[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5912-5918]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               FEDERALISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 rise today to address the topic of 
enduring consequence. Last month, the members of the Constitution 
Caucus came to the floor to commend limited government as the guardian 
of human dignity. Tonight, we would like to continue that conversation 
by discussing one of the indispensable pillars of limited government. 
America's guarantee of limited government and her bulwark of liberty 
can be attributed to Federalism.
  Federalism is the subject which we often forget here in Washington, 
D.C. I believe this is a tragic irony because our great Nation is the 
birthplace of this truly revolutionary political concept. Federalism is 
not an abstract philosophy. Simply, it is the separation of power 
between the Federal Government and State governments. It is one of the 
cornerstones of our American experiment in self-government.
  It was unheard of before the American founding and unfortunately is 
all but forgotten today.
  Until our Founding Fathers devised our unique system of government, 
nations around the globe were dedicated to the faulty idea that power 
or sovereignty was indivisible. The great wisdom of the American 
founding was to reject this notion and build a robust government with a 
system that carefully divided power on two different levels.
  Yes, we are most familiar with the separation of three branches of 
government--legislative, executive, and judicial; but too many in 
Washington have forgotten that there is another division in 
government--the division between States and Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, we have one of the greatest documents to govern our 
country that has existed for over 200 years and has been one of the 
documents that has guided so many Americans and people across this 
country into personal responsibility, to the ability to take 
opportunities that we have been granted in this country.
  The 10th Amendment sums up this structural integrity of the 
Constitution and the dual sovereignty of the Federal and State 
governments. The 10th Amendment says this: ``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.''
  As a former State legislator, I've seen this and been very frustrated 
at times as a State legislator in the powers that the Federal 
Government continues to assume and is basically overreaching the 
responsibilities and the powers of the State government. Federalism, as 
you know, was a huge debate and discussion as part of the founding of 
our great Nation back when our Founding Fathers were discussing what 
should be in the Constitution.
  During the debate over States' rights and Federalism, there needs to 
be a balance between what the States are responsible for and what the 
Federal Government is responsible for. And our Constitution lays those 
responsibilities out and defines those responsibilities very clearly.
  I believe it's very important for us, as Congress and Congressmen and 
Congresswomen, to refamiliarize ourselves with our Constitution and 
realize that the boundaries that have been laid out

[[Page 5913]]

by our Founding Fathers are well defined. And the intent and the vision 
that was laid out is one that is still applicable today.
  I believe that the Federal Government continues to overreach as to 
those boundaries--whether it's massive spending, whether it's an 
overreach in our health care bill that just passed last year, whether 
it's the stimulus package which the Federal Government is now assuming 
the responsibility to stimulate our economy rather than trusting in the 
American people.
  It does not add anything to the Constitution that was not already 
there in its structure, but in making the principle of Federalism more 
explicit, the 10th Amendment underscores the importance of Federalism.
  To see Federalism succeed, we must hold faith in the integrity of the 
Constitution. A living document is just an empty vessel. Federalism is 
neglected when politicians make the Constitution a blank slate for the 
dominant political trends.
  As James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 45: ``The powers 
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are 
few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are 
numerous and indefinite.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read again the 10th Amendment of our 
Constitution: ``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.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'd submit to you that many of the programs that the 
Federal Government currently not only operates but also is proposing 
under several different bills over the past several years really are 
overreaching into the State governments' responsibilities and also into 
what they are fully capable of doing.
  Many times the frustration that we had of dealing with Medicaid and 
the mandates that were handed down to the States were tying the hands 
of our State governments.
  Coming from the State of Indiana, I'm very proud of what has been 
accomplished because of those who respect not only the simple economics 
of balancing budgets and realizing that you can't spend more money than 
what you have, but as a member of the Indiana House of Representatives 
of 2005, I worked with our Governor and our Senate to see that Indiana 
passed its first balanced budget in 8 years.
  As we've discussed repeatedly here in Congress already, what about 
balanced budgets, what about the responsibility of making sure that we 
do not spend more money than what we have? Our Federal Government just 
closed its budget with a $1.5 trillion deficit, and that's hard to 
imagine that we could actually spend that much more money than what we 
take in. Any Hoosier family knows that once that line at the bottom of 
the checkbook hits red, there's a problem, and we need to reevaluate 
what we are currently doing in our spending and our income.

