creator, and we have our own worth and our own 
human dignity, and Washington should not take that away from us.
  So I will close where I began some time ago.

                              {time}  2000

  We will look then not to the imperfect bureaucrats or to the 
imperfect politicians but, rather, to the people who inherently have 
the power to send us here or to return us, those people who have the 
power to create governments or not: the population of this country, the 
citizens of this country, from which all power truly emanates 
originally, for them to speak up loudly, to have their voices heard as 
they did in this past election in November, to make sure that their 
human dignity is protected, that it is not eroded upon anymore, and 
that, rather, it can grow and prosper and expand as our Founding 
Fathers intended and why these rights and limitations on powers were 
rather limited in the founding documents that we cherish so greatly.
  And that is why, as I said at the beginning, I appreciate so much the 
gentleman from Indiana for your working in bringing this message here 
to the floor, the Members that are here, the Members that are 
listening, and to the American public. I look forward to further work 
from you and the rest of the caucus and other the members of this 
conference to expound upon these areas, not only of human dignity but 
also of our issues of federalism and protected rights to the States and 
the individuals as well.
  I look forward to those discussions on the floor in the future.

[[Page 3496]]


  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to make a couple of 
comments in closing. I have appreciated the comments that were made by 
the other gentlemen that were here this evening.
  You know, one of the things I believe is that the American people 
that have been given the rights and the responsibilities to elect those 
of us who are fortunate enough and honored to come to Washington to 
serve are paying attention and that they are paying attention to what 
we are doing in response to the actions that have been taken over the 
years here in Washington. Washington seems to be the problem.
  When I go back home to Indiana, I hear repeatedly from folks that, 
you know, Republican, Democrat, we can point the finger from side to 
side, but it has been Washington that has been out of touch with the 
American people, and that Washington needs to be changed, not 
necessarily America needing to be changed.
  And that is why I believe it is so important for us as Americans that 
we get back to our founding documents, to realize the truths and the 
principles that are in these documents that our Founding Fathers wrote 
over 200-some years ago.
  And I would like to read just a couple of lines from the Declaration 
of Independence, as Mr. Garrett was referring to earlier, the freedom 
and the opportunity that each of us as Americans has is given to us by 
our Creator, but also the Declaration of Independence and our 
Constitution give us rights and freedoms as well.
  I'd like to refer to these lines in the Declaration of Independence. 
Many of these are obviously very familiar to us, but: We hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that 
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to 
secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving 
their just powers from the consent of the governed.
  Now, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the people are the ones who 
are giving us the power to govern and that the Constitution, as it was 
written back by our Founding Fathers, was written in the effort to 
protect each individual and to protect each individual freedom that we 
have and enjoy every day.
  I would also mention, as was mentioned before, that it is important 
for us as Americans to not only take on that personal responsibility 
but also to realize that our freedoms are given from our Creator, and 
it's important for each one of us to not only fight to protect those 
freedoms but remember some of the words that our Founding Fathers used 
as well, going back to what Benjamin Franklin said, and I quote, Only a 
virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and 
vicious, they have more need of masters, end quote.
  So it is up to each one of us as Americans, Mr. Speaker, that we are, 
first of all, as individuals and as communities involved in our 
communities, whether it's our churches, whether it's our schools, that 
we are taking on each responsibility and looking around us and who can 
we help, how can we make a difference in someone else's life.
  I'd also read John Adams. He said this, quote, Our Constitution was 
made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to 
the government of any other, end quote.
  How fortunate we as Americans are to have not only this founding 
document but many other founding documents written by men who were 
given such a great responsibility and a great opportunity to create one 
of the longest-lasting governments in world history; and I'm so proud 
to be an American tonight and believe that, even though we have many 
challenges in front of us, we have great debt, we have great deficits, 
and this is because of the irresponsible actions taken by those in 
Washington.
  I believe that today it is important for each one of us as Americans 
to become more familiar with our Constitution and to read the words, as 
it may seem sometimes dry and not as exciting, but this document, these 
words give each one of us as Americans the opportunity to make life 
better than what we may have entered.
  I know for myself as a son of a farmer in northern Indiana, I was 
raised in an old farmhouse; and now I have the great opportunity to 
serve in Congress, that each one of us can do great things if we set 
our minds to it, and it's because of this document that gives us that 
liberty and that freedom.
  So I have great hope that the American people and that those who are 
elected to serve will make those choices that will not only continue to 
grant us those freedoms but also steer the ship and turn the ship and 
change the mindset of Washington and the way that our Federal 
Government has responded and acted over the years recently, that will 
not only give our children and our grandchildren the same opportunities 
that we have but to work together across the aisle, knowing that we all 
serve and have sworn to uphold the Constitution to make those changes.
  I'm optimistic, I'm hopeful; but I know that we have a lot of work 
ahead. And I believe that the document we have been given and was 
signed by our Founding Fathers has given us that guiding light, and I 
am looking forward to working together with the Members in this 
Chamber, both sides of the aisle, to making a difference and to getting 
back to our constitutional responsibilities.

                          ____________________