[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 52 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3792-S3795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Pryor, 
        Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Daschle, 
        and Mr. Pressler):
  S. 1690. A bill to provide a grace period for the prohibition on 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency lending to delinquent borrowers, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                        Agricultural Legislation

 Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the farm bill enacted 2 weeks ago 
has changed the Farm Service Agency's loan eligibility rules for 
thousands of producers only a few weeks from planting. It has become 
very clear that the effective date of the new loan eligibility 
provisions is causing hardship for producers in the midst of 
implementing farm and ranch plans for the year. Farmers and ranchers 
are being informed that, although their loan applications were 
approved, the Secretary is now prohibited from providing the loan funds 
to the farmer under

[[Page S3793]]

the new farm bill. Thousands of farmers will be forced to cancel seed, 
fertilizer, machinery, and land contracts with local, main street 
businesses. Many businesses have already delivered seed and fertilizer 
based on the Government loan commitment. Many farmers who expected to 
plant a crop this year when prices are high will simply have to move to 
town and look for other work. This is not sensible policymaking. My 
legislation will delay the effective date of some of the loan 
eligibility provisions to give farmers and ranchers, and the 
businessmen who depend on doing business with the farmers and ranchers, 
time to adjust to the new loan eligibility law.
  Section 648(b) of the credit title of the farm bill was made 
effective on the date of enactment. My bill will change the effective 
date of section 648(b) to make the provisions effective 90 days after 
enactment, or July 5, 1996. It is my hope that my colleagues will 
support this legislation.
  During conference, I and many of my colleagues hoped that section 
648(b)'s effective date would be deferred to allow farmers some warning 
of the new restrictions and avoid the problems farmers are now 
experiencing. However, the majority insisted on making the provisions 
of section 648(b) effective upon enactment. As a result, the Secretary 
is prohibited from allocating funds and making those loans, even if 
there were pending applications or approved applications or borrowers 
who had relied on approved applications to their detriment. The 
immediate and harsh effect of this provision was part of the reason I 
opposed the farm bill conference report.
  It is my opinion that the entire farm bill should be revisited and 
corrected. However, the case for correcting the harsh effective date of 
section 648(b) is particularly compelling and that is why I am 
introducing this legislation today.
  It is April 1996 and no one can argue that many farmers and ranchers, 
who are now prohibited from borrowing under section 648(b), have relied 
to their detriment on approved applications for ownership loans, 
operating loans, and emergency disaster loans. It is also too late in 
the season to provide these farmers and ranchers with time to obtain 
some other form of financing.
  During my time in the Senate and on the Agriculture Committee, I have 
supported measures to make the Federal Government a more responsible 
and practical agricultural lender. I have worked to reduce and 
eliminate the amount of debt the Farm Service Agency carries on its 
books. By introducing this legislation, I am not encouraging the Farm 
Service Agency to make risky loans. However, for those farmers who have 
been approved for loans, have relied on that approval to their 
detriment, and find themselves days away from planting, it is just too 
late to secure other forms of financing. The timing of the immediate 
effective date in the Farm Bill is plain mean-spirited. I hope my 
colleagues support this bill to give farmers and ranchers 90 days to 
adjust to the Farm Bill's new restrictions.
 Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to join in 
introducing legislation establishing a transition period to help our 
farmers who are attempting to obtain financing under the Consolidated 
Farm and Rural Development Act. The comprehensive farm bill that was 
signed into law earlier this month made a number of significant reforms 
to our Federal agriculture policy. Among these reforms was a change in 
how the U.S. Department of Agriculture extends credit to certain types 
of borrowers. This new policy is necessary to ensure the sound 
investment of taxpayer dollars.
  Specifically, section 373 of the act prohibits the Secretary of 
Agriculture from making or guaranteeing loans to borrowers who have 
received debt forgiveness in the past. Debt forgiveness is defined as a 
writeoff or reduction of a direct or guaranteed loan or discharge of 
debt through bankruptcy.
  Although I was not on the Agriculture Committee last summer when the 
credit title was marked up, it is my understanding that no member from 
either side of the aisle objected to this provision. Also, this section 
was not subject to amendment during the floor debate in February.
  So we are not necessarily arguing with the policy of this section. 
But there are farmers who had applied for their annual operating loans 
in February or March, who expected to receive this financial 
assistance. They have been caught in the pipeline, so to speak, through 
no fault of their own. This group of farmers were eligible for these 
loans when they applied. But under the new farm bill they are 
ineligible.
  It is only fair to give these farmers a period to adjust to the new 
rules. That is all this bill does. It does not change the reform-minded 
policy put in place by section 373. It merely moves back the 
implementation date of the section to allow the Farm Service Agency to 
process these loan applications and release the money to these 
borrowers. More importantly, this bill gives the farmers subject to 
this section an opportunity to adjust to a significant change in policy 
that could adversely affect their business.
  This Congress passed a revolutionary farm bill, characterized by 
long-needed reforms. But we must remember that these changes affect 
real people, like family farmers. Therefore, it is necessary that 
sufficient transition time be given so that farmers can adjust and 
modify their business practices accordingly.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, now that the farm bill is in place, 
farmers are doing their spring planting for the 1996 crops, or soon 
will begin. However, an unintended glitch has been discovered in the 
implementation of the new farm bill. Certain sections of the credit 
title of the new farm bill are being implemented to the detriment of 
farmers who have had any debts forgiven by the Government in the past.
  This has come as quite a surprise to many farmers in South Dakota and 
other parts of the Nation. I have heard from several farmers who had 
applied for operating or emergency disaster loans who are now being 
told they are ineligible because of past debt forgiveness. That is not 
right. That is not what Congress intended. Most important, this is the 
last thing a farmer needs to hear, especially when he needs a loan to 
get this year's crop in. In some cases, Mr. President, I have learned 
that farmers who had approved loans that had not been disbursed by 
April 4, are also now being told they are no longer eligible. Again, 
this is not what Congress intended.
  You can imagine how a farmer would feel when, after having his loan 
approved and a date set for disbursement, he's told the check's no 
longer in the mail.
  Mr. President, already Members of Congress are seeking to correct his 
unintended development. The chairmen of the Senate and House 
Agriculture Committees have written to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 
Dan Glickman, to express their concerns about this implementation. It 
is clear we need legislation to ensure pending and future loans can go 
through. Therefore, today we are introducing a bill that would delay 
the implementation of section 373 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, until July 5, 1996. This would provide the time for 
USDA to disburse loans to farmers for this year's spring planting.
  I am pleased to undertake this corrective effort along with Senator 
Grassley and others. Similar legislation has been introduced in the 
House of Representatives and I urge congressional adoption of these 
measures as soon as possible. Time is running out and we must act.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Conrad for 
introducing this legislation to correct a provision in the newly passed 
farm bill that threatens to leave thousands of farm families in the 
lurch as they attempt to get a crop in the ground this spring. This 
feature of the new farm bill hits especially hard farmers, such as 
those in parts of Iowa, who are trying to recover from the hardships 
caused by disaster situations beyond their control. It is my 
understanding that some 30 to 40 percent of the approximately 8,000 
USDA borrowers in Iowa are likely to be adversely affected by this 
provision.
  The provision involved here prohibits USDA from making any type of 
operating, farm ownership, or emergency loan to a person who has at any 
time received any debt forgiveness from USDA on such a loan in the 
past. This provision was by clear terms made effective immediately upon 
enactment of the

