Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. It is clear that that is his intention. I think you are right for pointing out that there are certain ideological differences. There are things relating to public policy that separate the Democratic Party from the Republican Party, not every member of the Republican Party, because there are people in the Republican Party who very much appreciate Medicare, who like it, regard it as something very positive and want to support and sustain it. It happens, however, that the leadership in this House feels quite differently and the leadership in the Senate feels quite differently. They are very strongly opposed to it. They have said so themselves. They make no bones about it. They are not reticent about their opposition to it. They have been quite clear in the things that they have said. They are opposed to the continuation of Medicare, as they are opposed to the continuation of Medicaid, and they are trying to destroy these programs by taking the lifeblood from them, the funding that is necessary to keep them going. Something else that the gentleman said really stuck me, also. I was at a housing unit over in Binghamton, which is a city in my district, over the weekend. It is a very lovely place. It is well run, it is well kept. It is 16 years old, was funded by the Federal Government. It was built 16 years ago but it is maintained so well that one would think it was only 4 or 5 years old. it is in very good condition. This is a building that houses senior citizens and people with multiple disabilities. If it were not for buildings like this, these people frankly in many cases would have no place to go. So here they have an opportunity to live independently and live in a secure environment and one that is quite pleasant. In fact, in the back yard there was a lovely landscaping operation and a garden where people had planted some vegetables, tomatoes, and things like that, to harvest in the summer harvest. They were deeply concerned when I talked to them about Medicare. They had heard some of the things that were reported here. They had heard about the Medicare trustees' report, they had heard about the kind of twists on that report that had been placed upon it by certain Members of this House on the other side of the aisle, and they were deeply concerned. They were wondering if they were going to continue to have their health insurance, if it was going to continue to be viable. I had to assure them that, yes, of course it was, that this report was not anything unusual, it was simply the routine report put out by the trustees. But there are people here in Washington who do not like Medicare. They have never like it, as Bob Dole has said quite clearly. He was against it from the very beginning back in 1965. He did not like it then, he does not like it now. That is his right, of course, not to like it. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. We think he is wrong. We believe earnestly that he is wrong. We recognize that Medicare has served this country very well, particularly our elderly population and the families of older people as well. But they do not like it and they are opposed to it. They would like to see it ended, and they are trying to destroy it by these continuing efforts to cut the funds out of the program so that, in the words of Speaker Gingrich, it would just wither on the vine.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for blocking out this time and giving me an opportunity to join him in this discussion. I know that the gentleman is very concerned, as I am and I think many of the people in this House are, about the future of both Medicare and Medicaid. Last week we saw once again the trustees, the Medicare trustees, issue their annual report. It is a report, of course, that they issue every year. When they issued their report last year, the Medicare trustees reported that legislation that would reduce costs by only $89 billion over a 7-year period would be sufficient to maintain Medicare's financial security. So it is not an awfully difficult job to do. A relatively small amount of money over that 7- year period will ensure the future stability of Medicare for at least another decade beyond that. Most of this legislation, which would extend Medicare's viability another decade, required only the continuation of existing Medicare laws that were scheduled to expire. So, simply by taking laws that are about to expire and extending them into the future, that alone will provide us with most of the funds that we need to ensure the strength and viability of Medicare for at least another 10 years. Many of us, including you and I, cosponsored legislation that would continue those laws and would meet that $89 billion goal. Relatively small shifts in reimbursement levels and technical changes can produce substantial savings without requiring any dramatic overhaul of the Medicare Program. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, whose real intention is to destroy Medicare, are proposing to cut much greater funds out of the program. Their proposal last year, of course, was for $270 billion out of Medicare. They have dropped that back a little bit this year. It is something in the neighborhood of $220 to $240 billion that they would cut out of Medicare this year in their budget proposal over a 7-year period. We know that there have been many times in the past, and Medicare has been around now for 30 years, there have been many times when the trustees have reported that Medicare would run out of funds, in some cases in as short a time as only 2 years. There were a couple of periods back in the decade of the 1980s, for example, when the trustees came in with their report and said unless the Congress takes some action of some kind to strengthen the fund, the fund will be exhausted in 2 years. Of course, Congress took that action, and the fund was extended for years into the future. Now the trustees, in their most recent report, have said that the fund is secure for another 5 years. There is nothing that has to be done for another 5 years and it will be secure, but sometime within that 5-year period the Congress will have to act. That has always been the case. Medicare was created on a pay-as-you- go basis back in 1965. It was not as though Lyndon Johnson, who was President then, found a big pot of money someplace and said, well, this is going to be the Medicare trust fund. We have just discovered this fund and we are going to turn it into the Medicare trust fund. Nothing like that, of course, happened. What they did was set up the Medicare program and established its funding on a pay-as-you-go basis, year after year after year, assuming that the program would be effective, that the American people would support it, and so therefore