[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 130 (Friday, September 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8841-H8842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SECURING SOCIAL SECURITY BEFORE CUTTING TAXES

  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, I think it is important that 
we did several things today, and I do want to comment on one of the 
earlier speaker's assessment of the pending tax bill, for, as I was 
saying earlier in debate, we all understand the value of giving relief 
to working men and women.
  Interestingly enough, the substitute tax relief bill that the 
Democrats are proposing does that very thing. But it has one singular 
common sense provision: It recognizes that Social Security is a 
Contract with America. It is a trust. It is a fund that we are 
committed to securing. You cannot secure a trust fund if you raid it.
  So the one difference I have with my colleagues is I am prepared to 
vote for tax relief, after we have secured Social Security, after we 
have been told by the Social Security trustees, ``You have fixed Social 
Security for those who are receiving it now, for those who receive it 
10 years from now, and those who may receive it way into the next 
century.''
  So I hope my colleagues will consider the reasonableness of 
legislation that does not spend dollars we do not have, and waits in 
fact a year from now when we can truly confirm that we have fixed 
Social Security.
  Today we did something else, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to just 
comment briefly on the fast-track legislation, because most of us agree 
that trade, which creates jobs, has to be a bipartisan approach or has 
to have a bipartisan approach.
  The one thing that is attractive to Americans when you speak of trade 
is jobs. It is opportunities for small businesses. It is the ability to 
sell one's wares and ideas internationally and be assured to get a good 
dollar and fair compensation for that.
  I have been on record supporting the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act which passed the House this past summer, giving opportunity to 
small businesses, providing dollars for infrastructure support, opening 
up Africa to the many opportunities or many business opportunities for 
both Americans and Africans to work together.
  I have supported the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which works with our 
Caribbean friends, again establishing opportunities for our business 
opportunity, to work free of barriers.
  At the same time, this legislation was brought to the floor of the 
House in a bad manner and at a bad time. For example, we are facing 
financial crises around the world, but the Republicans have not seen 
fit to fund the International Monetary Fund. Why? Because that is not 
popular.

                              {time}  2015

  That sounds off negative connotations. I would simply argue that 
seeing governments collapse or financial systems collapse, when we have 
the opportunity to work with the IMF, is irresponsible.
  Yet, we bring a trade bill that is not collaborative, does not work 
with Members on both sides of the aisle, does not work with business 
and working Americans to discuss issues dealing with the environment 
and dealing with the question of working conditions.
  Last year when we were talking about this issue, I offered an 
amendment to work on the question of difficulties in Texas along the 
border. Let me read it, Mr. Speaker, my amendment, called ``Review of 
conditions along United States-Mexican border''.

       The President shall establish a task force to review 
     conditions along the United States-Mexican border relating to 
     housing, labor, the environment, and other relevant issues, 
     as they relate to United States companies that are located 
     along the border.
       The task force should determine the ways in which 
     partnerships made up of public and private entities can 
     improve conditions along the border. The President shall 
     report to Congress not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this act on the results of the review under 
     subsection A.

  My understanding is, without a call to my office, this was put into 
the present bill. The tragedy is that the bill failed because we did 
not have collaboration. We had politics. In fact, Members of the other 
party were quoted as saying, ``We want to see who will get on the line 
and vote for fast

[[Page H8842]]

track, Democrats, so we can go in their districts, if they do not vote 
for it, and threaten their elections.''
  This is not the spirit in which we should work. We should be working 
in a bipartisan manner to tell Americans that, yes, trade is good. 
Trade brings about jobs.
  At the same time, we will not abdicate our responsibilities for 
ensuring that trade does not negatively impact on our environment; that 
safety rules are not eliminated or violated, as we travel from one 
country to the next, moving from surrounding countries and bringing 
large trucks into our boundaries; that we require safety standards; and 
yes, that we ensure that jobs are not lost, and that there are good and 
positive working conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, we can work on trade issues. We can 
create jobs. We can help business. We can help small businesses. But 
this House must do it together.
  We must ensure that Americans realize that trade is about jobs and 
the environment and working together.

                          ____________________