[[Page S3794]]

new farm bill, which was signed into law on April 4 of this year. As a 
consequence, many farmers who were in the process of having loans 
approved are cut off at the very last moment from credit that they were 
fully justified in counting on for planting this year's crop. Farm 
families have enough to worry about during planting season without 
having Congress create a whole new set of unanticipated problems and 
worries for them.
  The consequence of this provision of the farm bill is that no matter 
how small the amount forgiven, no matter whether the forgiveness was 
due to reasons entirely beyond the control of the borrower, no new 
credit may be provided even if the farmer is now a sound credit risk--
except for limited circumstances in the case of annual operating loans 
for borrowers whose debt was restructured under section 353. For 
example, even if a portion of interest, but no principal, was forgiven 
on a loan during the farm crisis a decade or more ago, for reasons 
beyond the control of the borrower, this provision says no more loans.
  There may be reasonable arguments over the fairness of that policy, 
but clearly the harshest aspect of the new farm bill's loan 
ineligibility provision is that it kicked into effect on the date the 
bill became law, with little or no warning to farmers whose loans were 
in the process of being approved. The farm bill was long overdue by the 
time it passed Congress, and the problems caused by the lateness of the 
bill were compounded by the specific preclusion of any grace period for 
the new prohibition against loans to borrowers receiving past loan 
forgiveness. Farmers were left with virtually nowhere to turn because 
it was too late in the season to have a realistic chance to arrange 
other financing.
  There has been some discussion whether USDA has misinterpreted the 
language of the bill or the legislative intent as to the effect of the 
new ineligibility provision, but the language of the bill is quite 
clear. Moreover, the matter of a reasonable grace period was 
specifically discussed during conference, but was rejected by the 
majority conferees.
  I believe USDA should be careful in lending money, but the new farm 
bill is too extreme and too harsh.
  This bill is a limited remedy for the harshness of the new 
ineligibility provision in the farm bill and the serious hardship it is 
causing. I am hopeful that legislation can be passed yet this week to 
address this very unfair situation created by the new farm bill.
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 1691. A bill to provide for a minimum presence of INS agents in 
each State; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                The Immigration Control Enforcement Act

