[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 21 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H1146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  2050
    PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT THREATENS SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise again tonight to discuss 
some of the effects of the Personal Responsibility Act on the nutrition 
programs, specifically the senior citizens nutrition programs.
  Yesterday, during a hearing on the Personal Responsibility Act in the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, of which I am a 
member, there were six witnesses, five representing local community 
groups, and all were against title V of the bill which deals with all 
our Federal nutrition programs. Title V repeals every Federal nutrition 
program and then block-grants the funds after severe cuts. Under this 
repeal of our nutrition programs, the State of Texas would lose over $1 
billion in 1996 alone.
  One member of the committee questioned the constitutional basis for 
providing nutrition and actually said it is not a Federal 
responsibility, and he quoted the Constitution.
  Well, we all may need to reread our Constitution because where I see 
it in the Preamble, it says to provide for the common defense and 
promote the general welfare, and that is included in nutrition.
  If the Republicans are holding the defense budget sacred and even 
increasing it because it is protected under the Constitution, at the 
very minimum nutrition programs should also be protected from these 
draconian budget cuts.
  After November 8 of last year, many people called for Congress to 
become result-oriented. The PRA, or the Personal Responsibility Act, 
will result in 800 seniors going hungry every day in the city of 
Houston.
  I hope and I pray that the PRA, the Personal Responsibility Act, was 
not designed to deny senior citizens their Meals on Wheels but that 
will surely be the result.
  Let me repeat. If the PRA is passed in its current form, there will 
be over 800 hungry seniors in or around the district that I represent 
in Houston, TX. Not only will seniors go hungry, but on page 74 of the 
PRA, it requires seniors under the age of 63 and not disabled to work 
for their food.
  The Older Americans Act allows any senior over 60 years of age and 
their spouse, regardless of age, to receive one meal a day. Would this 
Personal Responsibility Act repeal that law? I believe so.
  What we will see, and I will show this sign, is that we will have 
seniors saying I will work for food, and that sign will be traded in 
every day with an affidavit from that senior to the State swearing that 
they will work at least 32 hours a week for that one hot meal. This is 
ludicrous.
  I would hope that the committees, and I serve on one of the 
committees, will have better judgment than to pass this bill, 
particularly title V.
  Stalin may have done this to the Soviet seniors, but not us. This 
would mean at least 35 people would be barred from a hot meal at the 
Magnolia Multi-Purpose Center in Houston, Texas. And simply on the work 
requirement alone. So between 60 and 63, they have 35 people who today 
enjoy a hot meal that would have to either carry this sign or turn it 
in with an affidavit saying they will work.
  Should there be budget responsibilities? Of course, yes. Should there 
be administrative reduction? Yes. Should there be lonely, hungry 
seniors in the breadbasket of the world? No.
  We must take a look at this title V in the Personal Responsibility 
Act contained in this Contract With America to see that it is a 
contract on our seniors to remove the nutrition programs.

                          ____________________