                              {time}  1900

  Either you start cutting spending or you start increasing your 
income. As we all know with the difficult economic times that we're in, 
increasing income is not always as easy as we would like it to be. So 
what we need to do is control what we can control, and that is the 
spending.
  Today, Indiana is squarely in the black because of very difficult 
decisions. It has a AAA credit rating, and is home to the fewest State 
employees per capita in the United States. The initiative was taken 
when times were difficult and in realizing that we were falling on 
tough economic times.
  As we move forward in this Congress, I believe that we need to take 
the same principles and the same values that States have and local 
governments have and families have across the country, and businesses, 
who all realized that you cannot continue to spend more money than what 
you are taking in.
  Progressivism has been the greatest foe of federalism. Progressivism 
believes in a government of, by, and for the experts, statisticians, 
and bureaucrats. Federalism believes in government of, by, and for the 
people and their unique communities. So, again, here I would argue that 
communities and people are much more capable, because they know their 
particular circumstances and how they are to manage not only their own 
dollars but their own lives, whether it's education or whether it's 
being involved in their church, in giving to their church or charity 
groups.
  But instead, we're seeing a government that continues to intrude in 
taking more and more of those responsibilities, but also the rights 
that we all have as citizens, in taking those away from Americans and 
giving them to the Federal Government. We all know the Federal 
Government is never capable of fully meeting the needs that every 
individual has in our country.
  Progressivism ends up elevating unelected experts to rule over the 
entire Nation. Rules promulgated by an alphabet soup of agencies choke 
out representative government, and Congress calls hearings to slow them 
down. We are seeing that repeatedly right now, Mr. Speaker, with 
hearings that we are having currently in our committees and in asking 
questions of the bureaucracies on the rule-making decisions that they 
are making every day. It continues to choke out not only our freedoms 
and opportunities that we enjoy as Americans, whether it's in business 
or whether it's as individuals, but also the bureaucracies are becoming 
much more powerful.
  Now that the Congress is not passing overreaching legislation, we're 
seeing the bureaucracies taking on that role. And I believe that it is 
crucial for us as Americans to step forward and to remind ourselves 
what our Federal Government's responsibilities are. The Constitution 
clearly defines those responsibilities. And I believe it's important 
that we all become more familiar again with our Constitution and with 
the responsibilities that the Federal Government is responsible for.
  Likewise, federalism today should not be confused with nullification, 
nor with the idea of secession. Federalism must be revived so that the 
rights of citizens might be upheld and their duties fulfilled. 
Federalism is the protector of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness.
  I can only imagine at the time, as our Founding Fathers were debating 
federalism and creating a Federal Government with the State governments 
that they had at the time, that they never imagined that the Federal 
Government would become as large and bureaucratic and bloated and 
irresponsible as it is today.
  When the Federal Government exercises control over health care, 
welfare, housing, unemployment, and even the so-called stimulus of our 
economy, there is less incentive for citizens to act within their 
communities and States to fulfill the duties they once assumed. Civic 
virtue suffers as power flows to Washington, D.C. Ordinary Americans 
are neglected in this top-down solution.
  Many argue that Washington knows better, that bureaucrats know 
better, that the experts know better. But I know, growing up as a son 
of a farmer in northern Indiana, that my parents, my grandparents, they 
all knew what was important for our family. They knew what was 
important to our community. Whether it was being involved in our 
school, whether it was being involved in our church community, whether 
it was being involved in our local economy or our government process. 
Families and individuals can make those decisions, what's important, 
and make those priorities, pass those priorities on to their families.
  I believe that what's happening today in our country is that we're 
seeing less and less not only interest, but also responsibility is now 
being assumed by our Federal Government, because it continues to 
overreach and to continue to take away the responsibilities of local 
governments, whether it's a school board which would make much better 
decisions for their local community and their school, whether it's a 
county council that knows the challenges that they have with their 
counties.
  I know for us we have a lot of lakes and rivers, a lot of sandy soil, 
sewer

[[Page 5914]]

systems that need to be built to keep our environment clean and better 
for our children and grandchildren as we pass on the resources that we 
have. We are starting to have our hands tied more and more because of 
regulations coming from Washington, D.C.
  I believe that that is what our Founding Fathers intended. They 
believed in ordinary citizens making extraordinary decisions for their 
communities and that the structure of our Constitution protected that.
  In short closing here, as I want to turn it over to my colleagues, I 
would warn those who are in Congress that we think ourselves too wise 
if we believe that federalism espoused in our founding documents is an 
antiquated relic of the past. Governments are the products of fallen 
men. Human nature is the same today as it was in 1787. When the Federal 
Government grows beyond its original purpose, when it greedily claims 
powers belonging to the States and local communities, it arrogantly 
assumes that 535 Federal legislators and hordes of bureaucrats can 
direct with perfect clarity the lives of over 300 million Americans.
  I would be amiss to claim that I know the daily concerns of Buckeyes, 
or those who are in New Jersey, or from Texas, or from Oklahoma, or 
from California. But I know Hoosiers because I am one. I know and 
believe these simple truths. The rich diversity of our Nation's 50 
States impels us to greatness. There are legitimate concerns which must 
be addressed by a well-balanced Federal Government. Yet the Federal 
Government ought to defer to the States in those matters that the 
States are best prepared for.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Thank you, first of 
all, first and foremost, for leading this caucus tonight and leading 
this Special Order tonight as we speak about federalism as a safeguard 
of a limited government. So we come here tonight to discuss that and 
think about it in the larger sense, to discuss basically the 
revolutionary principles that federalism is and its critical role in 
our system of government that makes individual liberties possible in 
this country.
  As the founder of the Constitutional Caucus, I welcome a public 
discussion on federalism tonight. It is such a crucial discussion, a 
discussion of federalism, a discussion of the role of government in our 
lives. And it lies at the heart of the American social contract between 
the government and the people. You see, it's federalism that keeps the 
Federal Government basically within its proper boundaries. So it is 
crucial to an understanding of the American commitment to liberty and 
to freedom and how well it will safeguard this generation and future 
generations as well.
  When we think about these topics, it's often easy to take for granted 
our Federal system of government and the freedoms that it affords all 
of us. But such a system was, by no means, preordained.

