[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4651-S4659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998--
CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the conference report.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S.
1150), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses this report, signed by all of the
conferees.
The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of April 22, 1998.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Indiana is recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will consume much of my time at this
juncture, reserve the balance, and yield to other colleagues.
I am very pleased that the Senate is now prepared to debate the
conference report on S. 1150, the Agriculture Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998.
I thank especially Senator Tom Harkin, the ranking minority member of
the committee, and all committee members for their efforts to work
together to fashion legislation to garner the support of 74 Senators
and a large host of agricultural, nutrition and religious
organizations.
I point out that we had a good conference with our House colleagues.
This is complex legislation. This is not the first time the Congress
has had a conference report. It is usual, at least in matters of this
variety, for the report to attract less attention. But ours is
important. And I appreciate this opportunity to highlight that
importance this morning.
Our initiatives will help farmers in this country to produce food for
the world's people and to do so at a profit while guarding the
environment of this country and the world. S. 1150 also resolves a
funding crisis for the Federal Crop Insurance Program, preventing the
loss of coverage for farmers in every State. The bill extends an
important initiative from the 1996 farm bill that provides resources
for rural development and research priorities. And, finally, S. 1150
allows food stamp benefits to be provided to limited groups of the
disabled, the elderly, political refugees, and children who immigrated
to this country legally.
Many of our colleagues have called for dramatic increases in funding
for Federal scientific research. This advocacy is altogether
appropriate. Unfortunately, agricultural research has received much
less attention. Funding has declined in real terms for some years, and
Mr. President, has declined in some areas to a point that we are no
longer prepared to resist some of the insect and other disease pests
that endanger our food supply.
It took visionaries like Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug
who came before our committee and eloquently pointed out how
agricultural research is the future of mankind. It is the basis upon
which mankind will be able to persist by the year 2050. Millions of
people are now alive who would have died from malnutrition had it not
been for the food productivity gains from people like Dr. Borlaug, and
the thousands of other scientists. Whether it is through the ``Green
Revolution'' of the 1960s, or today's biotechnology, researchers have
found ways to coax more food from each acre, tapping more fully the
potential of plant and animal food sources.
Further gains in output are not only possible but they are essential
if the food needs of the 21st century are to be met. An increasing
world population with rising incomes will require more and better food,
feed and fiber. It is estimated, as a matter of fact, that their demand
will be three times the demand for food which we now have in this year.
Not every farm around the globe is well suited for food production.
We have an interest in avoiding the further deforestation and the
exploitation of rain forests around the world and other sensitive
ecosystems that will be farmed only at a terrible environmental price.
Production must be trimmed in areas most appropriate for agriculture
such as the United States.
An important part of the answer to this global crisis is our bill, S.
1150. It devotes $600 million over the next 5 years in mandatory
funding to the initiative for future agriculture and food systems.
These funds will be competitively awarded to scientists who will
undertake cutting-edge research in priority areas such as genome
studies, biotechnology, precision agriculture, and other critical
fields of work. The new funds will augment the $1.8 billion existing
annual budget for research within the Department of Agriculture.
To make certain the existing budget is spent in the most efficient
way, S. 1150 also makes a number of reforms to the Nation's research
and extension statutes. These reforms will establish benchmarks and set
new requirements for coordination of work among universities, placing
new emphasis on activities that cut across several disciplines, involve
multiple institutions, and integrate research with public dissemination
of those results.
S. 1150 will provide $200 million per year in mandatory spending to
continue fully funding the Federal Crop Insurance Program. These funds,
which under current law would need to be appropriated from
discretionary accounts, are an integral part of the agreement between
private insurers and the Agriculture Department that allows affordable
crop insurance to be afforded to the Nation's farmers. Current caps on
discretionary spending do not take these expenses into account.
Therefore, if the conference report is not approved soon, Congress will
either search for discretionary accounts in USDA and other agencies
that can be sacrificed to provide the crop insurance funding, or,
failing that, contemplate the prospect of insurance policies being
canceled for thousands of farmers who annually face the uncertainty of
how the weather will affect their crops.
S. 1150 offsets about half of these crop insurance costs. For the
remaining half, the conferees found reforms and spending cuts within
the Crop Insurance Program itself that saved the requisite amount of
money. These cuts, such as reducing the level of reimbursement provided
for companies' administrative costs, set the stage for further reform
and improvement of the crop insurance system in the future.
The conference report also provides for $100 million in new funding
for Funds for Rural America, recognizing the pressing needs of those in
rural areas and working to improve the quality of life for those living
in rural America.
The conference report restores food stamp benefits to about 250,000
legal immigrants who otherwise would be ineligible for this portion of
the Nation's safety net. Generally, the categories of immigrants
covered by S. 1150 correspond to those who last year regained access to
the Supplemental Security Income--the SSI Program--under separate
legislation; namely, the
[[Page S4652]]
balanced budget amendment. These immigrants, the elderly, the disabled,
political refugees, and seekers of asylum, were either in the United
States legally before the passage of the historic 1996 welfare reform
law--and that is the case for the elderly, the children, and the
disabled--or in the case of asylees and refugees, were subject to
political persecution for other circumstances that makes their
residence here less than fully voluntary. In addition, immigrant
children under 18 who were in the United States legally before the
passage of welfare reform will also become eligible. There was no
corresponding restoration of SSI benefits last year since children are
generally not eligible for SSI.
Senate bill 1150 fully offsets all costs. It reduces expenditure of
mandatory funds for computer acquisition by USDA, a practice generally
not available to other departments or even to most agencies within
USDA. The bill scales back some recent increases in employment and
training funds within the Food Stamp Program.
Finally, the bulk of savings in S. 1150 are achieved by correcting an
unintentional provision in the welfare reform law which would otherwise
allow States to be paid twice for the same administrative costs of
providing food stamp benefits determining eligibility and performing
other such functions.
S. 1150 is the result of lengthy negotiations, careful thought, and
dedicated work. It will help our Nation increase its food supply at a
profit to our farmers. The bill shores up the crop insurance system in
a timely way, allowing producers to manage risks intelligently. It
gives access to the Food Stamp Program to vulnerable individuals who
reside in this country legally.
A large coalition of organizations who support this conference report
are actively seeking Senate passage. Commodity groups, bankers, those
involved in the crop insurance industry, scientific societies, and
nutrition advocates, religious organizations, and 67 land grant
colleges and universities have voiced their support for this
legislation.
Mr. President, I appreciate that many Senators who have written in
favor of this legislation by petition or through individual letters to
the majority leader have indicated strong support for all of these
provisions. But obviously there are Senators--and we shall have a
debate this afternoon on the specific question of refugees and asylees
and food stamps for these persons as legal immigrants.
Let me dwell for just a moment on the particulars of that issue.
Refugees are immigrants whom the State Department has permitted to
enter the United States for the purpose of escaping persecution in
their home country based upon their political or religious beliefs.
