[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H665-H666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, If you look closely at the fine print of 
the Republican welfare reform plan, there is a proposal that threatens 
the lives of almost 5 million older Americans. This proposal threatens 
to force our seniors to go hungry. But so far, this issue has gone 
virtually overlooked in the large-scale national debate over welfare 
reform.
  It is buried deep within the legislative language of the Republican's 
Contract With America. It is contained under the section that 
consolidates nutrition programs for the poor. It seeks to eliminate the 
crucial nutrition section of the 30-year-old Older Americans Act and to 
lump funding for senior citizen nutrition programs in with all other 
food programs.
  Seniors are at particular risk under the proposal. While the welfare 
plan does spell out some mandatory minimums each State must spend on 
nutrition programs, it does not specify any minimum for elderly 
nutrition.
  Therefore, this proposal would allow States to completely wipe out 
Meals-On-wheels and other vital services. No protection is afforded by 
the Federal Government.
  Pulling senior nutrition out of the Older Americans Act and 
separating it from other other services for the elderly will make it 
much harder for communities to assist older people with complex needs. 
None of us want to create a situation where competing interests are 
vying for their fair share. We cannot allow a situation to develop 
where the needs of seniors are pitted against the needs of hungry 
children.
  There is no question that our current welfare system is in need of 
reform. The debate over welfare reform taking place across this country 
needs to focus on connecting recipients to the workplace. It should 
deal with personal responsibility and work, not just saving money. We 
should be guided by principles that help us solve problems, not create 
new ones.
  The Elderly Nutrition Program, as part of the Older Americans Act, is 
a program that works. They have a proven track record of success.
  Before we can appreciate the value of these programs, we need to 
understand the problems they address and the effectiveness of their 
results.
  Today, many seniors do not eat adequately because they cannot afford 
to do so. Moreover, they lack the skills to prepare nourishing, well-
balanced meals. Because many of these elderly people have limited 
mobility, it can be difficult to shop and cook for themselves. Also, 
many seniors experience feelings of loneliness which sometimes hinder 
their incentive to make a meal and eat it alone.
  These and other physiological, social, and economic changes that 
occur with aging, result in a pattern of living that causes 
malnutrition and further physical and mental deterioration.
  Since 1973, the Nutrition Program for the Elderly has provided older 
Americans, particularly those with low incomes, nutritionally sound 
meals. The broad objective of the Nutrition Program for the Elderly is 
to nourish the whole older person, not simply to supply basic 
nutrients.
  About 3.3 million seniors are served hot meals in strategically 
located centers such as schools, churches, community centers, and 
senior citizen centers. Seniors in this program depend on the fruit, 
milk, meat, and potatoes because it is often their only balanced meal 
of the day.
  Public and private facilities are also used where seniors can obtain 
other social and rehabilitative services. This encourages older persons 
to maintain independence by encouraging social interaction, while at 
the same time improving nutrition. This program is the cornerstone of a 
comprehensive, community based and managed service system aimed at 
providing opportunities for older people to remain independent and 
selfsufficient.
  For those who are homebound, meals are delivered and other supportive 
services are provided, where necessary and feasible. Nationally, more 
than 794,000 seniors, 49,000 now in my home State of Florida, have 
meals delivered to their homes. Yet, the program today cannot serve all 
who need it. If the nutrition program is to be continued as part of a 
block grant, it is estimated that nearly 20 percent of the seniors now 
served would no longer receive meals and nutrition services due to 
reductions in funding.
  Besides promoting better health among the elderly through improved 
nutrition, this program is aimed at reducing the isolation of old age 
and offering Americans the opportunity to maintain self-sufficiency. 
The nutrition program is a fundamental part of a comprehensive service 
system aimed at keeping older people at home, supporting family 
caregivers, and avoiding unnecessary and costly nursing home care.
  These programs are supported through a vast network of volunteers and 
through cash and in-kind support from local private sector 
[[Page H666]] groups. Finally, these programs have traditionally served 
those older persons with the greatest economic need. A significant 
portion of the cost of these programs are borne by the participants 
themselves. Seniors contributed at least $171 million last year to the 
programs based on their ability to pay.
  Moreover, these programs are some of the most effective in keeping 
administration costs extremely low. Much of the administrative costs of 
these programs are provided by volunteers. The reduction of funding 
will have an adverse effect on the potential of providers to recruit 
increased numbers of volunteers. Furthermore, the number of volunteers 
would be decreased as well, since many senior volunteers are 
participants in the programs.
  This proposal from the Contract With America does not make cost 
effective sense. The logic of this proposal is faulty on its face. The 
proposed changes will result in more people going to nursing homes 
since preventive and supportive services, including meals, will be 
decreased. Every recipient who receives meals at home is considered 
frail and generally at risk of nursing home placement.
  If this block grant was created, 5,040 home delivered meal recipients 
would be dropped from the program, these frail seniors would most 
likely be unable to remain in their homes and would be at high risk of 
entering a nursing home. This would cost the Federal Government $86 
million per year in Medicaid funds. As opposed to the present cost of 
$7.5 million under the Older American Act and related state funded 
programs for home based care.
  Rember, this $86 million is only for Florida. It is more than 10
   times less expensive to keep people in their homes, where they want 
to be in the first place. Obviously, the results of block granting 
these programs have not been thought through. It is just another one of 
the shallow plans Republicans are offering without thinking through the 
personal or financial consequences. This plan would end up costing us 
billions of dollars and cutting vital services to the elderly.

