CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Sept. 27, 1999
Return to the
1999 Congressional
Record directoryProject FREEDOM
Opening Page
During debate on the
PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND FAMILIES INTO THE 21ST CENTURY ACT------------
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 202. `Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century.' While my views on respecting our Constitution limitations regarding Federal issues are well known and need not be repeated here now, I have other concerns regarding this bill specifically.
That the House of Representatives would consider any bill authorizing about a billion dollars of taxpayer funds annually on the suspension calendar (an expedited procedure reserved for `non controversial' bills) show how far we have moved from our posturing that we claim to respect the concerns of taxpayers.
The consideration of this bill succumbs to the misperception that the best course of action to any perceived problem is further (Federal) governmental response. Clearly, that is not the case. Recently, John Stossel hosted an ABC television special, `Is America Number One!' In that show, he examined the premise of governmental solutions to problems always being best and concluded:
"Intuition would suggest that countries with the most government planning, places where you're taken care of, would be the best places to live. But in fact the opposite is true, countries with the most planning are the most poor. Several organizations rank countries by economic freedom. At one end are places with lots of government planning. Invariably, these are the worst places to live. At the other end on the list--Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The best places to live are places with the fewest rules. Freedom isn't everything. Climate matters. Religion, geography, even luck can make a difference. But nothing matters as much as . . . Liberty.
"In the show, Peter Jennings said that `Nearly 37 million Americans now live below the official poverty line.' Federal Reverse economist Machael Cox explained, `The government says now 13.3 percent of households are in poverty. Let's go see what households in poverty have. Ninety-seven percent of households in poverty have color televisions. Two thirds have microwave ovens and live in air-conditioned buildings. Seventy-five percent have one or more cars.'"
Unfortunately, H.R. 202 makes the situation worse by diluting our current policy of helping the truly needy in favor of creating a middle class entitlement by expanding eligibility for occupancy to as high as 80% of the area median income for existing housing developments for seniors. I commend Mr. Stossel for illustrating clearly that choosing liberty is the best path for making a difference. I wish more of my colleagues heeded his advise.