[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       BALANCED BUDGET REQUIRES ELIMINATING AND TRIMMING PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House today on the 
budget and on the process of balancing the budget.
  I have listened to a number of our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle today and in the weeks past on the budget, and I really think 
that maybe an honest step would be for them to say that we do not want 
to balance the budget, just get it over with. Because what we are 
hearing is, well, not here and not there, and do not do this, and do 
not do that.
  Federal jobs programs, for example. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have 
163 different Federal jobs training programs. Is it possible that some 
of those could be trimmed back, some could be consolidated, and 
perhaps, oh, do not say it too loudly around Washington, but maybe some 
could be eliminated? Is that not what the American people actually 
want?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
perspective.
  The gentleman from Georgia mentioned several job training programs. I 
would only raise an inquiry for what I hear my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle trying to do and what I would hope that we could do 
together, and that is to turn this country around to a level of self-
sufficiency. Part of that comes from our youth. If I can just separate 
out your comments to focus on the summer jobs program that have been 
effective in our communities, because, in fact, they have been a 
partnership between the public and the private sector.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the things that 
is very important to remember is that the AmeriCorps Program, which the 
gentlewoman has been discussing, for example, is $26,000 per child. 
Well, I would say to my colleague, we can produce a heck of a lot of 
great opportunities for kids at that rate.
  The problem, as the gentlewoman knows, is that if we want to do 
something for kids, we have to reduce the deficit. We cannot pass them 
our bankrupt legacy, the $200 billion debt that we have year after 
year, the $4.9 trillion that is eating away at these things.
  Now, the gentlewoman and I know that when we were kids, an old trick 
used to be to go to the corner drugstore and charge a Coca Cola or an 
ice cream to your dad's account down there. Well, at the end of the 
month your father would find out, well, you charged something to me, 
and I am going to make you pay that back.
  Well, now what is happening is we parents are going down and we are 
charging things for our kids to pay, but these are 4- and 5- and 6-
year-old children who for years and years are going to be paying.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I thank the 
gentleman for his thoughts.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick on this point. If we have analyzed 
the $26,000 on AmeriCorps, we have not yet juxtaposed or compared that 
against the investment or resources that they provide to the community 
which balances off, because they are giving labor for free, in essence, 
and the summer jobs exposes children to opportunity.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is important, but 
out of 163 job training programs I would challenge the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] to say, let us cut these. We are in agreement 
that maybe we need 100 job training programs, or maybe we need 2, or 
maybe we need 50. Where I think the Democrat Party is being somewhat 
disingenuous is you all are saying, let us cut the budget and let us 
balance it, but not here, not now, not in my area.
  These are good programs. I would say to my colleague that, in each 
case, many of them are good programs, yet we are still in debt. So why 
do we not try to take the good ones that are good and consolidate them 
together and reduce it and, most importantly, cut out the Washington 
bureaucrats who are the middle people who are sucking up so much of the 
money that should go?

  I want to make one more point. Mr. Speaker, it is already November, 
almost December. We keep hearing, balance the budget, but not here, not 
now. We want to work in a bipartisan fashion. To my knowledge, the only 
serious plan that has come from you all has been on the Blue Tick 
Hounds or the Hound Dog Democrats or whatever you call them, and I know 
that the gentleman from Mississippi has been a part of that. That is a 
great counterpunch to the debate, and I applaud it. But it is still a 
minority group within the Democrat Party.
  We do not have a serious Democrat proposal to balance the budget yet. 
So as long as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to 
say, not here, not now; I would say, get in the arena with us. I mean, 
it is difficult to balance the budget. If it was not, we would have had 
one in the last 25 years.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. If we can get more 
time, I will continue this debate, because the lady from Texas has been 
a very positive person in this debate process.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think there is more that we can do, 
the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate it. I think we have tried 
to meet on different issues. I wish that the budget now before us was 
not so strident.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                          ____________________