[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to help 
try to have a reasonable discussion to set the record straight here. 
Tomorrow and Thursday this House will have a major debate on actions to 
balance the budget of this country, starting with the goal of $17.3 
billion, trying to find money to cut across the government, and I think 
that the goal of trying to balance the budget is absolutely worthy, and 
each of us in our capacities, as chairs of committees and as Members, 
has to be a part of this very serious task. I think that, however, as 
we try to plug the dike, the holes in the dike of our increasing debt, 
this $17.3 billion action is really going to be somewhat fruitless 
because at the same time there are billions flowing out the other side 
of the dike that we are not even taking a look at, and I want to talk 
about that tonight.
  But let me say I am very proud to rise as a Democrat this evening and 
say that this will not be one Member who will vote to eliminate the 
summer jobs program, and I would love to be the opponent of any 
Republicans who votes to eliminate the summer jobs program--on that 
basis alone. In my district there are over a thousand young people; in 
fact there are 4,000 in line, for the summer jobs program. We want to 
provide the best opportunities for our young people, and yet the first 
place they look is the summer jobs program for our young teenagers; 
probably for most of them, if not all, the first opportunity they have 
to have any kind of gainful employment.
                              {time}  2015

  As a Democrat, on the second program, I will not vote to eliminate 
the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. Twenty-five thousand senior 
citizens in my district benefit every year from that program. And for 
anybody who comes from the north and you know how cold the winters get 
and you know how tight those senior dollars are, I would love to be the 
opponent of any Republican who votes against the Low-Income Heating 
Assistance Program.
  Let me also say as a Democrat, I will not vote to hurt seniors who 
are forced to buy these medigap policies when they really cannot afford 
supplemental insurance. And that is hidden in this rescission bill. I 
am proud to be a democrat and stand at the side of every poor senior 
citizen in our country who depends on that medigap insurance.
  Now, what is interesting about this discussion is what the Republican 
Party will fail to go after and this is where my challenge lies with 
them.
  Why do you not do anything about plugging the tax breaks that are 
there for corporate welfare? We hear a lot about welfare for ordinary 
citizens. What about corporate welfare? How about getting rid of the $5 
billion that is there to let these pharmaceutical companies leave the 
United States and manufacture offshore? There is $5 billion of the $17 
billion right there.
  How about $30 billion worth of transfer pricing? All these foreign 
corporations that operate in the United States do not pay a dime of 
taxes. That is twice as much as you need right now to deal with the 
15.3 billion.
  How about all the multinational corporations that have got their 
hands out to the taxpayers of the United States like the market 
promotion program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture? We are 
subsidizing Pet Milk. We are subsidizing Mars Corporation. We are 
subsidizing Archer Daniel Midland & Company to the tune of millions of 
dollars a year.
  But who do you go to to try to cut when you want to balance the 
budget? You go to the kids in my district who don't have work this 
summer. You go to my senior citizens who cannot pay their heating 
bills.
  You know, I heard the Speaker say something really interesting. He is 
interested in privatizing NASA. Well, I do not know if I want to 
privatize all of NASA, but I would be happy to be a Democrat that 
supports privatization of the space station. That would be $40 billion. 
That is three times as much as you need this first time out of the box 
before we start taking all of the nicks out of the weakest and most 
vulnerable people in this country.
  And I just want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], who I know labors under great pressures of 
that particular committee in trying to find these spending cuts, you 
know, Mr. Goodling, I do not really think--and you cannot say this and 
you would not say this, because you are a very loyal servant of the 
people--but I do not think the Speaker of this House should go to the 
weakest people in this society and try to balance the budget on their 
backs.
  I would have more respect if he followed through with some of the 
suggestions he had, for example, with NASA, in trying to get the money 
we need by cutting off some of the biggest leeches we have in this 
country who have their hands out and can pay for the lobbyists in this 
town to take out people's money and then they get kicked in the gut 
back in districts like mine.
  I am proud to be a Democrat who is going to vote against this 
particular rescission bill.


                          ____________________