Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. (Photo: University of Virginia)
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., is preparing to introduce a series of House resolutions aimed at stopping the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America from integrating the continent into a trilateral U.S.-Mexico-Canada structure of administrative law.
Goode also intends to block the previously undisclosed, but already signed, Social Security agreement to “totalize” U.S. Social Security benefits with legal and illegal Mexicans working in the U.S.
“I hope our effort will be successful in stopping the implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership,” Goode told WND. “If we are not successful in stopping SPP, we are going to see further erosion in the sovereignty of our country.”
As WND previously has reported, SPP has laid out plans for increased regulatory cooperation between the three nations in new, full-color, trilingual publications of the 2005 and 2006 SPP Reports to Leaders, which is archived in electronic form on the Department of Commerce SPP website.
Goode objected that the open borders philosophy of the Bush administration “will level down the United States. SPP will enhance neither the security of the United States nor the prosperity of our economy.”
Goode also told WND that he plans to re-introduce in the 110th Congress H.C.R. 487, a resolution he introduced previously to block both NAFTA Super Highways and the formation of a EU-style North American Union.
In an e-mail to WND, Goode’s office affirmed the re-introduction of H.C.R. 487 can be expected perhaps as early as today.
“The NAFTA Superhighway will bring more trucks and vehicles from south of our border into our country,” Goode explained to WND. “It will cost American jobs and decrease safety for our traveling public. The NAFTA Super Highway will end up opening further opportunities for illegals to be smuggled into the United States.”
Goode said the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico will allow Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, to draw from the U.S. Social Security system for their work in this country.
“Because of the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico, it is difficult to devise an accurate estimate of how much this agreement will cost our system, but it could be billions,” he said.
Goode pointed out his position is supported by a report from the General Accounting Office, the GAO.
“What the GAO points out,” Goode said, “is that a common open border with Mexico and the economic disparity between Mexico and the U.S. have fostered significant and longstanding unauthorized immigration into the U.S., making a totalization agreement with Mexico potentially far more costly than any other.”
The House resolutions Goode already has introduced into the current Congress include:
- H.C.R. 18. Expressing disapproval by the House of Representatives of the Social Security totalization agreement signed by the commissioner of Social Security and the director general of the Mexican Social Security Institute June 29, 2004. Introduced Jan. 4, it has been joined by 27 co-sponsors.
- H.C.R. 22. Expressing the sense of Congress that the president should provide notice of withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA. Introduced on Jan. 10, it is co-sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones, R-NC.
Among the claims made in the “whereas” clauses of the House Resolutions introduced by Goode are charges that:
- A totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico negatively impacts the Social Security system of the United States and puts America’s seniors at risk.
- According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 1.8 million workers have applied for trade adjustment assistance as a result of jobs lost because of NAFTA.
- Unrestricted foreign trucking into the U.S. will pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the U.S. of illegal drugs and terrorist activities.
- The economic and physical security of the U.S. is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA.
- The U.S. trade deficits with Canada and Mexico have widened significantly since the implementation of NAFTA.
The totalization agreement signed with Mexico allows workers, including illegal immigrants working in the U.S., to combine work credits from both countries to become eligible for benefits in the U.S. Thus, even if an immigrant worker for Mexico, legal or illegal, does not have enough U.S. work credits to draw U.S. Social Security benefits, credits can be combined from Mexico. Under totalization, Mexican workers could qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits with as few as six quarters of work, rather than the 40 quarters normally required of U.S. citizens.
On Sept. 11, 2003, testifying before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Barbara D. Bovbjert, the GAO’s director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, noted the cost of a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico is “highly uncertain.”
She said the agreement would also extend Social Security benefits to the non-U.S. citizen family members of the Mexican workers under the program, even if the non-U.S. citizen family members do not live in the United States, as well as to survivors of entitled Mexican workers.
Bovbjert further testified, “Under totalization, unauthorized workers could have an additional incentive to enter the United States to work and to maintain the appropriate documentation necessary to claim their earnings under a false identity.”
The totalization agreement signed with Mexico was being held secret by the Bush administration until a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors’ advocacy group, forced the Social Security Administration to release the document to the public.
The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico was signed in June 2004 and awaits President Bush’s signature. Congress will have 60 days following the president’s signature to disapprove of the agreement by either the House or the Senate voting to reject it. If neither chamber rejects it, the agreement can become law without the approval of Congress.