Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman … The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, I think, raises some very interesting ideas. The point being, how do we protect civil liberties once somebody accepts welfare?

This is not unique to just public housing, because in many ways this happens in our public schools. Public schools, we go there, but we still want to protect our civil liberties and we cannot overly dictate, and yet we have rules and regulations. Although I think these points are very important that the gentleman brings up, I am inclined not to support his amendment, but I think they are worth talking about.

First, I think the point about the other recipients of the welfare in the housing program is very important. Last week there was a rumor going around that I might introduce legislation that would repeal all of HUD, which would be a proper, good economic position and a proper constitutional position. I had a lot of phone calls. But none came from the poor people. They all came from the wealthy people, those who were receiving $850 rents for $400 houses, those who get to build the buildings, those who are the contractors and those who do the financing. They are very interested in this program.

I think the gentleman has a very good point. If we are going to punish people receiving welfare or have requirements, put the requirements on the others as well. I think this is very legitimate. But I think the idea of civil liberties, the whole notion here, the definition, has been distorted, because the one thing I think so many people forget, we should have concern about the civil liberties of those in a housing development.

For one, I have seen great danger about the abuse of the fourth amendment when it comes to the tenement houses, where they can go in without the proper issuing of a search warrant. I think that is very, very bad and seems like maybe that would put me over the line and say we should not permit this. Just because they belong, or they are living in Government housing, that should not allow us to say they have sacrificed their protections.

So I think this is important. But there are some civil liberties also of others that we have not discussed at all, because we are talking about the protection of the civil liberties of those who are receiving a house. What about the person who is paying for the house? It is assumed by so many that the wealthy are paying for these houses, but under our very regressive tax system, if we look at the amount of money the poor people pay through FICA, they are the ones who are paying. The wealthy do not pay the taxes.

So the poor individual, the low, middle income, the individual who is capable of still taking care of himself, is hurt the most by what we do here in the Congress. Whether it is public housing or the deficit or our monetary system, these are the individuals who are hurt and are pushed aside. But they are losing their homes because we are pretending to do good to others and provide houses for them. So we should be concerned about their civil liberties as well, but it seems like we forget that.

But this whole notion about work condition, how many people can stay in a room, the search and seizures, I think these are very, very important and should not be ignored. But again we should not ignore the civil liberties of those who had to work and pay for these houses because quite frankly I think we should ask the question.

It is assumed by so many that we have a constitutional, natural right to a house. That is not in the Constitution. We have a right to our liberty, we have a right to our life, we have a right to pursue our happiness, and we ought to have the right to keep what we own. So think of the civil liberties of those who suffer when you take.

I agree that we should think of the benefits accrued to the welfare recipients and what kind of conditions we have, but I think we should think about the benefits accrued to the businessman who really is benefiting from these programs as well.

[Page: H2128]

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the spirit of his critique. I would like to make the argument, however, that my amendment specifically addresses condition of occupancy. Are we prepared to put people who live in public housing, to evict them for failure to volunteer 8 hours a month? I would appreciate the gentleman's answer to that.

Mr. PAUL. Yes; and I have great sympathy for the gentleman. It is just I believe that some conditions do exist in everything we do in Government. You do not go into a public school without conditions. You cannot come in there and be disruptive, or you get thrown out. So if there are conditions, you come in, and the contract is the person who accepts the housing comes in, voluntarily accepting Government housing under the conditions that they will do A, B, and C.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder, given the formulation that the gentleman has made about the responsibilities of individuals and of Government, is it his contention, and would he support an amendment that would suggest that anybody, for instance, that gets benefit from the Ex-Im Bank or FmHA, that those individuals have a responsibility as a term and condition of those loans and of those programs to volunteer as well, or is it just the members of public housing?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] has expired.

(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Paul was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think that would be a very good suggestion. Seeing that I think the Export-Import Bank is welfare for the very wealthy businessman, I think the conditions would be very good.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would like to perhaps work with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] on these kinds of issues.

Mr. PAUL. I will think about that and think about the ramifications, but I certainly will consider it.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Do not back off now.

…

((Later in the debate))

[H2145]

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman …. there has been a lot of talk here that there has been an attack on the poor. Quite frankly, I do not believe that either side of the aisle is really attacking the poor. Even in this bill, which is supposed to be a radical change in direction on public housing, I find that in the budget we are appropriating $5 billion more, so that is hardly an attack, in an effort to help the poor.

But I do think the poor are suffering. I think there are a lot of people in this country who are suffering. I think the recipients of public housing are suffering. I think those who are paying for it are suffering.

There is a problem much more perceived in the hinterlands of America than we seem to realize. The poor in this country are suffering, but this is a result of the type of policy that we have here in the Congress, the policy of spending too much, the policy of inflating, the policy of destroying the currency. When a Nation destroys its currency, it transfers wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.

Even in this very bill where we are appropriating more money, it is to the benefit of many wealthy people: the people who build the houses, the people who receive the rents. So there is a transfer. There is a transfer of wealth, but the achievement on public housing policy has never been successful. This is what we are facing today.

But we are also facing the fact that the consequence of a 30- to 50-year welfare state is coming to an end. This is why the great debate is on. We have this every 30 years. We were much wealthier in 1965 and subsequently spent $5 trillion on a welfare state. Now we are facing a bankruptcy.

The concern for the poor is justified. The poor are suffering. The poor are suffering because they pay the bills. I would like to see the challenge of the welfare for corporate welfare in this very bill itself. There are wealthy beneficiaries from this.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my amendment specifically calls for the exemption of a mother who has a single child to keep her from being evicted for failure to do 8 hours a month of community service work. If the gentleman would speak to that particular part, we may reach some agreement on this.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a minor point and something we should be concerned about. But I am also concerned about those individuals who have been evicted from their homes because they have been taxed. The system that we have today works on a regressive tax system.

We talk about the Social Security tax that goes into the general revenues. Those are on individuals that have a greater tax burden than the wealthy. And this is the reason this country is getting poorer. But you are taking money from poor people and giving it to another group of poor people and in the transition, the wealthy get more money. So we do not have a very good system here.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman was here when we debated the mandate, the unfunded mandate amendment, and understands that to implement the plan that is in the bill, it is going to cost $65 million a year. The gentleman is aware of that.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think so. This is the reason I have great concern about most of the details of this bill and also the reason I will be voting against the bill. I think the gentlemen make many good points.