[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 44 (Thursday, April 18, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1463-H1470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1615

  We should not. When deciding whether to help and feed our children, 
we should apply the same law, not just when we need it for taxes, but 
at the same time, when applying the law to feed our children.
  We need the President to pick up the phone and say, get it done. We 
need his leadership now. This is about fairness; this is about our 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations 
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, I have been charged with the responsibility for attempting 
to work out this very difficult issue, and I commend the gentleman for 
his interest in the issue and for his efforts on behalf of people who 
are in need. However, I must strongly oppose the motion to accept the 
Senate language here, because to do so would be irresponsible.
  The fact of the matter is that while there are certainly people here 
who are in need of assistance, it is definitely not the case that 
everybody that the Senate language would cover would fit into that 
category, and it is also not the case that the people that would be 
covered are as described by the gentleman.
  For example, he refers to tax-paying legal residents. Well, it is not 
a requirement under the Senate language that the individual have ever 
paid a penny in taxes in order to receive these benefits. It only 
requires that they have been in this country as a lawful, permanent 
resident for 5 years. The fact of the matter is that some people who 
have been here for 5 years and may have been taxpaying, contributing 
members of our society and who, as a result of some misfortune, have 
fallen on hard times and need to receive food stamps, a good case could 
be made, as has been made by the President of the United States, that 
some individuals who have been here 5 years should receive them.
  But the problem with the Senate language is that it has no definition 
of that. It does not say you have to have been a taxpayer; it does not 
say that you had to have been employed for a certain period of time.
  Many people are not aware, but the fact of the matter is that a 
number of noncitizens receive food stamps right now. Children, the 
disabled, refugees, permanent residents who have been in the United 
States for more than 10 years and have 40 quarters of work history are 
just some of the categories for which people can receive these benefits 
right now.
  The President has said that he would like to see that expanded. 
However, in making that expansion, we have to do it responsibly. We 
cannot just open the door and not say that there is no standard to be 
met, no criteria, such as having been a taxpayer, having had a work 
history, particularly for people who are able-bodied and are between 
the ages of 18 and 60, for example. Or we need to look at how long this 
should be allowed to be provided, because, for example, somebody who 
has been a lawful, permanent resident of the United States after they 
have been here for 5 years in that status are eligible to apply for 
United States citizenship; and when they do so, they then can receive 
the same benefits as any other American citizen.
  There is a problem with that, however. The Immigration Service does 
not work very well. Sometimes it takes a long time for an individual 
who has qualified, met this 5-year criteria, that everybody has 
specified, the Republican conferees, the Democratic conferees, the 
President, have all talked about 5 years of lawful residence. But once 
you get to that point and you wanted to apply for citizenship to be 
treated exactly the same as any other American citizen, you cannot 
always get that done quickly. So we put forward a proposal that said 
that if you were to reach that point, that you would be entitled to 2 
years of food stamps if you had a work history to support that.
  The fact of the matter is that in 2 years' time, the vast majority of 
people who apply for citizenship would be processed and become 
citizens. We do not require you to become a citizen. If you do not wish 
to do so, then you had the opportunity to receive those benefits for 2 
years anyway.
  The point is that all of these things are in negotiation between the 
House conferees, the Senate conferees, and the White House to do the 
responsible thing, to do what recognizes the needs where they exist and 
provide them as the offer that the House conferees made, which included 
something the Senate conferees did not include in their most recent 
offer to us, which is for children, for disabled individuals, and for 
refugees to receive food stamps. Those are certainly areas that should 
be covered. But it should not be a blanket coverage where anybody gets 
it whether they have ever contributed anything or whether they have 
simply come to this country, stayed here for a period of time, and now 
want to receive government assistance.
  So I would urge my colleagues to restrain themselves from saying that 
just because the Senate has put something out there that we should 
naturally rush to it. No, we should discuss this with the Senate, we 
should discuss this with the White House, we should work out a 
responsible plan, and that is what we are in the process of doing, and 
this motion to instruct the conferees, which is nonbinding, but 
nonetheless is an attempt to, I think, make a political statement is 
not helpful to that process; and I would urge my colleagues to defeat 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time. I commend him for his leadership and the 
leadership of the Hispanic Caucus in this conference in bringing up 
this important motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, as a new cochair of the Democratic Coalition, I am 
pleased to rise today in strong support of the Baca motion. This motion 
works to ensure that those who are here legally in the United States 
receive basic food stamp benefits. After the implementation of the 1996 
welfare reform legislation, most legal immigrants lost their access to 
all welfare benefits, including food stamps. Although legal immigrants 
represent only about 6 percent of those on public aid, they took the 
brunt of the cuts made by the welfare law.
  Many of those who lost benefits were people who could not support 
themselves. They were too disabled, too old, or too frail to work. 
Further, research has shown that since this legislation was passed, 
many immigrant children have experienced increased difficulty in 
obtaining the resources to purchase nutritionally-adequate food. The 
motion before the House today would restore food stamp benefits to 
legal immigrants.
  Support for restoring this benefit crosses idealogical and partisan 
lines. A report issued by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration 
Reform, subsequent to the welfare law's enactment, recommended against 
denying benefits to legal immigrants solely because they were 
noncitizens. In fact, President Bush's 2003 budget includes a proposal 
to restore food stamps to legal immigrants who have lived in the United 
States for 5 years; but now, that is being blocked by the Republican 
majority in Congress during this conference meeting.
  As a New Democrat, I believe it is essential to support our legal 
immigrants. Our welfare reform law broke the long-standing agreement 
between future citizens and their adopted homeland. Legal immigrants 
share the same responsibility as citizens. They pay taxes; they serve 
in the military. Many, if not all, are working hard to become full-
fledged citizens. The United States has always embraced legal 
immigrants who enrich our culture and work hard to make our Nation 
stronger; but just like anyone else, immigrants can sometimes fall on 
hard times. We now have an opportunity to do the right thing and 
reestablish the contract between legal immigrants and American society. 
I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

