[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 55 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    IMPACT OF RESCISSIONS ON ELDERLY

                                 ______


                        HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 24, 1995
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, we have heard time and time 
again that the opposition is determined to provide less Government and 
lower taxes, but for who?
  Well, now we have the answer. The cuts before us clearly show that 
the intention is to provide less help to those who most need it, and 
lower taxes for those who have the most.
  For those who fear the onset of winter, and the long and cold nights 
that it brings, these cuts will force a choice between heating and 
eating. My State of Rhode Island was supposed to receive $8.8 million 
in energy assistance next winter. No more.
  This bill turns its back on the 26,000 households, more than 59,000 
individuals in Rhode Island, who rely on the little bit of help they 
get for energy assistance.
  When the average heating bill in Providence is $1,200 a winter, a 
grant of $414 can make a world of difference.
  To quote a couple from my State, writing about the assistance they 
received:

       Thank you so very much from our hearts to yours. By your 
     compassion we're touched. May God bless you * * * Not one day 
     did we live cold * * *

  Sixty percent of the households in Rhode Island who receive energy 
assistance are either elderly, on fixed incomes, or working poor. Most 
have household incomes between $6,000 and $8,000. A capital gains tax 
cut will provide little comfort to these people in the dead of winter 
next year.
  This cut is indefensible, and I suspect that is why the majority 
would not even allow an amendment restoring this money to make it to 
the floor.
  They will be able to avoid the pain of a vote today, but our seniors 
will be forced to feel the pain of their cuts tomorrow.
  The cuts to housing again hit at those most in need. Forty percent of 
the housing cuts will strike senior citizens, threatening the very 
viability and quality of their housing by slashing operating subsidies 
and modernization funds--maintenance, necessary improvements, and 
security will be cut back.
  In Pawtucket, RI, the cut in modernization funds could mean that a 
planned central security station will have to be eliminated. What 
protection will the seniors living in Burns Manor derive from the big 
business loopholes in the tax package?
  Is this the right way to begin cutting the budget? I do not think so.
  When it comes to cutting the budget, let us start with the programs 
that are the weakest and not the programs for the weakest.


                          ____________________