                              {time}  1910

  And if you go back some 200-plus years, ordinary colonists, armed 
with a desire to be free, rebelled against the world's mightiest empire 
to achieve our independence from an obtrusive, overcentralized and a 
faraway government.
  And what was in its place? Well, in its place our Founders 
established for the first time in history a national government of 
defined and enumerated powers that is basically prohibited from 
overstepping its confined jurisdictions.
  So the Federal Government's powers were to be truly national in 
scope, and the Founders believed that because States and local 
governments operated closest to the citizens, elected officials who 
were at that lower level, or the local level, would be the ones who 
were most competent to make the laws that would govern daily lives.
  Now, this was a message espoused by James Madison in Federalist No. 
45. You know, Madison wrote back then: ``The powers delegated by the 
proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and they are 
defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are 
numerous and indefinite.''
  So, you see, you have established this dual sovereignty, the 
sovereignty of Federal and State governments. And it's underscored then 
how basically in our Bill of Rights, as the 10th Amendment reads, as 
the gentleman from Indiana already said: ``The powers not delegated to 
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
States, are reserved to the States respectfully, or to the people.''
  The beauty of the 10th Amendment is not at first easily recognizable, 
as some would say, on first blush that the 10th Amendment is almost 
redundant. Some would say it offers nothing new from what has already 
been written into the confines, or four corners, if you will, of the 
Constitution. And so it is the limited powers of the Federal Government 
that are articulated throughout the three sections of the Constitution.
  In fact, however, the Founders, looking at the Bill of Rights, 
initially believed that they were really not necessary and, actually, 
that they could be seen as potentially dangerous. Why was this? Well, 
both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists understood that the Bill 
of Rights limited the powers of government.
  But the perceived danger here of the Bill of Rights lay where? At the 
potential for misunderstanding by future generations. This 
misunderstanding basically comes about by this, by forbidding the 
Federal Government from acting in certain areas, which is what the Bill 
of Rights would do. It was argued then, what, that the Constitution 
implied that the Federal Government could do what? It could act in all 
other areas that were not expressly prohibited from engaging in.
  But let's be clear, the 10th Amendment makes clear that the 
Constitution provides no implied powers to the Federal Government. And 
so it is here that we see Federalism for what it basically is. It is 
the cornerstone, if you will, of the Constitution and the most 
effective tool for the preservation of this, our liberty.
  So the 10th Amendment inclusion as the final amendment in the Bill of 
Rights is, therefore, no accident. It is, rather, as one might say, the 
culmination of the Founders' vision of American democracy. It reaffirms 
a commitment to a government strictly defined and with those limited 
powers.
  It is this institutionalization of armor, if you will, of liberty and 
the perpetual struggle against this tyrannical government. This 
amendment is, in short, the realization of the principles of the 
American revolution.
  And as we come to the floor tonight and every day here in this 
Congress, we are heirs to that revolution. Unfortunately, today America 
seems to have surrendered some of its birthright. The scope and reach 
of the Federal Government is growing at a disturbing pace. The 
incessant expansion of government has led to the bailout of the banking 
industry and the auto industry, sweeping financial regulation, and the 
proposal of cap-and-trade systems that would demand that rationing of 
American economic prosperity and productivity.
  The tentacles, if you will, of the Federal Government are tightly 
wrapped around housing, education, transportation, unemployment 
policy--you name it--in almost every aspect of our lives. The American 
people, when you think about it, are controlled by the Federal 
Government in almost every single aspect of their lives, from morning 
to evening, from what light bulbs we are allowed to buy to the health 
insurance we have to buy. It is all required under regulations by the 
Federal Government.
  Now, as I come to the floor, today is the 268th birthday of Thomas 
Jefferson. If he were alive today, I doubt that he would recognize the 
Federal Government as one that has remained true to the revolutionary 
Founders of this country. Rather, I would imagine that he would see a 
centralized and bureaucratic form of government that resembles the one 
that he and the rest of the Founding Fathers rebelled against. That is 
exactly what the Constitution