I want to underline that, Mr. President. These are not persons
seeking access to our country illegally, coming across the Rio Grande
or the Canadian border or some other nefarious way. They are persons
who, by definition, the State Department--and by direction of the
President, working with the Judiciary Committees of Congress--has
permitted to enter because they are being persecuted for their
religious beliefs. Asylees are immigrants who meet the same standards
as refugees except they have made it to the United States on their own
and applied for permission to stay to avoid having to return to a
dangerous situation of jeopardy in their country of origin.
It is not easy to gain either category status. In order to gain
admission as a refugee or asylee, someone ordinarily must show that he
or she has ``a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her own
country of origin.'' The mere fact the would-be immigrant's native
country is repressive or enmeshed in civil war is insufficient to
support application for refugee or asylum status. The applicant must be
able to show individually that he or she is specifically and personally
at risk. Many people who have not been able to satisfy this strict
standard have been imprisoned or killed by oppressive regimes as they
went back, sadly enough. The casualty list of those who failed the test
individually, a very rigid test, is very long and death occurred to
many of these people as they were forced to return.
Now, a somewhat more lenient standard currently exists for applicants
from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and for Jews and Evangelical
Christians from the former Soviet Union. Under the Lautenberg
amendment, these persons must only show that they have a ``credible
basis'' for their fear of persecution in their homeland. The Lautenberg
amendment liberalized the ability of persons from these countries to
seek refugee status, but it is scheduled to expire at the end of the
current fiscal year.
Although some Members may wish to extend this amendment, CBO has said
an extension would have a cost. But I point out that even as we discuss
this conference report today, the House of Representatives is about to
take up a religious liberty and freedom situation. In the Foreign
Relations Committee, we will have a hearing on the very same subject
today. And I would just say that those who are rigorous in rooting out
food stamps need to consider Jews and Evangelical Christians.
Specifically, we are talking about those in other fora. We don't need
to talk about them in the Chamber. And these are very important issues,
leaving aside ag research, crop insurance, and whatever brought us to
this point.
Now, the overwhelming majority of refugees come from just a handful
of countries, and I want to go through these specifically. Communist
countries: Vietnam, Cuba, Laos; countries making difficult, often
violent, transitions: The former Soviet Union and Bosnia; brutal
authoritarian regimes: Iraq and Iran; and countries where Christians
are persecuted for their beliefs: Parts of the former Soviet Union and
Sudan; or Somalia where the central government is dissolved and the
land is ruled by myriad petty warlords.
In recognition of the difficult circumstances of their departure from
their home countries and their lack of sponsors in the United States,
the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require refugees and
asylees to refrain from becoming public charges here. Indeed, a
specific program of cash and medical assistance is authorized to
support newly arrived refugees. Limited appropriations have forced this
program to serve only as an adjunct to the basic Federal benefit
programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.
As I mentioned before, the agricultural research conference report,
one in which we are involved, did not make all of this up from scratch.
We simply have adopted precisely the sections of last year's Balanced
Budget Act on which we all voted, and at that time at least there was a
recognition that people who are in these difficult straits really ought
to be treated in a humane manner. Among the provisions of the Balanced
Budget Act that the ag research bill would apply to food stamps--and we
have already adopted it once before--is a 2-year extension, from 5
years to 7 years, of the eligibility for benefits of refugees and
asylees for the food stamp situation.
The 1996 welfare law set the exemption for refugees and asylees at 5
years to correspond roughly with the earliest date that most refugees
and asylees can apply. So, Mr. President, we philosophically already
have crossed that bridge in the Welfare Act quite apart from the
Balanced Budget Act--refugees, the same people, asylees, 5 years. The
argument is whether that 5 years should become 7 years; it is not
whether we should be paying these refugees and asylees support in a
humane way.
Most refugees and asylees cannot apply to naturalize until they have
been in our country for 4 years and 9 months. That limit soon proved
unrealistic because of long, long backlogs in Immigration Service
processing and adjudication of applications to naturalize and in
swearing in successful applicants--no fault of the refugees and the
asylees, Mr. President, an administrative hassle at INS. In a number of
INS offices, the backlog exceeds 2 years. If a refugee's and asylee's
eligibility ended after only 5 years in our country, they could be left
without recourse while their applications to naturalize are in the INS
pipeline.
The extension of their eligibility for SSI and Medicaid to allow them
to receive benefits during their first 7 years in the country was not
controversial last year. It was included in all major Republican and
Democratic proposals for legal immigrants. I repeat that--all
Democratic and Republican proposals. The change was not made applicable
to food stamps technically, because the money for restoring benefits to
immigrants was allocated to the Finance
[[Page S4653]]
Committee and the Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over food
stamps, and on that basis a change that clearly would have
automatically flowed did not occur.
Finally, Mr. President, it should be noted that this provision does
not assure refugees and asylees of receiving 7 years of benefits; it
only exempts them from the new restrictions on legal immigrants'
eligibility during their first 7 years. Refugees and asylees will still
have to meet all the criteria for everyone else in America to qualify
for the benefits. Even refugees and asylees who are self-sufficient for
much of their first 7 years in the country will lose the benefit of
that exemption after 7 years. They cannot carry it over in terms of
months of eligibility beyond the 7-year time. By conforming food stamp
rules to those already adopted for Medicaid last summer, the ag
research bill will avoid imposing multiple inconsistent eligibility
rules on State and local agencies that finally have the responsibility
to administer all of this.
The number of refugees entering the country is controlled primarily
by ceilings--ceilings, Mr. President--adopted by the President each
year in consultation with the Judiciary Committees prior to the
beginning of each fiscal year. These ceilings have been declining and
are expected to decline to reflect generally improved world conditions
since the collapse of the former Soviet Union. For example, in fiscal
year 1992, some 114,000 refugees were admitted under the quotas. But by
1996, this number had declined to just under 75,000.
In fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, CBO now estimates the annual
quota will be 65,000; approximately 15,000 additional people are
granted asylum each year. So, Mr. President, this is a total of 80,000
persons--or 90,000, as of 1996.
Each year, many more people apply for admission as refugees than can
be accommodated under the quotas. Thus, an increase of immigrants
seeking admission as refugees would not increase the number admitted;
it would merely swell the backlog and the waiting lists. The only
significant exception to these quotas is Cubans escaping Castro's
regime and admitted under the Cuban Entrant Program. That number has
fluctuated in recent years from a low of 3,000 in 1991 to a high of
19,000 in 1996.
The number of refugees and asylees coming to the United States is
controlled by Congress and the administration. The major current
example of this, as I pointed out, an exception, is the Lautenberg
amendment, which allows the southeast Asians, Jews, and Evangelical
Christians to gain admission as refugees under more lenient rules than
those applied to other applicants. CBO has concluded enactment and
repeated extension of this provision has prompted the administration to
increase the quota on the number of refugees admitted, and a further
extension is likely to cause the administration to raise the refugee
quotas by about 18,000 per year.
