[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H1754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ECONOMIC SECURITY IS A BIPARTISAN ISSUE

  THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, many of us have had an 
opportunity to visit more extensively over the last 2 or 3 weeks with 
our constituents at home. It is interesting, I rose just earlier this 
week to indicate really what has captured the minds and the emotions of 
many Americans as we have watched the Republican primary proceed before 
our very eyes. It is not that the debate is unique, it is that maybe it 
is being raised when all of us happen to be focused in that direction, 
for the questions dealing with economic security, the well-being of 
this country, have been troubling many of our constituents for a number 
of years.
  And it is not a partisan issue. It is in fact a bipartisan issue, and 
it calls to question the quality of life that we expect as Americans. 
What it does is, it should pit us toward each other and not against 
each other. It involves the assessment of affirmative action as a 
valuable tool in which we can extend, to those who have not had an 
opportunity, an even playing field.
  It calls into question the attack on the earned income tax credit 
which rewards working people, working people who in essence are poor, 
to continue to work and not to seek welfare and dependence for them and 
their children. The earned income tax credit that is under assault by 
this Congress and by this budget process in fact enhances opportunities 
and does not take away from opportunities in both urban and rural 
America.
  It helps the more than blue collar worker, the hourly worker who has 
not had an opportunity to salt away dollars. By them working, they then 
get a credit back from the Federal Government which gives them a 
continuing incentive to continue to work. Why should we undermine that 
incentive for the working poor?
  Then there has been a big debate on those who would want to raise the 
minimum wage and those who would not, merely over a dollar at this 
point that is being proposed, all of the rancor, that this would 
destroy small businesses or that this would eliminate jobs. Do we 
really understand who is working in some of these places where we used 
to think teenagers worked? Fast food places? They are individuals who 
are attempting to support their family, some of them with four and five 
children.

                              {time}  1600

  I was told by a Member that he had a family in his district, many 
families, in fact, four members of the family, four children, excuse 
me, making a living on $15,000. Now, you wonder how those people make 
it. I applaud them. I applaud them for working, for keeping their 
family together, for striking out on their own.
  But if we are to uphold the quality of life for all America, then we 
must fight for the economic security of our citizens. We must go to 
corporate America and address the question that everything is not 
profit and dividend, although I respect those who have had the 
privileges of life and have invested. I want you to be successful. But 
we must also reinvest in the creation of jobs.
  We have been told that the telecommunications bill that has just been 
passed will create 6 million jobs. Some of those jobs, most of them, 
will be very technical positions. We must ensure that the least 
Americans who have tried their best with the education that they have 
will, in fact, seek the appropriate opportunities for work. Corporate 
America must reinvest back into work. It is not that jobs are leaving 
this country. It is that we must take a stand to create jobs and create 
viable work that has us making items again as we built ships, as we 
built items in World War II. We must be manufacturers again, and we 
must create opportunities for those individuals who want to hold their 
families together.
  As I stand before you, as well as I think of economic security and 
opportunity, I am challenged because this month, March, is the month 
that we celebrate women, the historic contributions of women, when 
Susan B. Anthony began to talk about taking advantage of the political 
process and voting and standing up for what you believe in.
  Well, this has not been a very good year for women, for we have found 
that women have become unequal both in the workplace but as well as far 
as constitutional and privilege and rights of privacy. For example, 
whatever your position is, how can you be equal with Medicare for women 
as opposed to men? So that women in the military would not be allowed 
to have abortions of their choice if paid for, so that the House banned 
coverage of most abortions by Federal employees health coverage, again 
intruding on the privacy right of women.
  The House and Senate voted to prohibit the use of Federal funds to 
pay for abortions for Peace Corps volunteers, and so we go on and on 
with the onslaught and the attack on women in this Congress.

  We also saw fit to provide bonus grants to States that reduce the 
number of abortions, not among children, and we are not talking about 
that question, but we are talking about adults, adult women who have 
the opportunity to make a choice.
  One of the most egregious pieces of legislation is when a tragedy 
comes upon a family who desires a child and they are required to abort 
because of the threat of that mother. Partial abortion now has become 
illegal both on the physician and as well would challenge the mother to 
get proper medical care.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to you we need economic security for all 
Americans, and in respecting women, in saluting women, we need fairness 
for women in this legislative agenda.

                          ____________________