[[Page 5915]]

and the amendments to it and the principles of Federalism were meant to 
prevent.
  Out-of-control spending may be the clearest sign now of where we are 
today in having neglected these principles of Federalism. It is the 
Federal meddling into the lives of the American people. What it has 
done is resulted in the unprecedented and also, I would add, the 
unsustainable level of funding that jeopardizes the very economic well-
being of the United States.
  Our current path, therefore, threatens the American standard of 
living and our prosperity, the American Dream and the American status 
as a superpower.
  You see, by nationalizing every issue, what we do there is we deprive 
the American people of the benefits that Federalism would normally 
bring. The Founders intended the States to serve as, as has often been 
called, the laboratories of democracy, which would compel the States to 
compete against each other to attract individuals and businesses, if 
you will.
  This competition would result in innovations and innovative 
solutions, the greater accountability and transparency of public 
servants and the diffusion of power that limits the reach of the 
national government. Federalism, it's the constitutional guarantee of 
that good government.
  So we come here tonight, and we must renew our commitment to 
Federalism, to the Constitution. By allowing this, our Constitution to 
be interpreted, though, by the whims of the judicial and executive 
branches, we have undermined the structural integrity of this document 
as well as the safeguards that a limited government describes.
  To conclude, at the beginning of this year, Members of this body take 
an oath--to do what?--basically, to support and defend this 
Constitution of the United States. We owe it to the people we represent 
to remain true to that oath. Restoring adherence to Federalism must 
begin where? Well, right here in this Chamber.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me, as the Members are here with 
me tonight, in re-embracing this idea and this notion and this practice 
of Federalism, one of the great pillars of the American founding 
principles.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Garrett.
  At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from the Fourth 
District of Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. Thank you to the gentleman from Indiana for yielding.
  I am here tonight to talk about the proper relationship between the 
Federal Government and State and local governments, this issue of 
Federalism, our Nation's founding documents.
  When I was first elected, I embarked on a listening tour right after 
November 2, during which I met with local officials from across my 
district to talk about issues that they were concerned about, what was 
on their minds, what challenges they were facing in their offices. At 
each stop, local leaders talked about the problems facing their 
communities; and even though every county is different, every community 
is different, the Federal Government seemed to cause the same problems 
in each one of them.
  In one county in my district, I was told a story by a county 
commissioner of the time that the commissioner asked his staff to count 
all of the Federal and State mandates that they placed upon their 
health and human services department at the county. They counted up the 
mandates that they were under from national, State regulators, 
Congress, State legislation, State legislatures. The county 
commissioner actually asked his staffer to quit counting when he 
reached 9,000 individual mandates that that one department, at the 
county level, was under.
  On this listening tour and since then, since being sworn in on 
January 5, at the town meetings that we have held, it never ceases to 
amaze me that one of the strongest moments of bringing applause to the 
town meetings is when we talk about what happened on this floor when we 
first started the 112th Congress, the time when we read, both Democrats 
and Republicans, the Constitution of the United States before the 
American people right here on the U.S. House floor.
  When I talk about how we joined together in reading the Constitution, 
people always applaud because it matters to them, because they believe 
this country continues to be guided by that most fundamental document 
of our country.
  Those 9,000 rules, though, that that county commissioner was talking 
about were created by Federal and State regulators who don't understand 
the problems that each of our unique districts faces because they have 
never been there. They don't know what it's like. They don't understand 
that each county, each city, each school board knows how to govern 
their jurisdiction better than anyone in Washington ever could, and 
they do not understand that an unfunded mandate imposed on the entire 
country does not work.

                              {time}  1920

  Each State and county in this country is unique and often has far 
better solutions than those of the people here in Washington, D.C., can 
devise. The Founding Fathers understood this very well and designed a 
system focused on limiting the authority of the Federal Government and 
on putting power closer to the people. Our Federalist system has long 
served as the safeguard of limited government.
  As a State legislator from the Eastern Plains of Colorado, I will 
never forget the time that I received a call from a cabinet member from 
the previous administration who was urging me to vote for a particular 
piece of legislation because there was Federal money involved and that 
the only way that Colorado would receive this Federal funding was if we 
passed a bill that the Federal Government wanted. They were dangling 
money out in front of us to pass a bill. That instance proved to me 
what we continue to see today, which is the power shifting ``away'' 
from the States and ``to'' the Federal Government--but to what end?
  Last year, Congress passed a health care bill that places increased 
Medicaid obligations on already cash-strapped States, which have no way 
to pay for them. Regulations from agencies like the Environmental 
Protection Agency continue to drive up the cost of energy and force 
American jobs overseas. Just today, we heard Senator Murkowski, Senator 
Begich, and Representative Young testify before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee on a bill about the need to pursue energy policies in Alaska, 
polices that will allow them to access the resources of that great 
State and to release, unleash, as much as 1 million barrels of oil a 
day. The State is supportive. Witnesses for the Department of Natural 
Resources testified. Unfortunately, the Federal Government continues to 
block their progress. The Founding Fathers wouldn't even recognize our 
country today as the one that they formed over 200 years ago.
  Education is another area in which there is the employing of 
Federalist principles. There is no better example of which we can talk 
about the differences between the Federal Government and the State 
government and how the Federal Government continues to overstep its 
bounds. The Board of Education in Douglas County, Colorado, has taken 
it upon itself to truly innovate in the area of education financing; 
but the problem with the system in the Federal Government is that it's 
a top-down approach. Since when is the Federal Government able to 
better communicate the needs of children in a community than that 
community, itself? There are some good initiatives in Congress out 
there, like the A-PLUS Act, by Mr. Garrett from New Jersey, which would 
allow the States to opt out of No Child Left Behind funding and use 
that money toward programs they think deserve attention.
  Along with Federal funding comes very prescriptive mandates. The more 
Federal funding a school receives, the less it's able to listen to its 
own community--to its teachers, to its parents and, yes, to its 
students. The more it is forced to listen to the Federal Government say 
``you can use this money, but you have to use it here, and you have to 
use it this way,'' it's tough for a lot of States to say ``no'' to that 
in these cash-strapped times. I look forward to