The number of refugees admitted in the early 1990s as described above
includes refugees admitted under the Lautenberg amendment. CBO
estimates the increased number admitted will increase Federal costs for
means-tested programs, but three-quarters of the cost will come in the
Medicaid and SSI Program.
Let me point out, Mr. President, and there is no way that Members
would know this without the research of our committee, but it is
unlikely that the modest amounts of money available in the food stamp
benefits would make, under any circumstances, coming to America more
appealing for prospective refugees. The average monthly food stamp
benefit for these persons will be under $72 per month, less than one-
fifth of the SSI benefit, which is now estimated by CBO as roughly $411
per month. It is estimated the fiscal cost of the refugee situation
will be $50 million a year.
I conclude this part of the argument by saying the distinguished
occupant of the Chair, as chair of the House Agriculture Committee, and
I, worked together on a farm bill which, in conjunction with welfare
reform, cut food stamp costs by roughly $24 billion. There are many in
the Finance Committee who deserve great credit for rearranging the
circumstances of welfare. But when it comes to significant changes in
the cost of welfare in this country, significant reform of food stamps,
there are no persons, in my judgment, better able to address this
problem than the distinguished occupant of the Chair and myself. We
were there. That was the bill that created the entire framework for
savings under welfare reform, created the entire framework for
fairness, for oversight.
I think that simply needs to be said, at a time when we are talking
about, at most, 80,000 persons escaping persecution, and as to whether
they should be given an extension of 2 more years due to INS hassles
and administration, to become citizens. I think that is a very serious
point.
Finally, some have raised the question that this is an entitlement
program. I point out that the proposals we are making do not entitle
anyone to anything. Essentially, we have several multiyear proposals in
the farm bill of 1996. They include the Conservation Reserve Program.
They include payments, annually, to farmers who are now leaving various
crops, or maybe farming altogether, as the case may be, but without
regard to planting. In essence, for years we have adopted multiyear
programs in farm bills because it was the preference of the Congress
not to return to agricultural legislation annually. We are, in this
bill, mandating that for 5 years we should do something very important,
at the rate of $120 million per year, and that is try to find out, if
we can, how to triple our food supply so our acres are more productive,
our farmers are more productive, and so the rest of the world will not
starve.
I believe that is a very important undertaking. I hope all Senators
will see the wisdom of this and support this humane and farsighted
measure.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Texas, Mr. Gramm, is recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The Senator is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the pending
conference report. At 2:15, I will be recognized to offer a motion to
recommit. What I would like to do in my limited time today is sort of
outline how a good bill goes bad through the legislative process.
We passed, in the Senate, a bill funding ag research. The House
passed a bill funding ag research. These were not controversial
matters, although the method of funding the Senate bill was to some
degree controversial. But what happened is when the two Houses met, a
simple bill to fund ag research for $517 million suddenly became a $1.9
billion program. Three brand new mandatory, or entitlement, programs--
depending on which term you prefer--were created, and suddenly we are
voting in a conference report which is technically unamendable on
provisions that were never voted in either House of Congress.
One of my predecessors, Lyndon Johnson, used to say, ``I deeply
resent a deal that I'm not part of.'' And I understand how these things
happen, but I simply want to talk about the problems with this bill and
focus on the big problem with the bill, which is related to overturning
welfare reform.
Going back to where we started, we had an ag research bill in the
House, we had an ag research bill in the Senate. We went to conference,
and we ended up with a bill that funds crop insurance, which was in
neither original bill, and not only funds it but, for the first time
ever, makes it a mandatory program which Congress will not vote on
again, funding will be automatic over the next 5 years as a result of
this program.
The original bill had no hint of food stamps in it. The issue was
never debated. I do not believe that a similar provision, if brought to
the floor of the Senate under our rules for full debate, could have
possibly passed. And, yet, in a simple bill on ag research, we now have
$818 million of funding for food stamps. All of these food stamps go to
immigrants who have come to the country and who now have legal status.
We had, through the welfare reform bill, eliminated these benefits in a
bill which passed both Houses of Congress overwhelmingly and, by the
way, is, in terms of the public's mind, the most popular bill that we
have passed in the
[[Page S4654]]
last 3 years. This bill, in a provision that was voted on in neither
House of Congress, overturns a substantial portion of our welfare
reform bill and gives $818 million of food stamps to immigrants.
The bill also sets up a brand new funding mechanism for the Fund for
Rural America and provides a $100 million entitlement, which spends out
very slowly, but it ultimately spends out every penny of $100 million.
So we now have four entitlement programs in a simple bill that set out
to fund ag research. And every program that becomes an entitlement,
since we are under a spending cap on discretionary spending--every
penny that would have been spent on these programs is now free to spend
on other programs. So, in addition to creating four new entitlement
programs, we have, in this bill, broken our commitment to limit the
growth of discretionary spending, because we have taken discretionary
programs and funded them as entitlements, so that now new spending can
occur in the discretionary area.
The biggest problem with the bill is it puts a great big neon sign on
the border of the United States of America, and the neon sign says:
``Come to America and get welfare. We have a welfare office on every
corner.'' That is the biggest problem with this bill.
I remind my colleagues that when a Member of the minority tried to
reduce the level of immigration, I helped lead the effort to kill
limiting legal immigration. I believe in legal immigration. I do not
believe America is full. I don't want to tear down the Statue of
Liberty. The story of the immigrant is the story of America, and I
don't think that story is finished telling. I believe that we need to
let people with a new vision and new energy come to America as long as
they don't violate our laws and they come legally, but I want them to
come with their sleeves rolled up ready to go to work, rather than with
their hands held out going on welfare.
I will offer a motion to recommit with instructions at 2:15 p.m. That
is a very simple motion. All it says is one little provision in this
bill, which I think is a relatively minor cost, because we are scoring
the bill over 5 years, but it is clearly the most destructive element
in this bill, and that is we have an element in this bill that says
that no matter how far in the future you come to America, if you come
75 or 100 years from now, under the provisions of this bill, if you
come as a refugee, you can get food stamps for 7 years. That is a new
provision of law in place in this conference report.
It is a provision where we are moving in exactly the opposite
direction of the welfare reform bill, and we now make it permanent law
that anyone who comes to America in the future as a refugee can be
guaranteed they are going to be able to apply for and get almost
immediately 7 years of food stamps.
Now, look, my concern is adverse selection. My concern is that we are
going to be attracting people to come to America to go on welfare. I
think it is a destructive policy to have active enticements to draw
people to America for the purpose of going on welfare rather than for
the purpose of going to work.