the Congress would continue to support it with the necessary funds. Now the majority party here has come and has reacted to this recent revelation, this recent report from the trustees that stipulates that Medicare is fine for 5 years, and they are trying to instill panic in the general population, particularly those people who are receiving Medicare, elderly people. They are vulnerable to this. They are worried about their health care. So when someone in the House of Representatives stands up here on the floor and stamps their feet and makes a big to-do, pretending that Medicare is about to go bankrupt, when in fact it is stronger today than it has been many times in the past, senior citizens become concerned, because it is the health insurance that they need to get the health care they need to sustain their health and to sustain their lives. Their children become concerned, too, because without Medicare they know that they would have to sustain substantial costs which in many cases for working people would be far beyond their ability to sustain. Mr. Speaker, it is really, I think, scandalous the way some people here have tried to turn this routine report from the Medicare trustees that comes out every year, how they have tried to turn it into a political football, and they are trying to exploit this report by pretending it is something that it is not. It is not a call for alarm, certainly not panic. It is simply the requirement, annual requirement that the law stipulates that the trustees must do, and that is to report to Congress and to the United States every year on the condition of the fund. The fund, with 5 years, is obviously a lot stronger than it was back in the 1980s, when a number of times, at least twice, there were only 2 years left in the fund. Congress has responded throughout this 3-year period. In the last 13 years, for example, Congress has adjusted the Medicare fund nine times to respond to recommendations that were contained in the annual report of the Medicare trustees. So this report this year is nothing extraordinary, it is nothing new. It is the routine, annual reporting of the trustees to the Congress, and it is our responsibility to respond to that either this year or next year. The proper response is, as I indicated when I first started speaking a few moments ago, the proper response is to look at the existing law, take some of those things that are about to expire, extend them on into the future so that they will produce the needed revenues, and the mere $89 billion over 7 years, a far cry from the $270 billion that our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to chop out of the program, simply by extending provisions in the existing law you can obtain the $89 billion over 7 years and ensure the strength and solvency of the fund for at least another decade, which is the kind of thing that the Congress has done over and over and over again throughout the 30-year history of Medicare. But it comes as no surprise to you nor to me that these folks are trying to exploit this report, to turn it into a source of panic and concern, when really there is no need for concern, let alone panic. It comes as no surprise to us because we know that the majority leader of the Senate, who is now about to retire, was bragging here on an October day last year when he was addressing a very conservative group of people here, when he was trying to appeal to them as a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, he was trying to appeal to them by saying to this very right-wing group, ``If you want someone who is really conservative, then I think I am the guy you want, because I have been against Medicare from the very beginning.'' He bragged about being one of only 12 people to vote against Medicare when it was first proposed on the floor of this House. he was a Member of the House in those days, in 1965. He bragged about being only one of 12 people to oppose the Medicare legislation, and he seemingly makes no bones about it, frankly. He was proud of the fact that he was against it then. He said he has been against it ever since, and he is against it today. Why, he explained? Because, and this is the real kind of silly part of his argument, he said, ``Because I knew it would not work then and I know it does not work now.'' The fact of the matter is that millions of American seniors have benefited from the Medicare program. It has provided them with excellent health care; not that it is perfect by any means. There are things we have to do and will do to improve the program. But the fact of the matter is that Medicare has served the senior citizens, 65-year- or-older population in this country, very well now for more than 30 years. And of course we know that the Speaker of our own House, coincidentally that same week in October of last year, speaking to a group of insurance executives at the time, said this to them. He said, ``We are not going to attack Medicare directly. No, no. We are not going to do that. That would be politically unwise,'' he said. ``What we are going to do is attack it circuitously, by going around the back, withdrawing the funds from the program''; hence their proposal for a $270 billion reduction, ``withdraw the funds from the program and let Medicare wither on the vine.'' That was his approach to these insurance executives, who of course many of them would like to see Medicare be destroyed, because that would give them some opportunity to perhaps sell some health care insurance to some people who do not need it now because of the fact that they have Medicare. So it comes as no surprise to us, it ought to come as no surprise to the American people that there are certain people in this House as well as in the other body that are trying to exploit this routine report from the Medicare trustees, turn it into something it is not, pretend that it is cause for concern and try to exploit it for political reasons, which I think is frankly unconscionable. Nevertheless, that is what they are trying to do, when in fact this is a routine report. It is simply the trustees fulfilling their obligations to report to the Congress and to the American people, and this Congress or the next one, which will be elected in November, will do exactly what Congresses have done in each and every case in the past. They will do the responsible thing. They will extend these programs out. They will take the appropriate action to ensure that this Medicare program, which has served the country and particularly our elderly population so well now for so long, will continue to do precisely that. So I wanted to come over and join you in this discussion because I think that these are matters that are important and ought to be said. In fact, I think that they ought to be said as often as possible.