[[Page 5916]]

addressing some of these issues during the debates of the 
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind; but we must put power back in 
the hands of teachers and parents, who know best how to teach their 
children.
  Health care is another challenge this country faces as Congress is 
imposing an individual mandate on citizens to purchase federally 
approved health insurance. This mandate is contrary to the Federalist 
principles that we are talking about this evening. The bill forces 
States to expand their Medicaid eligibility standards. According to the 
Kaiser Family Foundation, by 2019, Colorado will see a 47.7 percent 
increase in Medicaid enrollees as compared to the estimated national 
average of 24.7 percent.
  The health care bill was created by the Federal Government, and the 
cost of its expansion has shifted directly back to State budgets. 
Further, under the takeover of the health care bill, the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services has the authority to enact and to execute 
rules and regulations that local administrators are required to follow. 
This takes the power away from States and local governments and wrests 
it in the hands of the Federal Government.
  What is more important, though, is the ingenuity and progress in 
health care that has been established and accomplished by the States on 
a State-by-State level. Through this process, they've made significant 
improvements to our health care industry. Unfortunately, I believe the 
health care bill that was passed in the last Congress is a step away 
from that direction.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to take my 7-year-old daughter to 
Philadelphia to see the Liberty Bell, to visit Independence Hall, and 
the National Constitution Center, to talk to the people who work at 
Independence Hall about the great symbols of freedom in our country, 
about the writing of those founding documents, about what it meant to 
talk about freedom, about liberty, about our great Republic. I am 
reminded of the time when, during recent events in Libya and Egypt, my 
wife and daughter were watching television, watching the news, when the 
President spoke on TV. They were talking about the fight for freedom 
that continues in the Middle East, and the President mentioned how we 
have to continue working for freedom around the globe.
  My daughter looked at my wife and said, ``But we are free.''
  To that, my wife looked at her and said, ``Yes, but we must always 
continue to work for it, to fight for it.''
  That's why we are here tonight, talking about how we can ensure those 
fundamental liberties, those fundamental notions of freedom, that are 
enshrined in our basic form of federalism.
  With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you.
  Next, I would like to yield to the co-chair of the Constitution 
Caucus, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you.
  Tom Nevins, who is actually a social archaeologist, gave an 
interesting discussion about Ancient Central America in which he said, 
in 1521, Cortez led a group of Spanish soldiers to what is today Mexico 
City. There he found an Aztec society and an Aztec capital with 15 
million inhabitants. Cortez gave simple instructions to Montezuma, II, 
who was in charge at that time, which was, either give us your gold or 
I'll kill you. For whatever reason, Montezuma gave him the gold, and 
then he proceeded to kill him. In fact, in the siege of what is today 
Mexico City, approximately a quarter of a million Aztecs died from 
starvation in that siege, and within 2 years the Aztec empire was 
totally controlled by the Spanish.
  A decade later, the Inca civilization had the same thing happen to 
them, led by Pizarro, who, once again, said, Give us your gold or we'll 
kill you. They got the gold, and they proceeded to kill him. Also, 
within 2 years, the Inca civilization was totally dominated by the 
Spanish, which meant that both the Aztecs and the Incas were a highly 
centralized government, a highly centralized society, a highly 
centralized economic system, and because of that they were easy prey 
for a smaller but a very well-trained and well-organized Spanish Army.
  By the 1680s, the Spanish moved into the deserts of New Mexico where 
they moved against the Apaches. There are two things that are different 
about the Spanish efforts with the Apaches in New Mexico. Number one, 
there was no gold to be taken. Number two, the Spanish lost. In fact, 
for almost two centuries, the Apaches were able to hold at bay the 
Spanish. One of the reasons they were is that the Apache civilization 
was very decentralized. They had tribal leaders. Yet, as the tribal 
leaders were either captured or killed, they just simply got another 
tribal leader. The greatest of all is the one whose name we probably 
mispronounce and call Geronimo.
  As Nevin said, this Apache civilization was not loosey-goosey. They 
had customs; they had traditions; they had a very sophisticated 
society, but they also were decentralized. I am told that, in the 
Apache language, the phrase ``you should'' simply does not exist. 
Whereas, if we look at the thousands and thousands of pages that 
produced ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, you will find the concept of 
``you should'' being repeatedly inserted over and over and over again, 
which means a centralized society has certain strengths and certain 
weaknesses. Its greatest strength is the concept of uniformity. 
Everyone can be coerced into doing the exact same thing at the exact 
same time. A decentralized society has certain strengths and certain 
weaknesses.