I don't have any doubt that this provision will affect the decision
of people to come to America to try to live off the fruits of someone
else's labor. There are millions of people who go to bed every night
dreaming the American dream. They want to come to America. They want to
share what we have shared. Many Members of the Senate are Members whose
grandfathers and grandmothers or great grandfathers and great
grandmothers came to America looking for opportunity. I don't believe
that process should end. But I think it is suicidal for a nation to set
up procedures that attract people to come to its shores, not with a
dream of opportunity, not with a dream of achievement, but with a dream
of benefiting from the fruits of someone else's labor.
My wife's grandfather came to this country from Korea. He didn't know
the language. He didn't know a single soul here. He certainly did not
come here looking for welfare or food stamps. He came here looking for
opportunity and freedom, and he found both.
From the period of the Civil War to the turn of the century, we had
20 million people come to America, most of them desperately poor. But
they came here with willing hands and willing hearts, they rolled up
their sleeves, and they built a great nation in the process.
My strong objection to the provisions in this bill really boils down
to a series of things: Should we be creating four new permanent,
mandatory entitlement programs? I say no. And secondly, should we be
changing the law to say to people all over the world, ``Come to America
and we will give you 7 years of food stamps"? I want people to come to
America, but I want them to come to work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lugar). The time of the Senator from Texas
has expired.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 10 minutes under the previous
order.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was trying to listen to the remarks of
the Senator from Texas. It is hard to know where to begin to correct
the mistakes that he made in his statements because there were so many.
First of all, I say to the Senator from Texas that this was not a
$500 million bill when it started. As a matter of fact, when it passed
the Senate, it was a $1.3 billion bill and, in fact, it passed
unanimously, so the Senator from Texas obviously voted for it.
Secondly, I also point out that crop insurance has always been a
mandatory program--always. In 1996, a small portion of it was made
discretionary, but the basis of crop insurance has always been
mandatory. So this is not some change in that program.
Thirdly, I tell the Senator from Texas that food stamps has always
been a part of this bill. It was a part of this bill when it passed our
committee, and it was a part of the bill when it passed the Senate.
Food stamps was used as an offset to pay for the research portion of
the bill. So it was a part of the bill as an offset. The administration
said if we are going to use it as an offset, we had to replace some of
the nutrition programs, which I will get to.
I also point out that the Senate-passed bill had nutrition provisions
in it. It was not just a research bill, as the Senator from Texas has
said. It had a provision in there to expand some child nutrition
programs with an expanded breakfast grant program. That was taken out
in conference, but it was in the Senate-passed bill.
Lastly, I point out that in terms of the mandatory programs the
Senator is talking about, the Fund for Rural America was part of the
bill as passed in October, for which the Senator voted. It was in the
bill at $300 million. Now it is only $100 million. So if the Senator
from Texas supported it at $300 million, he shouldn't be too upset that
it is now at $100 million. I wanted to make those corrections in the
Record.
I made my opening statement yesterday on the bill itself in terms of
the important research and crop insurance provisions that are in it.
Again, I commend my chairman, Senator Lugar, for all of his hard work
in getting the whole research program revamped and restructured to meet
the needs of the next century. Senator Lugar has been a leader in this
effort. I was pleased to join him, and, again, I thank Senator Lugar
for his close cooperation and for working together to get a really good
research bill passed.
I also commend Senator Lugar for his leadership in getting the
necessary wherewithal to extend our Crop Insurance Program for the next
5 years. I daresay, without his strong leadership, we would not have
the provisions that our farmers could rely on for their crop insurance
this year.
Again, if, in fact, this motion to recommit is successful, that is
the end of this bill. Make no mistake about it, this is not just some
motion to recommit to change a little bit. This is a motion to recommit
to kill this bill. If this goes back to conference, I don't know that
the votes are there to take out the food stamp provisions. Even if they
are, it will never pass the House of Representatives, and certainly the
Senator from Texas knows that. This is a careful compromise, a careful
balance that was worked out in this bill.
Let me get to the issue of the food stamps themselves. The Senator
says it is like putting a big neon sign out there, ``Come to
America.'' Well, let us take a look at that.
[[Page S4655]]
What are we doing in this bill? What we are saying is that for
refugees and asylees from religious persecution and political
persecution, who cannot exist in their homelands because they are going
to be tortured or killed, we say to them that if you come to America
under a quota--we have a quota every year; not every refugee gets into
this country; we have a quota--but if you get in under that quota,
right now as a refugee you are eligible for food stamps and Medicaid
and SSI. You are eligible for food stamps for the first 5 years, but
you are not after that. And so what it says is that you can come in,
you can get Medicaid, you can get SSI for up to 7 years, but you cannot
get food stamps after 5 years. As a refugee, it takes 4 years and 9
months to be able to apply for citizenship. We know that, because of
the backlog at INS, it takes at least 2 more years, maybe 3 years to
get full citizenship.
Let me also point out something else. These food stamps are not
automatic. It does not mean because you are a refugee and you are here
that you get food stamps. No. You still have to meet the requirements,
the work requirements and the income requirements, to be able to
qualify for food stamps like anyone else. So we are not talking about
automatic food stamps.
The 5-year period, the Senator is correct, was set in the welfare
reform bill. But it did provide an exception for refugees and persons
granted asylum. They would be able to receive food stamps for 5 years.
In the Balanced Budget Act that we passed last year, we extended that
for the elderly, the disabled, and the children of legal immigrants who
were here in 1996. And then we looked at what we did. We looked at the
5-year period and said, this is unrealistic because a refugee who is
here, as I said, has to be here 4 years and 9 months--and it takes 3,
sometimes 4 more years to become a citizen. And it is impossible for a
refugee to complete the citizenship process in less than 7 years.
As I said, the Balanced Budget Act last year provided that in the
case of Medicaid and SSI, refugees and asylees would be eligible to
receive benefits for up to 7 years if they qualify. Not automatic.
There is no neon sign. It says, if you qualify.
There was bipartisan agreement on this point. Food stamps were not
included because that bill came out of the Finance Committee, and food
stamps is not under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. They are
under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. And that is why we
had to fix it here.
Let me read from a letter from the Council of Jewish Federations that
came to our office just today asking that we oppose Senator Gramm's
motion. Let me just read one paragraph. It says:
The welfare law provided a 5 year exemption from the bar on
food stamps for refugees and asylees because Congress
acknowledged that these individuals typically come to the
U.S. with few, if any, resources. They have no sponsors to
rely on and may have difficulty working because of
disabilities. Those that can work may find that the training
and skills they gained in their home countries are inadequate
for most jobs here. As a result, many start in low paying
jobs [so] they need food stamps to get an adequate diet.
That is just it. These are refugees and asylees. They do not have
sponsors. A lot of them come with a shirt on their back. Let me give
you one example. Mr. Wang Dan, the young Chinese man who we have all
been reading about, who has now come to this country, came with a shirt
on his back. We know how he was persecuted and imprisoned in China.