  Mr. Speaker, the average age of the people in my district makes it 
the second oldest in the state. I have worked closely with a number of 
programs in my District that provide these nutrition programs to my 
constituents. I know from first hand experience how important they are 
to a great deal of the elderly folks in Florida.
  Nutrition studies from the University of Florida have shown that 69 
percent of the congregate meal participants were at moderate to high 
risk for malnutrition. Moreover, 89 percent of the home delivered meal 
participants were at moderate to high risk for malnutrition.
  Mr. Speaker, I have talked to many participants of these nutritional 
programs and I receive letters like these every day.
  Like the one from this 83 year old woman. She has been going to the 
same site in New Port Richey every day since 1983. Her son brings her 
every morning and picks her up afterwards. She loves to be around 
people and feel useful instead of just sitting at home.
  She is very healthy and goes to the site to enjoy the camaraderie of 
other seniors her age. She is very active at the site and is a regular 
volunteer.
  She is grateful to this elderly nutrition program and stated that 
``the program keeps her young.'' If this program were based on income 
eligibility she would not qualify for it.
  Or this letter, that comes from a retired pharmacist, from New Port
   Richey, who lives alone since the death of his wife. Each day, 
instead of sitting home alone, he comes to the Elderly Nutrition dining 
site. He looks forward to volunteering at the site and delivering meals 
to the homebound.

  He writes to tell me that if the criteria for eligibility in the 
Nutrition Program is changed and he is found to be unqualified, it will 
leave a huge void in his life. He feels that he would become depressed 
if he had to stay at home ``staring at four walls.''
  He has the means to pay for his meals in a restaurant, but would be 
unable to find the socialization and companionship that he needs from 
other seniors there. Due to physical disabilities, he is unable to 
interact in recreational activities. At the lunch site he finds more 
appropriate activities to fulfill his needs.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate on welfare has been focused on moving people 
off welfare and into work. The American people do not want to continue 
an endless entitlement program without requiring any responsibility on 
the part of the recipients.
  What we need to understand, is that the Elderly Nutrition Program is 
not welfare. Unfortunately, the Nutrition Program for the Elderly got 
swept along in a big net cast out to reform the welfare system. This is 
a program that serves very vulnerable seniors. This program does not 
belong in the debate on connecting recipients to the work place.
  The welfare debate is about personal responsibility and work. The 
Elderly Nutrition Program is about keeping seniors alive and 
independent. Not a single person has alleged that the program is 
anything less than a successful program that has improved the nutrition 
and physical and mental health of millions of seniors in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow members to examine these elderly 
nutrition programs and recognize the fact that they do not belong in 
the welfare debate. Including them in a massive block grant, as offered 
by the Republicans in the Contract With America, would be a massive 
mistake. It would in the most cruel way, pit one generation against 
another in the fight for survival.
  Last night, President Clinton said that seniors have made us what we 
are as a nation. He is right. We shouldn't thank them for their 
sacrifices to the present generation by kicking them out on the street.


                          ____________________