                              {time}  1930

  Its greatest strength is creativity, flexibility and the opportunity 
of its people to have options in the way they live. Now, I know, Mr. 
Speaker, you and probably Mr. Stutzman are wondering what I am actually 
doing here: I came into the wrong Special Order; like, what does this 
have to do with the topic at hand? I think it does have to do with the 
topic at hand because the idea at the Constitutional Convention was: Do 
we have a centralized or a decentralized society and government here in 
this country?
  Indeed, they tried to separate powers horizontally between the three 
branches of government, but more significantly, and more importantly, 
vertically between national and State governments as a specific way of 
trying to make sure that we had a decentralized system of government, 
one that puts a greater emphasis on creativity, on flexibility and the 
ability to ensure that our citizens had what they call personal 
liberty, what I simply say are the options to make choices for 
themselves in the way they wish to do that.
  The Founding Fathers had a great fear of control. That is why they 
rebelled against the British in the first place. They had a great fear 
of bureaucracy. It is why in the Declaration of Independence they talk 
about the swarms of officials who were sent here by the British 
Government to devour from us our substance.
  Today, we have in our government a Federal Government that apparently 
tries to vacuum up as much power, as much money, and as much influence 
as possible. Our government bureaucracy today in Washington is one that 
is based on command-and-control style of leadership which builds a 
heavy emphasis on rules. And obeying the rules of procedure is far more 
important than just coming up with a commonsense solution to the 
problem which happens to be at hand. In fact, one of the questions that 
we have is, have we become, in essence, too big today? Have we become 
more centralized than decentralized? And does that give some inherent 
weaknesses to our society and our country that we have today? One of 
the things that we have to do is try and rethink this entire situation.
  Tomorrow, Members of this House will be inviting legislators from 
around the country who are back here, and we will have a conference in 
which State legislators will meet with Members of Congress to discuss 
this very issue of what direction this country will be going in the 
future and to recognize very clearly that this is not an issue between 
the left and the right.
  The idea of Federalism, of balancing powers of creativity and a less 
centralized government, is not a Republican

[[Page 5917]]