What this amendment says to Wang Dan is, OK, up to 5 years, if you fall
on hard times--you have to otherwise qualify; you do not automatically
get food stamps--but otherwise if you fall on hard times, yes, you can
get some food stamps. But after 5 years--you have worked here; you have
worked hard; you have applied for citizenship; it is in the bill; you
are going to become a citizen in 2 or 3 years--all of a sudden you lose
your job, you get sick, you fall on some hard times, sorry, no food
stamps. Is that a neon sign? Not in any way. Not in any way.
That is why, Mr. President, we have this letter from the Council of
Jewish Federations, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record, and also a letter from John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop
of New York, also asking us to support the restoration of food stamp
eligibility in this bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Council of Jewish Federations,
New York, NY, May 12, 1998.
Dear Senator: This morning, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) is
expected to offer a motion to recommit the Conference Report
on the Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform
Act, S. 1150, with instructions to limit the provision
extending food stamps for asylees and refugees from 5 to 7
years to only those individuals who were in the country prior
to August 22, 1996. On behalf of the Council of Jewish
Federations, I am asking that you oppose Senator Gramm's
motion.
Senator Gramm's motion would impose undue hardship on
people who have been forced to flee persecution in their
homelands. These are people who were persecuted, and in some
cases tortured, for their political or religious beliefs. In
their homelands, they were subjected to persecution ranging
from harassment to beatings and job loss to having their
homes burnt down. The U.S. has a long history of providing a
``safe haven'' to refugees and asylees and Congress has
repeatedly stood up in support of this tradition.
The welfare law provided a 5 year exemption from the bar on
food stamps for refugees and asylees because Congress
acknowledged that these individuals typically come to the
U.S. with few, if any, resources. They have no sponsors to
rely on and may have difficulty working because of
disabilities. Those that can work may find that the training
and skills they gained in their home countries are inadequate
for most jobs here. As a result, many start in low paying
jobs where they need food stamps to get an adequate diet.
Congress set the exemption at 5 years to correspond roughly
with the earliest date that most refugees and asylees can
apply to become a U.S. citizen. This time-line has proven to
be unrealistic because of the backlog in processing
naturalization applications. In many INS offices, it may take
over 2 years from the date of application to a person's
naturalization ceremony. If refugees and asylees are left
without access to food stamps after 5 years, they would be
punished and left without any nutritional support because of
government inefficiency.
For these reasons, I again urge you to oppose Senator
Gramm's motion to recommit the S. 1150 to the conference
committee.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diana Aviv,
Associate Executive Vice President
for Public Policy.
____
Office of the Cardinal,
New York, NY, April 29, 1998.
Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
U.S. Senate, Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator D'Amato: I write to request your support for
making legal immigrants once again eligible for food stamps
and restoring $818 million in Food Stamp benefits. This would
permit 250,000 children, elderly and disabled persons and
refugees to seek Food Stamp assistance if they are in need. I
am told that the provisions to do this are contained in the
conference Report on S. 1150/H.R. 2534, the Agriculture
Research, Extension and Education Reauthorization Act of
1997.
Since 1984, as Archbishop of New York, I have been
privileged to assist immigrants from almost every country in
the world. These many immigrants have enriched the Catholic
Church of New York and other churches, just as they have
enriched the New York metropolitan area. (In our Catholic
churches alone, every Sunday our Divine Services are held in
30 different languages.) From my own experience I know those
who migrate to the United States today are essentially no
different from our parents and grandparents who came to
America fifty or a hundred years ago. The vast majority of
immigrants are individuals who come to this country seeking
opportunity for themselves and their families. Unfortunately
some immigrants--just as those born in this country--fall on
hard times.
Under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Act, legal
immigrants needing assistance to feed themselves are
ineligible for support from the very program their tax
dollars help fund. Many are now forced to find emergency and
unstable ways to feed themselves and their families. Catholic
Charities has been supporting an emergency ecumenical food
pantry in the Washington Heights section of New York City--
the home and hope of so many newly arriving Dominican
immigrants. During the past year, the number of those served
at this pantry has doubled--at least in part due to the
changes in the 1996 laws. While we try to treat those who
come to the pantry with dignity, the availability of food
stamps to tide people over the rough times is much more
dignified than having mothers and children line up in the
street at food pantries and soup kitchens.
I urge you to take this opportunity to ameliorate some of
the more severe impacts of that 1996 legislation by
supporting the restoration of food stamp eligibility for
legal immigrants.
[[Page S4656]]
With gratitude for your consideration, and
Faithfully in Christ,
John Cardinal O'Connor,
Archbishop of New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. It is the fair and decent thing to do. Let us not kill
this bill because of doing the fair and decent thing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is now recognized,
under previous order, for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report to the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Act of 1998. I would like to associate myself with the
remarks of the distinguished chairman. This is going to be the most
important bill to be passed in the 105th Congress in relation to
agriculture. I commend the chairman, the ranking member, and the
members of the conference for their efforts in reaching what I consider
to be a good and a very bipartisan bill.
This bill has been in the making for 2 years. Due to time constraints
and the need to more thoroughly evaluate the future direction of
agricultural research, these programs, the research programs, were not
dealt with in the new farm bill back in 1996. But we promised our
farmers and our ranchers, all of us involved in agriculture, all of the
land grant universities and consumers, that Congress would move to
complete this important piece of the ag policy puzzle as soon as
possible.
After 2 long years, we will soon vote to ``reform'' our agriculture
research programs. We will not only vote to extend these programs and
commit funds to feed America, and a very troubled and hungry world, but
to reform them as well to make them more competitive. We are also going
to provide important funding for crop insurance and rural development
and, yes, limited food stamp benefits to a specified group of legal
immigrants.
The distinguished chairman, the distinguished ranking minority
member, and the distinguished Senator from Texas have talked about that
at length. I am going to try to briefly address the importance of
funding in each of these areas.
First of all, this bill provides $600 million in new funding for
agriculture research. Why is that important? Mr. President, in the last
several decades we have seen the population double in this world, and
yet we continue to feed this country and, as I have said before, a
troubled and hungry world on the same amount of ground. That is a
modern miracle. People used to get peace prizes for that. And the main
reason is agriculture research. When we passed that new farm bill,
producers were promised that funding would be provided to help develop
new crops, higher yields and stronger resistance to disease and pests.
In recent weeks, we have heard our colleagues from the northern
plains discuss the problems caused by wheat scab. This bill provides
funding for research on fighting this disease that has ravaged the
wheat crop in many areas of the northern plains.
Let us talk about food safety. We have heard an awful lot of comment
in the press and concern--understandable concern--about E. coli. This
bill provides funding for research on the implementation of the Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems (HACCP). It addresses the
problem of E. coli.
The bill provides funding for important research into discovering and
analyzing trade barriers that prohibit the movement of U.S. ag products
on the world market. With the Asian flu today, and our markets
declining, nothing could be more important. This research will provide
important information to help us move toward these goals in regard to
becoming much more market oriented and competitive.
