PIML 96052307 / Forwarded to Patriot Information Mailing List: Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 21:01:28 -0700 To: Conservative News From: Kim Weissman <74157.1507@compuserve.com> Subject: C-NEWS: Congress Action 05/19/96 Reply-To: Kim Weissman <74157.1507@compuserve.com> CONGRESS ACTION May 19 1996 =============== Kim Weissman 74157.1507@compuserve.com 10TH AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT: Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has introduced the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 (S.1629). It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs where hearings were held in March. The purpose of this legislation is: "To protect the rights of the States and the people from abuse by the Federal Government; to strengthen the partnership and the intergovernmental relationship between State and Federal Governments; to restrain Federal agencies from exceeding their authority; to enforce the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution...". The Congressional findings stated in the Act are: "(a) in most areas of governmental concern, State governments possess both the Constitutional authority and the competence to discern the needs and the desires of the People and to govern accordingly; (b) Federal laws and agency regulations, which have interfered with State powers in areas of State jurisdiction, should be restricted to powers delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution; (c) the framers of the Constitution intended to bestow upon the Federal Government only limited authority over the States and the People; (d) under the Tenth Amendment to the 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; and (e) the courts, which have in general construed the Tenth Amendment not to restrain the Federal Government's power to act in areas of state jurisdiction, should be directed to strictly construe Federal laws and regulations which interfere with State powers with a presumption in favor of State authority and against Federal preemption." The Act further requires that every statute enacted by Congress shall include a declaration, along with specific factual findings in support of the declaration: "(1) that authority to govern in the area addressed by the statute is delegated to Congress by the Constitution, including a citation to the specific Constitutional authority relied upon; (2) that Congress specifically finds that it has a greater degree of competence than the States to govern in the area addressed by the statute; and (3) if the statute interferes with State powers or preempts any State or local government law, regulation or ordinance, that Congress specifically intends to interfere with State powers or preempt State or local government law, regulation, or ordinance, and that such preemption is necessary." This is the sorry state to which we have come in this country, that it is necessary for the Congress to pass a law which, in effect, says: "Listen up, federal government, the Constitution really means what it says and you will obey it." All that this bill lacks is retroactive application, to force re-examination of every existing activity of the federal government in light of the Constitution. Watch how many people, and which ones, oppose this bill. "...the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only be the voice, but if necessary, the arm of their discontent." -- Alexander Hamilton PUBLIC HOUSING REFORM: The deplorable condition of federally run public housing has long been a thorny problem which has usually been blamed on heartless cuts in funds for housing under Ronald Reagan. The fact that federal funds for housing more than doubled between 1982 and 1989, and that state and local funds for housing nearly quadrupled during that time, seems not to have gotten through the fog of media and liberal disinformation. A more realistic approach is to address the reasons why working middle class families have fled the public housing units, why their places have been increasingly taken by drug dealers, criminals, gangs, and welfare supported single mother headed families, and what to do about that situation. Despite the media's considered opinion that getting tough on crime doesn't work to reduce crime rates, one approach to the problem has been exactly that. Under a program begun during the Bush administration and continued under Clinton, local housing authorities adopted police state tactics, called "building sweeps". In the words of the Chicago Housing Authority chairman, "We call them emergency inspections, in which Chicago police and CHA security can raid and search apartments without warrants." Under the guise of safety inspections, they enter apartments and then "accidentally" discover drugs, contraband, and illegal weapons. These tactics have supposedly reduced violent crime between 30 and 60 percent, and in the process have brought on the ire (and lawsuits) of the ACLU. While it is true that violent crime is generally lower under police state dictatorships, in this country we still nominally live under a Constitution which is supposed to protect all the people from exactly those sort of warrantless searches lauded by the CHA. Such "sweeps" would hardly be tolerated in middle or upper