or Democrat issue. It's an issue of the direction of this country, 
because it's about people. It's about whether people actually have 
options in their lives or whether they don't. And when we recognize 
this, it becomes apparent that the only way to make sense of the 
situation is to make sure that fewer decisions in Washington are 
allowed to be directed towards the States and local governments and 
that the people make more decisions in their lives.
  As Justice Rehnquist said, surely, there can be no more important 
fundamental Constitution question than the intention of the Framers of 
the Constitution as to how authority should be allocated between the 
national and State governments. That's the battle which we still fight 
for and struggle with here. And it's the one in which we cannot afford, 
for the future of this country, to lose or to fail.
  If sometimes when I was teaching school my students didn't quite 
understand the significance of the fall of the Aztecs or the Incas, 
then that was an annoyance. But if we, as Members of Congress, fail to 
recognize the distinction between the centralization of power and the 
decentralization of power, which was the very foundation of this 
country, that is not an annoyance. That becomes a tragedy.
  I am very grateful to the Constitutional Caucus, especially Chairman 
Garrett of New Jersey and Representative Stutzman from Indiana, for 
your leadership in organizing this. I am proud to join my good friend 
from Colorado and, hopefully, my good friend from New Mexico as long as 
he does not try and change any of my story about the Apache. That's my 
story, and I'm sticking to it.
  But this is important. This is one of those key issues. This is one 
of the quintessential issues that will define where we go, either 
forward to a brighter future or forward into a less secure and more 
dangerous future. And I appreciate being able to be a part of it. I 
thank you for allowing me to be here for a few minutes.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, for your comments.
  Mr. Speaker, as I think about some of the comments that were made 
tonight from Mr. Garrett and from Mr. Gardner, as well as from Mr. 
Bishop, it brings back a lot of thoughts from experiences of serving 
not only as a legislator but also as a farmer and as a businessowner of 
a small trucking operation that we have, a family business, back in 
Indiana. I think about how the freedom that we have comes from not the 
Constitution; it comes from God. The rights that we have are God-given, 
and the Constitution protects those rights.
  I know that many times over the years we look at the Constitution as 
a dry document. It doesn't seem to be exciting. It doesn't seem to be 
one of great interest. But I can tell you today, Mr. Speaker, as we 
watch our Federal Government--as we've started to do the debate of 
budgets, of health care, and of our military actions around the world, 
and of the size and the scope of our Federal Government--it is crucial 
for us, for all of us, to remind ourselves and to reeducate ourselves 
on what our constitutional role is.
  As Mr. Bishop said, many times we talk about the horizontal 
separations of our government with the executive, the legislative and 
the judicial; but also we need to remember the vertical branches of 
government, and we need to remind ourselves that the States actually 
established the Federal Government.
  I can only imagine as our Founding Fathers were debating this and 
looking at the States that were in existence and thinking of the 
challenges they faced, the challenges of military action against them 
and how do they defend themselves, the discussion of taxation, and to 
come together and to establish a Federal Government that was designed 
to not only protect but to protect the rights, protect us physically, 
but to also protect the rights of us as individuals. Now looking back, 
Federalism is that balance of a Federal Government that complies with 
the constitutional guidelines, whether it's our national defense, 
whether it's our borders, or whether it's commerce and currency, the 
responsibilities are limited.
  But as time has gone by, the Federal Government has continued to grow 
and to pursue and to take away those responsibilities from States and 
from our local communities. As Mr. Gardner mentioned, the different 
local community visits that he has made, it reminds me of ones that I 
made as well in Indiana, whether it's talking with the mayor in 
Kendallville about the challenges with fire and police, whether it's 
the Topeka Town Council and the challenges they have with economic 
development, or whether it's Nappanee with their sewer challenges, Fort 
Wayne or Angola with streets and sewers and things that they know what 
they want to do and what they would like to accomplish that are all 
affected by Federal Government one way or another.
  And it drives costs up for not only them but ultimately for the 
citizens. As spending continues to accumulate and increase, we have to 
remember that the American taxpayer, the American citizen, we as 
citizens are the ones who ultimately are going to be responsible paying 
that bill.
  And as we come into our budget process over the next couple of days, 
I think that we should be reminded and would be remiss if we did not 
take the opportunity to look through the scope and look through the 
eyes of what our Founding Fathers imagined and intended for our country 
through the Constitution as we face $14 trillion of debt. States, local 
governments, and families don't have the ability to continue to borrow 
dollars; specifically, States and local governments don't have the same 
ability that the Federal Government has. And so they are disciplined. 
And so they realize that the decisions they make affect local 
communities.
  The Federal Government and we in Congress need to take on that same 
discipline and realize that the spending that we authorize today is 
going to affect our children and our grandchildren. I have two 
children, two sons, a 9-year-old and a 5-year-old; and I know that they 
are going to have to assume the responsibilities and the consequences 
of what happens today in Congress.
  And I refuse to stand by and allow for more spending and for the 
Federal Government to continue to grow. I want to see a country that 
respects the individual's life and liberty and our local communities' 
decision-making at the local levels and at the State level rather than 
a government, a Federal Government that continues to believe that they 
can authorize and tell the American people what to do and what they 
cannot do.

                              {time}  1940

  So with those thoughts in mind going into the budget process, I 
believe we have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to challenge the status 
quo. We hear a lot of comments on this floor about what the changes are 
that are being proposed in the budget that just passed out of the 
Budget Committee last week and is going to be debated here on the floor 
tomorrow. I believe we cannot demonize the situation that we are in and 
use scare tactics with the American people. We need to be factual. We 
need to be honest. We need to realize the realities that we are in as 
Americans, because we are all in this together. This is not a 
Republican problem; this is not a Democrat problem. We see finger-
pointing on this floor all the time. And frankly, I know as a freshman 
Congressman, that is not why I came here. I came here to fix the 
problems we have because of a bloated government and because we have 
overstepped the boundaries of our constitutional role.
  If we do not face the fact that we have trillions of dollars of debt, 
that we are overspending--and we have to also realize that we cannot 
raise taxes on the American people at a time when the economy is 
struggling, when American families are struggling and paying bills. By 
raising taxes, we only drive the cost of doing business higher and we 
drive the cost of living higher. Money cannot be circulated through the 
economy dictated by the Federal Government to stimulate or drive our 
economy. The American people do that much better.

