[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 135 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1922-E1923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       EQUITY FOR IMMIGRANTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ELIZABETH FURSE

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 1, 1997

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am introducing today, the 
Equity for Immigrants Act, will pay to restore benefits to legal 
immigrants by cutting corporate subsidies the Federal Government 
provides to arms merchants for sale of weapons systems to other 
countries. I am very pleased that 15 other Members are joining me as 
original cosponsors.
  When the welfare reform bill was passed in the summer of last year, I 
pledged to restore benefits that were denied to legal immigrants. 
Before then, legal immigrants were eligible for a wide variety of 
public assistance. I am a legal immigrant and I felt it was extremely 
unfair to place nearly half the burden of welfare reform squarely on 
the backs of taxpaying legal immigrants.
  Federal spending is all about choices. Earlier this year, this House 
easily added $27 billion for B-2 bombers that no one wanted. We can 
provide benefits for legal immigrants who play by the rules, pay taxes, 
and carry the same responsibilities as citizens.
  The Balanced Budget Act that became law in August restored over half 
of the benefits that had been denied to legal immigrants. My 
legislation, the Equity for Immigrants Act, restores the remainder of 
those benefits at a cost of $9.5 billion over 5 years and pays for them 
by eliminating $9.5 billion in wasteful subsidies provided to U.S. 
defense contractors.***HD***welfare reform bills
  Last year's welfare reform bill established comprehensive new 
restrictions on the eligibility of legal immigrants for means-tested 
public assistance. The savings derived from denying benefits to legal 
immigrants were estimated at $21 billion over 5 years, accounting for 
nearly half the savings in the entire welfare reform bill.
  The welfare reform bill denied Supplemental Security Income [SSI] and 
food stamps to most legal immigrants. In addition, it gave States the 
option of providing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] and 
Medicaid to legal immigrants. It also barred most legal immigrants 
arriving after August 22 of last year from receiving Federal means-
tested public benefits--TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, and SSI--for 5 
years after arrival.***HD***balanced budget act
  The Balanced Budget Act was signed into law August 5, 1997. It 
restored SSI and Medicaid benefits for legal immigrants who were here 
before August 22, 1996. It allowed SSI for those who were here on that 
date who later become disabled. The Balanced Budget Act also extends 
the exemption from SSI and Medicaid restrictions for refugees from 5 
years to 7 years after entry.
  The Balanced Budget Act provided $11.5 billion in restored benefits 
for legal immigrants for the period 1998-2002.


                       benefits restoration title

  Title I of my bill restores legal immigrants' eligibility for 
benefits by repealing title IV of the welfare reform bill. Title IV was 
the part of last year's welfare bill which eliminated legal immigrants' 
eligibility for benefits.
  The cost over 5 years of restoring those benefits that were not 
included in the Balanced Budget Act is $9.5 billion.
  Repealing the remainder of title IV as my bill does would accomplish 
the following:
  Food stamp benefits would be restored for legal immigrants who were 
here August 22, 1996 as well as for future immigrants.
  SSI and Medicaid would be provided to all future immigrants 
regardless of date of entry.
  Repealing title IV would also eliminate the State option for 
providing TANF and Medicaid to legal immigrants. This has a potential 
magnet effect with differing benefits among States.
  Repealing title IV would also eliminate the 5-year bar on assistance 
for new arrivals before they can receive Federal means-tested public 
benefits.


                      welfare for weapons dealers

  Title II of my bill reduces arms export subsidies to fund the cost of 
providing these remaining benefits to legal immigrants. Taxpayers spend 
billions of dollars annually for Federal subsidies devoted to helping 
major defense companies market their wares around the world--plying 
everything from ammunition to high-technology fighter jets, all at a 
time when the United States is already the world's leading arms 
exporter.
  Uncle Sam is the world's largest arms dealer, employing nearly 6,500 
full-time personnel to promote foreign arms sales by U.S. companies. 
For the sixth consecutive year, the United States led the world in arms 
deliveries in 1996.
  We are militarizing foreign aid. In 1995, subsidies for arms exports 
accounted for over 50 percent of U.S. bilateral aid.
  Major weapons manufacturing firms buy influence by contributing to 
congressional candidates--$14.8 million between 1990 and 1994. These 
firms include Lockheed-Martin, Northrup Grumman, and others.
  We are backing losers. The U.S. Government ranks first in the world 
in subsidizing arms exports. Meanwhile we spend only $150 million a 
year to help U.S. firms get a foothold in the expanding international 
market for environmental technologies. That market is expected to reach 
$190 to $240 billion by the end of this decade. This is at a time that 
by DOD's own reckoning, the international arms market will likely 
continue to shrink from its current level of $32 billion.