income neighborhoods, and the Constitution has not yet been repealed for those trapped in public housing. Another sicilian approach, proposed by Dick Durban (D-IL), was recently defeated in the House. Durban's idea was to outlaw self defense in public housing. In typically twisted gun-banner logic, depriving law abiding citizens of the means to defend themselves, in the most crime ridden neighborhoods of our nation, would somehow prevent criminals, gangs, and drug dealers from attacking those unarmed residents. Isn't it obvious that the very drug dealers who pose a violent crime problem, who have no trouble obtaining the illegal drugs which they sell, would also have no trouble getting guns even if guns were outlawed? The only people who would be disarmed by the Durban plan would be people unwilling to break the law. Hardly a solution to the problem of violent crime. The House recently passed reforms aimed at reversing the decay of public housing. By a vote of 315 to 107, the House passed H.R. 2406, repealing the Housing Act of 1937, deregulated public housing programs, expanding programs for rental housing assistance (vouchers) for low-income families, and increasing community control over those programs. Housing preferences (movement to the head of any waiting lists) for homeless families, those living in substandard housing, and victims of domestic violence and natural disasters were previously eliminated pursuant to the Continuing Resolution enacted and signed in January, and the new House action included preferences in favor of working families. Amendments were added which limit to 30% of income the maximum rent that the elderly, disabled, and veterans could be required to pay (previously the 1969 Brooke Amendment limited rent to 30% of income for all public housing residents), and which requires 40% of rental assistance vouchers be reserved for families with incomes at or below 30% of median income. The limitation on rent which could be collected from public housing residents in the past under the Brooke Amendment has resulted in a lack of funds for maintenance, a shortfall which has forced the federal government to pay increasing sums to local authorities for repair of the deteriorating housing, an amount which rose to $2.8 billion in 1995. According to a study done for HUD eight years ago, $30 billion in capital expenditures was required at that time to bring the public housing stock up to standards. The recently enacted republican reform provides $82 billion over 5 years for modernization of aging units and demolition of those units which are beyond repair, nearly triple the amount required by HUD in 1988, so the already emerging demagoguery from the professional liberal whiners about a new war on the poor ("This bill operates under the theory that there aren't enough homeless people in America, so we have to create more of them." -- David Bonior, D-MI), is nothing more than election year hot air. CHEAPSKATE LIBERALS: Liberals never tire of whining that nobody can really live on the present minimum wage, so in the name of simple humanity they demand that it must be raised to $5.15. As if someone living in poverty at $4.25 could live like royalty at $5.15. If they really wanted to help minimum wage earners, liberals should recognize that living costs vary greatly across the nation, and demand that a sliding scale of minimum wages be imposed. The proper level they should demand in Hawaii, for example, where the costs of everything are so high, should be at least $17.50 per hour, while employees in Bill Clinton's Arkansas can probably get by on $6.35. Employers in other high cost states, such as Alaska and Massachusetts, should be forced to grant a minimum wage of at least $15.48 and $14.66 per hour, respectively. New York City workers should be given at least $14.75. If these numbers were mandated, then at least the income of minimum wage workers would be brought up to the income level which their local welfare recipients already receive. Those are the levels which the government has decided welfare recipients "need" to live, shouldn't people who actually work for a living get at least as much? It's only fair. END Congress Action is available on its own web page at http://www.aimnet.com/~jbv/congress_action.html and on FTP site at ftp.aimnet.com /pub/users/jbv/congress_action/ ------- To unsubscribe from c-news, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE c-news to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact owner-c-news@world.std.com with questions. * Patriot Information Mailing List * http://constitution.org/piml/piml.htm * A service to help inform those who have an active interest in * returning our federal and state governments to limited, * constitutional government * Send messages for consideration and possible posting to * butterb@sagenet.net (Bill Utterback). * To subscribe or unsubscribe, send message with subject line * "subscribe patriot" or "unsubscribe patriot" * Forwarded messages sent on this mailing list are NOT verified. * See World's Smallest Political Quiz: www.self-gov.org/quiz.html * Libertarian is to LIBERTY as librarian is to library (DePena) * PIML grants permission to copy and repost this message * in its entirety with headers and trailers left intact.