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, much of the debate on this floor is 
focused on how to strengthen our immigration laws. But whatever we pass 
will not mean much if we do not make sure that our States have the 
tools and support they need to enforce those laws in the first place.
  That is why I rise today to offer this bill that would require the 
Attorney General to provide at least 10 full-time active duty agents of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service in each State. These can be 
either new agents or existing agents shifted from other States.
  In America today, immigration is not simply a California issue or a 
New York issue or a Texas or Florida issue. I can tell you that it is a 
real issue--and a real challenge--in my own State.
  But today there are three States--including Iowa--that have no 
permanent INS presence to combat illegal immigration or to assist legal 
immigrants. In fact, in Iowa every other Federal law enforcement agency 
is represented except the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  This is a commonsense amendment. Ten agents is a modest level 
compared to agents in other States. According to INS current staffing 
levels, Missouri has 92 agents, Minnesota has 281 agents, and the State 
of Washingon has 440. And Iowa, West Virginia, and South Dakota have 
zero. This just does not make any sense.
  Clearly every State needs a minimum INS presence to meet basic needs. 
My bill would ensure that need is met. It would affect 10 States and 
only require 61 agents which is less than 0.3 percent of the current 
19,780 INS agents nationwide.
  Let me speak briefly about the situation in my own State. Currently, 
Iowa shares an INS office located in Omaha, NE. In its February report, 
the Omaha INS office reported that they apprehended a total of 704 
illegal aliens last year for the two-State area. This number is up by 
52 percent from 1994.
  The irony here is that in 1995, the INS office in Omaha was operating 
at a 33-percent reduction in manpower from 1994 staff levels. Yet the 
number of illegal aliens apprehended increased by 52 percent that year.
  This same report states that there are about 550 criminal aliens 
being detained or serving sentences in Iowa and Nebraska city/county 
jails. Many of these aliens were arrested for controlled substance 
violations and drug trafficking crimes.
  A little law enforcement relief is on its way to Iowa. The Justice 
Department announced that it will establish an INS office in Cedar 
Rapids with four law enforcement agents. That is a good step. And it is 
four more agents then we had before.
  But we need additional INS enforcement to assist Iowa's law 
enforcement in the central and western parts our State.
  In fact, the Omaha district office assessed in their initial report 
to the Justice Department that at least eight INS enforcement agents 
are needed simply to handle the issue of illegal immigration in Iowa.
  Mr. President, in the immigration reform legislation before the 
Senate this week, the Attorney General will be mandated to increase the 
number of Border Patrol agents by 1,000 every year for the next 4 
years. Yet for Iowa, the Justice Department can only spare four law 
enforcement agents and no agents to perform examinations or inspections 
functions.
  By providing each State with its own INS office, the Justice 
Department will save taxpayer dollars by reducing not only travel time 
but also jail time per alien, since a permanent INS presence would 
substantially speed up deportation proceedings.
  There is also a growing need to assist legal immigrants and to speed 
up document processing. The Omaha INS office reported that based on its 
first quarter totals for this year the examinations process for legal 
immigrants applying for citizenship or adjusting their status went up 
45 percent from last year. Even though, once again, the manpower for 
the Omaha INS office is down by one-third.
  I have recommended that a permanent INS office in Des Moines be 
located in free office space that would be provided by the Des Moines 
International Airport. Placing the office in the Des Moines 
International Airport would benefit Iowa in three ways. First, it would 
cut costs and save taxpayers money. Second, it would generate economic 
benefits for Iowa because the airport could then process international 
arrivals and advance Iowa's goal of becoming increasingly more 
competitive in the global market. Third, the office would be able to 
process legal immigrants living in Iowa.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of my bill. It is common 
sense, it is modest, and it sends a clear message to our States that we 
are committed to enforcing our immigration laws and giving them the 
tools they need to do it.
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 1692. A bill to bar Federal agencies from procuring goods and 
services from employees of illegal aliens; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                   The Illegal Worker Prevention Act