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentleman. This is one of the most critical subjects we have before this Congress, and the more light we can shed on those proposals, the better off the American people will be. They will be able to make competent decisions based on factual information rather than pretend on hysterical statements that we have seen coming out of some of the people in the House over the last couple of days.

Mr. HINCHEY. Obviously, what would happen to the families of those people if Medicare were changed in the way that they are proposing to change it, to block grant it, reduce the amounts of money that is available, send what is left in the form of block grants to the States, the States then would have to add on administrative costs or take out of that administrative costs because now they will have to run the program and be responsible for parts of it. They would have to hire people to do that. They would have to have office space and most of the things that would be associated with making additional costs, which would take money out of the Medicaid program. As the gentleman mentioned earlier, there is always the temptation for State governments, when they have access to Federal funds, to use them in what might be called creative ways and to spend that money out of the Medicaid system to help balance a budget or to do something else for some other kind of expenditure in some way. The result of all of that would be far less money available for Medicaid recipients, elderly people in nursing homes, people with multiple disabilities in nursing homes. I ask myself, what would the families of those people do? How would they cope with that? How would they manage under those circumstances? I can tell the gentleman in the case of many of the people I know, the families of people who have elderly parents in nursing homes or who have someone in their family who is severely handicapped with a severe physical disability as a result of an automobile accident, perhaps, or as a result of a condition at birth in some instances, they simply would not be able to deal with it. They do not have the financial resources. So people would end up being taken and put into closets somewhere. We have all heard the horror stories that existed prior to the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid; how people, left to their own devices, without the resources to handle these situations in competent ways, what they had to resort to. And I know that we would be in many instances put back into those same circumstances. We have to prevent that and the way we can prevent it is by keeping these programs alive and preventing the opponents of Medicare and Medicaid from having their way, preventing them from destroying these programs, which is precisely what they want to do.

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, there seems to be no limit on the temerity of some of the majority party in this House and their ability to attack Medicare and Medicaid. I know you have talked about Medicaid earlier. In my State, and I assume it is probably similar in New Jersey, 80 percent of the funding in the Medicaid program in New York goes to pay for the expenses of senior citizens and people with multiple disabilities in nursing homes or similar settings.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to recognize the visit to Washington of the new president of Cornell University, Hunter Rawlings, and his wife, Elizabeth. President Rawlings succeeded Frank H.T. Rhodes in 1995 to become the 10th president of Cornell University, located in Ithaca, NY. President Rawlings was formerly the president of the University of Iowa and held many positions at the University of Colorado at Boulder in addition to serving on many professional boards and associations. He is already a well-known figure to Cornell students, especially since he stands 6'7'' tall, and brings an extraordinary record of accomplishments to Cornell. On June 15, the president will attend a picnic in his honor hosted by the Cornell Club of Washington at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Austin Kiplinger. I am glad to see that President Rawlings is interested in meeting Washingtonians and look forward to continuing close links between the university, its president, our own Washington institutions, and the high-level research functions of the Federal Government. I wish him well in his tenure as Cornell's president.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that there are human rights problems in India, that one would deny that, but that is true of many countries around the world. In fact, anyone who travels around the world or even reads the newspapers knows that in virtually any country you can find examples of human rights violations. We ought not to overlook them. We ought to be doing everything we can to have them corrected by those countries in which they are occurring. And I think that that is precisely what is being done in the case of India. I think that this country is trying to deal with some very difficult and very complex problems. After all, it is a young country. It has been in existence for less than 50 years. It comes out of a colonial background, but it is a country with which we have much in common. Obviously, there is the commonality of language. We have the English language in common. We also have the commonality of governance. We are two democracies. We have much in common with this country, and we need to encourage the creation and development of democratic principles in India, where, in fact, in comparison to many other countries around the world, they are flourishing. To cut this aid at this particular time flies in the face of all of that effort. It would make it more difficult for India to achieve the full democratization of its institutions, and it would also, in fact, not lessen human rights violations in that country but, in fact, it would in all likelihood make them worse. So while I very much respect our friend and colleague from Indiana and respect what he is doing and respect the motivation which gives birth to this amendment, nevertheless, I find myself in strong disagreement with it, because I think from his point of view as well as from the point of view of most Americans as well as from the point of view of India and most Indians, it would be counterproductive. It would, in fact, not reduce human rights violations but it would, in fact, increase them. This is a huge country, a country of 900 million people, almost a billion people. It will, sometime in the next century, supplant China as the most populous country in the world. They need the help of other countries, particularly democratic countries with which they share common beliefs and common principles and common traditions. That is true of our relationship with India, and we ought to continue to assist them in whatever way we possibly can, particularly with this form of aid. While I very much appreciate the motivation of my friend and colleague from Indiana, I must reluctantly say that it would accomplish the wrong thing. Therefore, I am in opposition to it.