  There is a boomerang effect to our arms sales. Subsidized arms sales 
have caused more security problems than they have solved. The last five 
times the United States has sent troops into conflict situations--in 
Panama,

[[Page E1923]]

Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia--they faced forces on the other side 
that had gained access to U.S. weaponry, training, or military 
technology in the period leading up to the conflict.
  ``Surplus'' weapons giveaways have emerged as a major military 
assistance program. While other, more visible forms of military aid 
have been cut since the end of the cold war, shipments of surplus arms 
through a variety of programs have increased dramatically. The United 
States transferred military equipment worth $7 billion 1990 through 
1995, including 4,000 tanks, 125 attack helicopters, 500 bombers, and 
200,000 pistols and rifles. In the majority of cases, the equipment was 
provided for free.
  The Pentagon appears to be giving away still useful equipment in 
order to justify the procurement of new weapons. Congress never debates 
or votes on surplus arms grants, as it does with other forms of 
military aid and these transfers are generally omitted from statistics 
on the overall value of U.S. arms exports. ***HD***elements of funding 
title
  Section 201 of my bill eliminates the Leased Defense Articles 
Program, which transfers U.S. equipment to other nations for minimal or 
no rent. Its cost over 5 years is $3.25 billion.
  The United States leases weapons systems that we might want back in 
the future, rather than selling or giving them away. We also lease 
equipment when the recipient cannot afford to purchase the weapons 
outright. The recipient pays rent on the equipment equal to the 
depreciation of the articles while leased. Weapons systems are loaned 
for free for cooperative military research and development projects and 
for joint training exercises.
  Section 202 also eliminates the Excess Defense Articles Program, 
which gives away surplus weapons worth $2 billion over 5 years.
  Every year, the Pentagon transfers thousands of militarily-useful 
items it no longer wants to other countries. These items range from 
boots and uniforms on up to tanks and fighter aircraft. These transfers 
offer a way to keep potential customers acclimated to U.S.-made 
equipment. These giveaways of surplus military hardware help hook 
foreign armies on U.S. equipment, paving the way for future sales.

  Section 203 mandates recoupment fees on weapons sales to foreign 
purchasers. These fees recover some portion of the taxpayer-financed 
research and development costs of the weapons system.
  All weaponry exported by U.S. firms benefits from billions of dollars 
of taxpayer investments in research and development and plant and 
equipment. In order to pay back a part of this taxpayer investment in 
these weapons systems, for more than 25 years it was U.S. Government 
policy to assess recoupment fees on foreign sales of U.S. military 
equipment. The fees are determined by dividing total R&D and other one-
time costs by the total number of units that are expected to be 
produced. These fees are no longer required.
  The General Accounting Office estimates that if the fees are imposed 
on all government and commercial arms sales, revenues recouped by the 
Treasury would average $500 million per year.
  Section 204 of this title eliminates Foreign Military Financing [FMF] 
funding for Greece, Turkey, Cambodia, Caribbean and South Asian 
countries, and Partnership for Peace-eligible countries in Central and 
Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. FMF provides grants and 
subsidized loans to buy U.S. military equipment. We will spend $1 
billion on this funding over the next 5 years.
  FMF provides loans and grants to foreign nations for the purchase of 
U.S. military equipment. The true financial beneficiaries of FMF are 
not the recipient countries but rather the defense contractors who 
supply the equipment.
  FMF is simply a roundabout way of funneling money from U.S. taxpayers 
into the coffers of major arms exporting firms; in many cases the funds 
never leave the United States but are issued to U.S. companies as 
defense contracts as their work on a given foreign order proceeds. This 
is a direct export subsidy to the U.S. arms industry.
  Section 205 eliminates Economic Support Fund [ESF] moneys for Turkey, 
Cambodia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. ESF is for strategic 
considerations rather than development needs. We will spend $1 billion 
in ESF for these countries over the next 5 years.
  The ESF Program provides cash assistance, commodity imports, and 
other support for countries of particular security concern to the 
United States. ESF financing serves as an indirect subsidy to foreign 
purchasers of U.S. weaponry which provides them with either the cash 
resources or the financial flexibility to sustain their arms purchases 
from U.S. companies.
  If ESF were truly an economic development program, disbursement of 
the funds would be based on criteria such as level of need of the 
recipient nation and the bulk of the funds would not be routinely set 
aside for major U.S. arms clients as is currently the case.
  Finally, section 206 eliminates authority to use Federal dollars for 
participation in international arms bazaars--overseas promotional 
events and demonstrations for potential weapons buyers.
  In a typical year, the U.S. Government helps promote U.S. weaponry at 
over half a dozen major international air shows. Costs to U.S. 
taxpayers include revenues foregone from leasing fees that are no 
longer charged to U.S. manufacturers to display U.S. Government-owned 
weaponry. These waived fees alone can cost taxpayers $5-10 million per 
show.
  These weapons exhibitions are called training missions so the costs 
of getting U.S. equipment and personnel to them don't have to be 
reported to Congress. The flight of a B-2 bomber to the Paris Air Show 
involved at least a 24-hour round-trip at $14,166 per hour to operate 
the plane. Pentagon justification for participation in one of these 
bazaars--in Santiago--stated that it is ``consistent'' with U.S. goals 
of ``promoting democracy, increasing prosperity and trade ties, and 
achieving sustainable development'' in Latin America.
  In addition to Northrup Grumman's B-2, other equipment sent to these 
shows includes McDonnell-Douglas's F-18 fighter, Lockheed-Martin's F-16 
fighter, Sikorsky's Black Hawk utility/assault helicopter, Boeing's 
Chinook transport helicopter, General Dynamic's Abrams tank, and 
Raytheon's Patriot missile defense system.
  The cost to U.S. taxpayers for these shows in 1995 was $27 million.
  In summary, I urge support for my bill. I will be working hard to 
accomplish the important goals outlined here and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to bring about fairness for immigrants.

                          ____________________