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the chief magnet drawing illegal 
immigrants into the United States and enabling them to stay--is jobs. 
Border control is an effective strategy against illegal immigration but 
the lure of jobs will continue to attract illegal workers. We must 
reduce the job magnet that draws illegal immigrants to this country and 
deprives American workers of their livelihood.
  For years, illegal aliens entering the United States have found 
employers ready and willing to hire them, often for wages which were 
substandard and under conditions which ranged from improper to illegal 
and inhumane. We passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 
which made it illegal to hire undocumented workers. We have recently 
beefed up enforcement of

[[Page S3795]]

this legislation but must continue to do more.
  Today I am introducing legislation to keep Federal contracts from 
going to businesses who knowingly hire illegal workers. My legislation 
makes permanent, President Clinton's February 13 Executive order. 
Employers who knowingly hire illegal workers should not benefit from 
Government business and tax dollars.
  Consider the following two incidents which occurred at work sites in 
Maryland in March of this year. On March 21, INS agents arrested four 
illegal immigrants working on Fort Meade Army base. They were building 
Government town homes under a $24 million Federal contract. A week 
later, INS agents arrested 12 illegal immigrants removing asbestos from 
the Fallon Federal Building in downtown Baltimore.
  Benedict Ferro, INS Director for the Maryland district, noted, ``* * 
* there is a willingness by employers to hire them. Without that 
willingness, we wouldn't have this problem. It hurts, these are not 
jobs that permanent residents of the United States wouldn't want. These 
are jobs that could be filled by the unemployed in Maryland.''
  These are examples of the employers we need to focus our efforts on. 
Most employers want to comply with the law but for the few that spoil 
it for everyone, we have to have a tough strategy.
  Any effort to stem the flow of illegal immigration into our country 
cannot succeed if the lure of U.S. jobs remains. American jobs belong 
to lawful workers. A strong worksite enforcement policy discourages 
illegal workers from crossing the border into the United States in 
addition to supporting American jobs for citizens and other legal 
workers.
  Curbing illegal immigration by enforcing worker protection laws has a 
direct, if too seldom noted, policy connection. Illegal immigrants are 
frequently subjected to subminimum wages, dangerous workplaces, long 
hours, and other poor working conditions because they are desperate for 
work and in a weak position to insist on their rights. Knowingly hiring 
illegal immigrants both reveals, and rewards, an employer's willingness 
to break the law, and undermine wages and working conditions for legal 
workers. My legislation would ensure that the Federal Government does 
not reward such conduct with U.S. tax dollars.
  Labor law enforcement not only helps ensure fairness and minimally 
acceptable employment standards in the workplace, but also helps to 
foster a level competitive playing field for employers. Businesses who 
knowingly hire illegal workers at substandard wages and working 
conditions have an advantage over employers who do not exploit their 
workers. INS agents note that companies are willing to hire illegal 
workers to slash costs and increase profits. This is blatantly against 
the law and not only unfair to American workers who need the jobs but 
to other employers who abide by the law and do not boost profits by 
exploiting their labor.
  At the same time, by introducing this legislation, I want to make 
clear that employment discrimination will not be tolerated. Existing 
Federal laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees 
on the basis of national origin or race. Enforcement of this 
legislation will not undermine antidiscrimination protection for legal 
workers.
  From its beginning, our Nation has been a land of immigrants--people 
from the world over seeking refuge, opportunity, and a better life for 
themselves and their families. Like my mother, who came to Iowa from 
Slovenia. America is the land of opportunity, but America is also a 
land of responsibility. I remain adamantly opposed to discrimination at 
the workplace but feel that we must do more to crack down on illegal 
immigration and those who violate our laws at the expense of American 
workers.
                                 ______