Let me talk about the environment. The one thing that agriculture can
do through precision agriculture is to contribute to being more and
better stewards of the soil and the environment. Precision agriculture
will become one of the most important tools available to producers in
the future. It allows them to protect the environment by using
satellite technology to determine the proper rates of pesticide and
fertilizer applications to the square foot. This has implications all
over the world.
I am pleased also that this bill will provide important funding for
the Federal Crop Insurance Program. The Crop Insurance Program is
currently facing a $200 million funding shortfall in each of the coming
5 years.
Let me just say that this lack of funding is a ``train wreck''
waiting to happen for American agriculture. Without full funding of
this program, farmers could face cancellation of hundreds of thousands
of crop insurance policies. Let me repeat that. Hundreds of thousands
of farmers, this spring, are facing the cancellation of their crop
insurance. That would be devastating.
Obviously, many farmers are required to maintain their crop insurance
coverage in order to obtain loans from their rural banks. Without crop
insurance policies backing these loans, many loans would be recalled,
and it could send agriculture into a credit and financing crisis.
Farmers and ranchers were also promised increased access to viable risk
management tools with the passage of the 1996 farm bill. Crop insurance
ranks at the top of the list of these important and necessary tools.
This bill provides approximately $500 million in new funding for crop
insurance over the next 5 years. It also makes internal changes in the
program. This $1 billion in combined funding changes solves the funding
shortfall in the program and ensures producers access to adequate crop
insurance.
Are all the changes made that we need to make in regard to crop
insurance? No. There are changes and reforms that are still needed in
the program. With the most important issue facing us--the funding
shortfall--now solved, the chairman and I, Senator Kerrey, and others,
in a bipartisan way, will confront this, and we will work to achieve
the needed crop insurance reform in the next session of Congress.
Rather than going into the food stamp issue, which the chairman has
addressed, Senator Gramm expressed his concern, and the distinguished
ranking member, Senator Harkin, has addressed, I will go on and point
out several other important facts in regard to this bill.
Well, let me say this in regard to food stamps. The very first thing
we did in the House Agriculture Committee 3 years ago, when we started
to address the farm bill, was take up the issue of food stamps. That is
the first hearing we had. Billions and billions of dollars were being
spent on food stamps--a program out of control and obviously in need of
reform. Working with the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, and others, we had hearings. We exposed $3
billion to $5 billion in fraud and abuse and organized crime in the
program. We instilled reforms, and we saved $23 billion to $24 billion,
plus $10 billion in regard to savings with the farm commodity programs.
There isn't any other segment of Government that has gone through that
kind of savings. No member of any committee of this Senate or of the
House previously has ever achieved those kinds of significant cuts and
reform in the Food Stamp Program or any other program. So the chairman
is right. We would like to think we know a little bit about it.
The 1996 welfare reforms eliminated benefits from 800,000 to 950,000
to illegal immigrants. I know that. This bill extends the benefits back
to children, elderly, and the disabled who were in the country before
August 22 of 1996. It also extends benefits to refugees and asylees who
may have entered after the August 22 date. Benefits will be returned to
approximately 250,000 people--not 900,000, but 250,000 people. The
trend line is down in regard to refugees.
I point out that a refugee is defined as ``a person who is fleeing
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion, and who is of special humanitarian concern
to the United States.''
With all due respect, I don't think that is a beacon. I think they
are fleeing, and I think it is certainly within the boundaries of the
United States and what the Statue of Liberty is all about that we
consider that. There is a cap. Most of the European numbers are used
largely for Soviet, religious minorities, and Bosnians. The East Asian
[[Page S4657]]
numbers are for former Vietnamese reeducation camp detainees, and
Laotians. As I have indicated, these numbers are down. It has gone from
100,000 in 1980 to 75,000 in 1998.
In closing, let me say this. This agriculture research bill and this
crop insurance bill will likely be the most important piece of
legislation we pass for our farmers and ranchers during the 105th
Congress.
During the debate on the 1996 farm bill, we promised our farmers,
ranchers, and researchers, who depend on the markets, a more market-
oriented agriculture. We promised to get the Government out of our
decisionmaking, no longer do you put the seed in the ground as dictated
by Washington. In return for less government support, we said we would
provide the research and the risk management tools. That was a promise.
We will endanger the significant reforms that we made in the new farm
bill if this bill is not passed.
Let me make one other observation. The amendment by the distinguished
Senator from Texas to recommit is, in fact, a killer amendment; $1.7
billion in regards to the way that States are administering the
program, based on the reform we passed, will disappear. We do not have
the money in the appropriations bill to pay for the research or the
crop insurance, and we will face an agriculture crisis.
Mr. President, during the debate on the 1996 Farm bill, we promised
our farmers, ranchers, and researchers that we would pass this bill and
provide the tools needed to feed a troubled and hungry world. It is
unconscionable that at a time when producers are facing low commodity
prices, reduced international markets due to the Asian Crisis, and new
crop diseases, this bill has languished. The tools included in this
bill allow producers and researchers to directly address these issues.
I applaud and thank the Chairman, ranking member, and the greater
majority of the members of the Agriculture Committee for their work on
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. ROBERTS. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit
and support the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 5 minutes.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar from Indiana, and
my good friend from Kansas, the distinguished Senator who was formerly
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, in asking the Senate today
to support this conference report.
Senators may remember that when the 1996 farm bill was written, it
reauthorized agriculture research programs for only 1 year. There was
included in the committee report a suggestion that there be a thorough
reevaluation made by the committees of jurisdiction of the way the
Department of Agriculture awarded grants to colleges and universities
around the country and funded research programs at Agricultural
Research Service facilities. That study was undertaken throughout 1997.
I think it began in March of last year. The committee held a series of
hearings and reviewed suggestions and options for improving these
programs. This conference report is the product of that study and that
carefully developed improvement to the Agricultural Research Service
programs that are funded by the Department of Agriculture.
I am convinced that we will do a better job under this conference
report of identifying the priorities in production agriculture, in food
production, and in management of our resources in agriculture than we
ever have before under the way we were handling the funding of these
programs.
That is the driving force behind this conference report. The reason
it is so important for the Senate to approve this conference report is
that it puts this in place now.
Mr. President, if that were all this legislation accomplished, some
may say that this legislation is unnecessary, but it does more. It also
provides $600 million over the next five years for new competitive
agricultural research grants at federal laboratories and colleges and
universities.
Our appropriations process is beginning at this point. We have the
job of allocating, under the discretionary funding allocations that our
appropriations subcommittee will receive, funds for these agriculture
research programs. With the guidance of this legislation, it will be a
much more coherent process and an orderly process, and I can't
contemplate what a mess we would be in if this conference report were
not agreed to.
Under current law, about $200 million of the delivery expenses for
catastrophic crop insurance must be provided annually in the
agriculture appropriations bill. This legislation would provide full
mandatory funding for those expenses over the next five years. This
conversion from discretionary to mandatory spending will ensure that
farmers will not have to be concerned with the uncertainty of annual
funding bills and whether catastrophic crop insurance protection will
be available in the coming growing season.