[[Page 5918]]

  I believe as we again debate the budget, we need to realize that if 
we want to pass on a better future for our kids and our grandkids, for 
our country, for ourselves, if that's the way people need to look at 
it, I believe we lay out the situation, whether it is with Medicare and 
realizing that we cannot continue down the road with the program as it 
currently stands. If we want to hand that off to our children and our 
grandchildren, some modifications have to happen.
  I believe if we as Republicans and we as Congress, specifically 
Republicans in the majority here in Congress, lay out the plan and we 
make the case that something needs to be done, the American people are 
with us. They realize the debt that is hanging over us, and they 
realize the deficits that are over us cannot be sustained and we are 
going to have to make changes. But we cannot make progress in a 
bipartisan fashion if we continue to use scare tactics, and I believe 
that going back and looking at the constitutional role of our Federal 
Government, that all of us as Americans realize, as the many 
generations before us did in the challenges that they faced, that we 
are up to the challenge. So, Mr. Speaker, as we move into tomorrow, I 
believe that our constitutional responsibilities will be defined by 
what we do and what we say and what we vote on in the upcoming years.
  I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  One of your comments reminded me of a story shared with me by a 
constituent several years ago. They talked about their time attending 
law school. They were talking about in their constitutional law course, 
they were starting with the Bill of Rights, going through the 
amendments reading cases. And when they approached the 9th and 10th 
Amendments of our Constitution, the law professor of this particular 
class said we are just going to skip the 9th and 10th Amendments 
because nobody really knows what these do anymore. And they went right 
on and beyond the 9th and 10th Amendments.
  Our discussion tonight has been on the issue of federalism, has been 
on the issue of the powers that rightly rested with the Federal 
Government versus the States. And here we are dealing with a law 
school, a public law school where this individual was told we're going 
to skip the 9th and 10th Amendments because nobody knows what it means.
  I believe the American people have a great interest in what the 9th 
and 10th Amendments mean. I know that many of our public law schools 
have audit opportunities, and I believe the people who are interested 
around this country in what students are being taught, what public law 
schools are teaching regarding the Constitution, regarding the 9th and 
10th Amendments of this country, they have a right to audit that class 
and maybe they should start attending some of these law school courses 
to learn just exactly what our schools are teaching when it comes to 
federalism, the 9th and 10th Amendments, the liberty amendments of this 
great Nation.
  I just thank you for the opportunity to share that story with the 
gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you.
  It is probably all too common, unfortunately, because this document, 
I believe, as I said earlier, is one that doesn't appear to be 
exciting. But when you read it and when you realize what it does for 
our freedom and that it protects our rights as individuals of this 
great Nation, it is so important for us to understand, and if we don't 
know, to find out, to listen to others who have gone before us, whether 
it is our Founding Fathers or whether it is those who have served in 
different capacities, whether it is in schools or whether it is in 
government, there is a reason for it. It is the 9th and 10th 
Amendments, and it is the 9th and 10th points of our Bill of Rights. I 
think that is what of our Founding Fathers meant. They meant it to be 
at the end to give those responsibilities back to the State governments 
because they knew that the Federal Government wasn't going to be 
responsible. They couldn't absolutely take care of everybody with the 
role and the size that the Federal Government was at that time.
  We are in a situation today where I believe many Americans believe 
and they know in their heart what is right, and that our Constitution 
protects those rights and that we believe in freedom. We believe in 
that entrepreneurial spirit and that we can go out and make something 
of ourselves.
  As I said, I am the son of a farmer and have the opportunity to serve 
in Congress, which is a humbling experience, but at the same time 
knowing that we have a responsibility for our kids and for our 
grandkids, for our country, for the freedom that we have, for the 
opportunity we have. I believe that this is a perfect time for us to 
know what the Constitution says, to understand it and to apply it. 
Whether you are on the school board, which is one of the most important 
positions I believe any individual can run for, to be involved in our 
children's education, whether it is on the city council, town council, 
county council, State government, those are all such important, 
township government, are all so important because an engaged person 
involved in the community, involved in the government, can make a 
difference. That is what I believe to be so fascinating is that this 
document empowers us as Americans. It doesn't take power away. It 
doesn't give power strictly to the Federal Government. It is one that 
believes in the American people.
  As I mentioned before, with the budget debates coming forward, if we 
continue to go down the path of higher spending, higher taxes, of more 
regulation, that we only take away opportunity. We take away the 
empowerment that was given to the American people, and that we all 
should be grateful that we can go back to the Constitution and have 
this discussion and have this dialogue about the responsibilities of 
the Federal Government and making that case to those of us in Congress 
and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the responsibilities 
and the opportunities that State governments, local governments, not 
only can they do, but they can do it better because they can meet the 
needs of their local communities because they hear from local citizens. 
I believe that government that is closest to the people serves the 
people better.
  With that, I appreciate each of my colleagues this evening being part 
of the Constitutional Caucus discussion here on the House floor. I am 
looking forward to many more. I know that each of us have great 
responsibilities in front of us in realizing what the Federal 
Government's role is, according to this document, and that we take 
these very seriously in the upcoming days and that we don't continue to 
grow the size and the scope of government.
  I thank the Speaker for the time.

                          ____________________