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his sensitive and sensible words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, over the course of this debate we have tried to demonstrate that there are substantial differences in priorities between the Democratic party in this House and the Republican party. Nowhere are those priorities more clearly defined than in the context of budgeting, and this budget continues that clear definition. We want to balance the budget, too, and we are in the process of doing precisely that. When I came to this Congress, coincidently when President Clinton was elected, the annual budget deficit was approximately $290 billion. If we had continued the economic policies of the Bush Administration, by the year 2002 the budget deficit would be pushing $600 billion. As a result, however, of the budget resolution of 1993, the deficit has been coming down substantially. As a matter of fact, today the budget deficit is not $290 billion, as it was in January of 1993, it is approximately $140 billion, less than half of what it was approximately 3 years ago, and it continues to decline. We have reduced the deficit without cutting Medicare, without cutting Medicaid, without cutting education, without cutting protection for the environment, without cutting veterans benefits. Although our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle protest when we claim that they are cutting it, the fact of the matter is if we follow their priorities, fewer people will get health care in this country next year and the year after that and the year after that. Most of them will be elderly people because mostly elderly people benefit from the programs of Medicare and Medicaid. If we follow their priorities, our educational programs will be seriously deficient. From the elementary and secondary level, in fact beginning at Head Start, right on through Pell grants, there will be less educational opportunity in this country. Middle-class people will be unable to send their children to college. We will have a country that is not benefiting from the benefits of their education. So these are the differences. They are basic, fundamental differences. Our budget is better. Their budget is worse. We need to defeat theirs and pass ours.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Joint Economic Committee, I want to raise a number of objections to the GOP budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. This proposal that we have before us is little more than a rehash of the Contract With America and its assault on working families, senior citizens, students, and the environment, all of which have been rejected by the American people in each of the renditions that it has come to this House. This budget is bad for the economy. It is bad for working people, and I believe it should be rejected. Just a few weeks ago after a year-long struggle on the budget, this body showed that it had the ability to compromise on fiscal matters and pass a budget reduction measure with support that was bipartisan. The omnibus appropriations bill cut the deficit by an additional $23 billion, while at the same time protecting our Nation's commitment to providing affordable health care, housing, and education. The bill was the product of productive dialog between the parties; long, tough negotiations and compromise by Members on both sides of the aisle. That is why I voted for it, and that is why Democrats and Republicans alike in this House supported it and provided it with an overwhelming majority. Now, Mr. Chairman, the majority party here in the House proposes to take several steps backwards and rehash the debate once again to limit health care services for the elderly, undercut health care providers in my district and across the Nation. We are again debating whether we should end our Nation's longstanding commitment to help provide food and medicine for those who need it, and raise the cost of education for working families. In the end, this budget would have a devastating impact on the economic security of working families across America. Under the bill, Medicare would be cut by $168 billion. Medicaid coverage would no longer be guaranteed, and spending on education is reduced below its level of just 2 years ago. One and one-half million fewer students would be aided by Pell grants, as opposed to those who would be aided under the President's bill. In other words, the President's bill would provide Pell grants for an additional 1.5 million students over that which is proposed in the Republican budget. In addition, the earned income tax credit would be cut by $20 billion, essentially raising taxes on thousands of working families in my district, and a total of about 6 million working families across the country. The debate on this budget plan has been a loser for the Republican majority throughout the past year. This budget promises to continue this losing tradition today, tomorrow, and on until November. It is symbolic and ironic that on the same day the majority has rejected a modest increase in the minimum wage to help working families achieve a decent standard of living, it presents this House with a plan to raise taxes on those very same families by cutting the earned income tax credit. If we cannot raise the wages of working families, then why should we also provide tax breaks for the most affluent members of this society? Why should the House vote for a budget that provides capital gains reduction that largely benefits the wealthiest 1 percent of families when we are telling working people that we cannot afford to raise the minimum wage above the lowest level it has been at in 40 years. It is time that we stand up for the economic security of working Americans instead of trampling on their standard of living. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we reject this losing budget proposal and we vote for one of the Democratic alternatives that will be presented tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 178.