In addition to the support this bill has from the agriculture
community, it also enjoys support from those interested in the
provisions which will bring parity between the Food Stamp Program and
the Supplemental Security Income Program for those immigrants legally
residing in the United States. This was an important component of the
compromise we reached with the House of Representatives.
This bill has received support from almost every sector of
agriculture. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from over
100 organizations, colleges and universities in support of the
conference agreement be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
May 4, 1998.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cochran: We are writing to ask you to vote
``yes'' on the conference report for S. 1150, the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998, when it is considered on the floor. This legislation
has succeeded in balancing several competing interests and
will help prepare the agriculture and food industries for the
challenges in the next Century.
This conference report addresses a number of issues that
are vitally important to producers, processors, and consumers
of food and fiber. The bill provides funding for agricultural
research and rural development programs. It provides funding
for crop insurance that otherwise will create a severe strain
on discretionary budget accounts. Finally, the legislation
restores food stamp benefits for some legal immigrants. These
funds are fully offset, and the bill is budget neutral.
The House and Senate Committees on Agriculture have worked
long and diligently developing this much needed legislation.
We believe they have done a remarkable job, and we thank them
for their accomplishments.
We respectfully request your assistance in passage of this
important legislation, Its impact on the future of our nation
will be significant.
Sincerely,
Alabama Farmers Federation.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Beekeeping Federation.
American Honey Producers Association.
American Sheep Industry Association.
American Soybean Association.
Grocery Manufacturers of America.
National Association of Wheat Growers.
National Barley Growers Association.
National Broiler Council.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
National Corn Growers Association.
National Cotton Council.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
National Farmers Union.
National Food Processors Association.
National Grain Sorghum Producers.
National Milk Producers Federation.
National Peanut Growers Group.
National Pork Producers Council.
USA Rice Federation.
American Association of Crop Insurers.
American Bankers Association.
American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.
Crop Insurance Agents of America.
Farm Credit Council.
Independent Bankers Association of America.
Norwest Corporation.
Norwest Ag Credit.
Rural Community Insurance Services.
Agicultural Research Institute.
American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges.
American Phytopathological Society.
American Society of Agronomy.
American Society of Animal Science.
American Society of Plant Physiologists.
American Veterinary Medical Association.
Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions.
Council of Scientific Society Presidents.
Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics.
Entomological Society of America.
Crop Science Society of America.
[[Page S4658]]
Federaltion of American Societies of Food Animal Sciences.
Illinois Council for Food & Agricultures Research.
Society of Nematologists.
Soil Science Society of America.
Weed Science Society of America.
Alabama A&M University, School of Agriculture & Home
Economics.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, College of Natural
Resource Development & Management.
Alcorn State University, School of Agriculture.
University of Arizona, College of Agriculture.
University of Arkansas, Dale Bumpers College of
Agricultural, Food & Life Sciences.
University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff, College of Agriculture
and Home Economics.
Auburn University, College of Agriculture.
University of California Systemwide, Division of
Agriculture & Natural Resources.
Clemsom University, Public Service & Agriculture.
Colorado State University, College of Agricultural
Sciences.
University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture & Natural
Resources.
Cornell University, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences.
Delaware State University, School of Agriculture, Natural
Resources, Family & Consumer Sciences.
University of Delaware, College of Agriculture & Natural
Resources.
Florida A&M University, College of Engineering Sciences,
Technology & Agriculture.
University of Florida Agriculture & Natural Resources.
Fort Valley State University, School of Agriculture.
University of Georgia, College of Agricultural &
Environmental Sciences.
University of Guam, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences.
University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Tropical
Agriculture & Human Resources.
University of Idaho, College of Agriculture.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of
Agricultural, Consumer & Environmental Sciences.
Iowa State University, College of Agriculture.
Kentucky State University, Land-Grant Programs.
University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture.
Langston University, Research and Extension.
Lincoln University, College of Agriculture, Applied
Sciences & Technology.
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center.
University of Maine, College of Natural Resources, Forestry
& Agriculture.
University of Maryland, College Park, College of
Agriculture & Natural Resources.
University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, School of
Agricultural & Natural Science.
University of Massachusetts--Amherst, College of Food &
Natural Resources.
Michigan State University, College of Agriculture & Natural
Resources.
University of Minnesota, College of Agricultural, Food &
Environmental Sciences.
Mississippi State University, Division of Agriculture,
Forestry & Veterinary Medicine.
University of Missouri--Columbia, College of Agriculture,
Food & Natural Resources.
Montana State University, College of Agriculture.
University of Nebraska, Agriculture & Natural Resources.
University of Nevada, College of Agriculture.
University of New Hampshire, College of Life Sciences &
Agriculture.
New Mexico State University, College of Agriculture & Home
Economics.
North Carolina A&T State University, School of Agriculture.
North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture &
Life Sciences.
North Dakota State University, College of Agriculture.
Oklahoma State University, Division of Agricultural
Sciences & Natural Resources.
The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural &
Environmental Sciences.
Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences.
Pennsylvania State University, College of Agricultural
Sciences.
Prairie View A&M University, Department of Agriculture.
Purdue University, School of Agriculture.
University of Rhode Island, College of Resource
Development.
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey, College of
Agriculture & Natural Resources.
South Carolina State University, 1890 Research & Extension
Programs.
South Dakota State University, College of Agriculture &
Biological Sciences.
Southern University A&M College, College of Agriculture and
Home Economics.
Tennessee State University, School of Agriculture & Home
Economics.
University of Tennessee--Knoxville, College of Agriculture.
Texas A&M University, College of Agriculture & Life
Sciences.
Tuskegee University, School of Agriculture & Home
Economics.
Utah State University, College of Agriculture.
University of Vermont, Division of Agriculture, Natural
Resources & Extension.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, College
of Agriculture & Life Sciences.
Virginia State University, School of Agriculture Science &
Technology.
Washington State University, College of Agriculture & Home
Economics.
West Virginia University, College of Agriculture, Forestry
& Consumer Sciences.
University of Wisconsin-Madison, College of Agricultural &
Life Sciences.
University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture.
Mr. COCHRAN. So, Mr. President, Senators should know it's very
important that the conference report be adopted. It is a good
compromise between the Senate and the House. It involves other
provisions that have been discussed eloquently and forcefully by my
friends who have spoken before me. I urge the Senate to approve this
conference report.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Personal
Responsibility and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act of 1996, it
ended public welfare for most aliens who had not worked to earn their
benefits.