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered en bloc.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. This amendment clearly deals with new tenants coming into housing. There is a turnaround of about 15 percent a year in subsidized housing alone. Any senior citizen or disabled resident who is making more than 30 percent of area median income, which is roughly equivalent to the earnings of a minimum-wage earner, will be left out in the cold under the present bill. An estimated 135,000 elderly households in public housing alone can be expected to be left unprotected by the present bill that is before the House. Another 17,000 disabled households would be left unprotected by the bill that is currently before the House. Mr. Chairman, the numbers that I am giving relate only to those who live in public housing. It does not begin to tell the story of the additional tens of thousands of elderly and disabled, frail elderly and disabled who are in assisted housing. How are these families going to afford to pay higher rents if they must also pay hundreds more for their health care, food, and other basic necessities? Many households will be forced to choose between housing and health care, food and medicine, and many families are going to end up on the street as a result if this amendment is not adopted. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply preserve a narrowly tailored form of the current rent ceiling named for a Republican Senator, passed by a Republican Senate, and signed into law by a Republican President. It is intended to preserve a minimum standard of living for the most vulnerable members of our society: Our frail elderly seniors and disabled people who are unable to work even part-time to supplement their income. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment. It is the only reasonable thing to do to correct a serious deficiency in the bill currently before the House.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the subcommittee chairman, particularly for the agreement that he made with me last night that this amendment would be before the House shortly after the Frank amendment, and I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention that a number of seniors around the country, and particularly in my district and elsewhere, are concerned about the bill that is currently before us. For example, Jean Austin of Liberty, NY, wrote me earlier this year to say the following, and I quote: I read in the paper that Republicans in the House and Senate want to raise rents for the elderly. Sir, I have an income of $567 per month to live on. There are many people my age that get far less than I do. What is going to happen to them? Will they join the homeless on the streets because we can't afford to keep our homes? Please, I beg you, help us. That is what this amendment tries to do, Mr. Chairman. It tries to help people like Jean Austin. Since the Great Depression, the Federal Government has pledged to help provide a decent standard of living for people during their golden years, and to protect them from poverty and homelessness. This support is symbolized by the Social Security Program, and affordable housing has become another key element of that promise. During the past year the standard of living of seniors has come under very serious attack. The elderly have been told that they must pay substantially more for medical services due to rising health care costs and proposed reductions in the Medicare Program. They have been faced with higher costs of food, utilities, and other basic items due to proposed broad cuts in food stamps, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and other essential Federal programs. Now, Mr. Chairman, with the proposed elimination of the Brooke amendment in H.R. 2406, we are telling them that they have to pay substantially more to keep a roof over their heads. Under H.R. 2406, as amended by the manager's amendment, about one in three new elderly tenants would potentially be forced to pay upwards of more than $400 per year in increased rent. Mr. Chairman, I include a letter from the American Association of Retired Persons for the Record: American Association of Retired Persons, Washington, DC, May 7, 1996. Hon. Maurice D. Hinchey, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Hinchey: I am writing to express the support of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) for your amendment to H.R. 2406 which would restore limits on the amount that low-income seniors and disabled must pay for rent in public and assisted housing. AARP generally supports enhancing local housing authority discretion and broadening the income mix of tenants housed in public and assisted housing. Allowing more mixed income housing should improve the quality of service in housing communities and the responsiveness of housing providers to their tenants. AARP believes, however, that H.R. 2406 goes too far in removing all income targeting and all limitations on the percentage of income that tenants must spend on rent. The Association strongly supports your amendment to restore limits on the amount of income paid by the poorest and most vulnerable tenants of public and assisted housing. We understand the necessity of generating sufficient income to maintain the housing stock in the face of diminishing federal resources. Eliminating the preference rules and broadening the income targeting will provide increased revenues over time that should help bridge that gap. Some have suggested that the current limit on rents is a disincentive to employment for tenants. Whatever the merits of this argument, it should be obvious that it has little applicability to the elderly and disabled. Eighty percent of the elderly living in public and assisted housing are women living alone whose average age is in the late 70's. The federal government should stand by its responsibility to help the poorest tenants by providing adequate operating subsidies, not reducing rental assistance. Older tenants, whose incomes average less than $7,500 per year, will be facing less assistance from food stamps and other essential services. To add major rent increases on top of these other cuts will cause more problems than it will solve for local housing authorities. AARP appreciates your leadership in offering this amendment. If we can be of assistance on these or other issues, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact Jo Reed of our Federal Affairs staff at 434-3800. Sincerely, Kevin J. Donnellan, Acting Director, Legislation and Public Policy.