The 1997 Balanced Budget Act reversed some of the provisions of that
bill by reinstating eligibility for the Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) program for disabled and elderly immigrants who were in the
country before August 22, 1996, the day the omnibus welfare reform
package passed into law. But the act also reinstated SSI for immigrants
who were in the country as of August 22, 1996 and become disabled in
the future. The SSI program is fraught with fraud. According to the
General Accounting Office (GAO), the Social Security Administration
sends out $27 billion in SSI checks annually. Approximately $4 billion
in checks are sent out erroneously. Immigrants, who make up just 6
percent of the population, currently receive over half the cash
benefits from the SSI program.
The agriculture research bill we are debating today restores food
stamp eligibility for the elderly and the disabled, and for children,
as long as they were in the United States before August 22, 1996. But,
the agriculture research bill also includes the restoration of food
stamp benefits for all immigrants who were in the country as of August
22, 1996, but who become disabled in the future. The Congress is going
to spend approximately $800 million to restore all of these benefits.
The food stamp program, like the SSI program, does not require that an
individual have contributed to the Social Security base. And, the food
stamp program is also susceptible to fraud and abuse--in a just
released GAO report, it is estimated that recipients were overpaid an
estimated $1.5 billion, or 7 percent of the approximately $22 billion
food stamps program. And, that is only the fraud that is quantifiable
by the government. The GAO believes there are other forms of fraud in
the food stamp program that are too difficult to quantify.
As a result of the 1997 Budget and this bill, those individuals who
were in the country and disabled on August 22, 1996 will continue to be
eligible for SSI and for food stamps. But, the Congress has to draw the
line somewhere. The sponsors of currently healthy immigrants who
entered the country before August 22, 1996 should be responsible for
those immigrants' care should they fall on hard times. That has always
been the law. In fact, since the early part of the century any
immigrant who becomes a public charge can actually be removed from the
United States.
For those individuals who do become disabled and for whom there is no
sponsor support, the Immigration and Naturalization Service already has
the authority to waive the normal requirements of becoming a citizen.
By becoming a citizen, such individuals would automatically be eligible
for SSI and for food stamps should they qualify.
Mr. President, now is not the time to reverse our course on welfare
reform, as such reform applies both to our U.S. citizens and to our
immigrants. America is a land of immigrants, yes. But, we must not
perpetuate dependence on public benefits. Our nation must be one of
opportunity for our immigrants, not one that skirts the law by
providing a loophole for some immigrants to become dependent on public
assistance in the future. The Senate should remove the provisions of
the conference report that continue food stamp benefits for immigrants
in the future.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, later today, we are voting on a motion by
[[Page S4659]]
Senator Gramm to recommit the conference report on the Agricultural
Research bill. I strongly oppose Senator Gramm's motion.
The 1996 welfare law allows refugees to receive federal benefits,
including SSI, Medicaid and food stamps, for their first five years in
the United States. It made this exception because refugees and asylum-
seekers generally come to the United States with little more than the
shirts on their backs after escaping persecution abroad. They have no
sponsors. The may have disabilities which make it difficult to work.
They need time to get on their feet, and begin to recover from the
persecution they fled in their former country.
After five years in the United States, refugees can apply for
citizenship. Unfortunately, there are serious backlogs of
naturalization applications at INS. In many parts of the country, it
takes two years to complete the naturalization process and obtain
citizenship--and these backlogs are not expected to go down in the near
future. Often, the earliest a refugee will gain citizenship is after
seven years in the United States.
As we did last year with SSI and Medicaid, the Agricultural Research
bill extends the time that a refugee can receive food stamps from five
to seven years. Senator Gramm wants to deny this extension to refugees
who entered the United States after the welfare law was enacted.
If we do not extend this time limit from five to seven years,
thousands of refugees who have applied for citizenship could lose food
stamps as they wait in the naturalization backlog for their
applications to be processed.
This group includes refugees like Dien Nwin, who fled Vietnam in 1992
with his wife and children. Dien fought on the side of the United
States during the Vietnam War and was imprisoned in a Communist re-
education camp for 9 and-a-half years. He was worked hard and supported
his family for over five years. He applied for citizenship, but he's
stuck in the backlog.
Now, Dien and his family have fallen on hard times. In the past two
years, Dien has developed nasal cancer and lung cancer. He has been
unable to work since then, and his family has had to use food stamps to
survive. Dien is lucky. He entered the United States before the passage
of the welfare bill. Under Senator Gramm's motion to recommit, Dien
would be cut off from receiving food stamps after his initial five
years in the United States.
Last year, over 25,000 refugees came to the United States fleeing
religious persecution in the Former Soviet Union. These refugees
included Jews, Evangelical Christians, Mormons and other religious
minorities fleeing the restriction of their religious liberties. Under
Senator Gramm's amendment, these refugees will only be eligible for
food stamps for their first five years in the United States. Since
refugees cannot apply for naturalization until they have lived in the
United States for five years, there will be a gap in their food stamp
eligibility, depending on how long the naturalization backlog is at the
time they apply.
The naturalization backlog is expected to increase without an
increase in INS funding. Record numbers of legal immigrants are
applying for citzenship--more than a million per year. This number is
not expected to decrease.
Few actions are a more important part of our time-honored commitment
to freedom around the world than opening America's doors to those who
are denied freedom and face persecution in their own lands.
Whether it is Vietnamese fleeing communism, Bosnians exiled by ethnic
cleansing, Jews from the former Soviet Union fleeing anti-semitism,
Burmese seeking safe haven from oppression, or Africans escaping
political retribution and genocide, our refugee program stands ready to
aid, protect, and resettle those who need our help. Part of such help
is ensuring that these refugees' needs are met in their new home in
this country. Those needs will not be met if their eligibility for food
stamps is not extended to seven years.
I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Gramm's motion.
Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I want to summarize our debate--which has
been a good one this morning--by saying that it is very important that
we act today to pass the conference report. As the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi stated eloquently and correctly, failure to do
that will throw into chaos farmers who are now planting and who count
upon crop insurance, reformed albeit as we have reformed it, as an
underlying safety net in the year of El Nino, remarkable weather
circumstances, it is unthinkable simply to kick away that safety net
through our indifference.
Secondly, Mr. President, the agriculture research, which has been
characterized as an entitlement, along with crop insurance and other
provisions, of course, is a 5-year program, as is our farm bill
program.
We have payments to farmers and Conservation Reserve Program payments
for the environment. We have designated $120 million for vital research
which we believe is necessary simply to fight back the pest diseases
that are now jeopardizing our growth.
Mr. President, the yield of wheat in our country has been flat in
yield per acre over the last 15 years of time. The breakers are not
occurring, and we must triple and not have a zero gain.
Finally, let me simply say that there will not be people lined up all
over the world trying to get into America to ruin our welfare reform.
As a matter of fact, welfare reform has brought about a better America.
This bill will help preserve that in a humane way. Provisions that were
made under SSI for income for the very persons who are being talked
about today--the elderly, the children, the disabled, and those who
have come with a well found sense of persecution to escape torture--
will, in fact, be aided in a humane way that I believe all Senators
would want to support.
I thank the Chair.
____________________