[[Page H1464]]

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has accurately stated that the President 
has put forward a proposal providing food stamps for noncitizens beyond 
those who already have them now. The gentleman from California, in his 
earlier remarks, said that the proposal that he is asking us to adopt 
here was the proposal that the President supported, and that is not the 
case. He has put forward a different proposal.
  At another point in his remarks he also made reference to the fact 
that this would be at no cost to the taxpayers. I did not follow that 
at all. This is a $2.485 billion cost to the taxpayers of this country, 
and I think people need to be aware of that.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1996 we had much of a similar debate on an issue of 
this nature. We debated the whole concept of welfare and determined 
that some change had to be undertaken. After several attempts by this 
body, by this Congress, to pass legislation, in fact, they did; the 
previous President had vetoed it a couple of times and eventually he 
got on board with it and decided that, in fact, it was a good thing. It 
has proven to be a very good thing. It has proven to be even more 
successful than many of the folks who had originally supported it could 
hope for.
  The numbers of people, as we all know, on welfare have gone down 
dramatically. Percentages in some States have gone down so dramatically 
that it boggles the imagination. Somewhere around 70 and 80 percent the 
caseload has been reduced subsequent to the 1996 act. A lot of people 
say it has everything to do with the economy being better. But 
historically we can look at it and find out that over the past century, 
as a matter of fact, and at least for the past 6 years when we have had 
a much more intensive welfare program in the United States operating, 
that the number of people on welfare continued to go up. Regardless of 
the economic conditions in the country, whether we were in a recession 
or whether we were in good times, it did not matter; the number of 
people went up, the number of people on welfare went up. So we cannot 
draw a conclusion to this phenomenon based upon simply a good economy.
  Now, we now know that that plan worked and the plan was to get people 
off of welfare. It was to do everything we could to get people off of 
welfare. That is a good idea. We undertook it, and it worked. Here we 
have a proposal to reverse that, to put more people back on welfare; 
and frankly, I would be opposing it if it was for a nonimmigrant 
family, a native American family or anybody else. It is not a good idea 
basically; it is not a good idea to expand the opportunities and expand 
the number of people eligible for food stamps or welfare in this 
country.
  The fact is that the proposal from the Senate side goes much farther 
than even the expressed intent as described earlier on. One part of it 
actually eliminates a part of the law, or at least a concept that has 
been in practice in the United States for well over 100 years, and that 
is making someone responsible. If someone is applying for immigration 
into the United States, a document has to be filled out. This is it. It 
is an affidavit of the U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. The fourth item on this is, and this is called, 
by the way, an affidavit of support. It says that ``This affidavit is 
made by me for the purpose of assuring the United States Government 
that the person or persons named in item 3,'' the person coming into 
the country, ``would not become a public charge in the United States.'' 
Number 5, that ``I am willing to be able to receive, maintain and 
support the persons named in item 3. I am willing to deposit a bond, if 
necessary, to guarantee such persons will not become a public charge to 
the United States.''
  Now, there is again a reason for this to be in the law, and a part of 
the law, by the way, that has been there for well over 100 years. And 
of course it is to not make the welfare system in any way, shape or 
form a magnet for immigration. I think everybody would agree that that 
should not happen.
  Now, it is true that even under the present change that is being 
proposed, someone would still had to have been here 5 years; but they 
actually wipe out this part of the law of the Senate amendment. It says 
for this purpose, for food stamps for this purpose, this affidavit 
would not be required.
  Now, I am not going to suggest here that we have been very judicious 
in our approach of enforcing this particular provision of the law. I do 
not know the last person that was actually forced to do it.

                              {time}  1630

  It is nonetheless a good idea. I have a letter from the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) to the Attorney General asking 
him essentially why there has not been that kind of enforcement, and 
what we were going to do in order to try and begin the process of 
enforcing this particular provision. I hope, of course, that we will.
  But we should certainly not eliminate it. We should not, and whether 
or not we forcefully employ it is one thing, but to actually strike it 
out of the law and say that we would not hold anybody responsible, if 
one comes here with a sponsorship, no one would be responsible for the 
financial well-being of the person coming into the country, as, of 
course, has been the case, at least in the law if not in practice; de 
jure, if not de facto, it is irresponsible of us to move ahead to 
accept the Senate amendments. It is especially irresponsible to abolish 
this part of the law.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I was sitting there listening to my colleague speaking on the other 
side of the aisle, talking about the Welfare Reform Act that has proven 
to be a good thing.
  I would ask him, since when is hunger a good thing? Since when is the 
fact that there are children going to bed hungry and going to school 
hungry a good thing for this country? It goes contrary to everything 
that we stand for.
  In regard to the affidavit of support, the answer to that is that if 
we file an affidavit for support and someone is intending to go on 
welfare, then the immigrant visa will not be issued. I know about that 
because I spent 26\1/2\ years working in the immigration service.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Baca motion 
that instructs conferees on the Farm Security Act. The House has passed 
the Farm Security Act without any protection in the nutrition title for 
vulnerable populations, and any farm bill reauthorization would be 
incomplete without a well-founded nutrition title that includes a clean 
and simple restoration of the food stamp eligibility for legal 
residents; again, legal residents.
  I am pleased that we have united in a very bipartisan manner in an 
effort to restore food stamp benefits to legal residents. I believe 
that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as a whole are not 
committed to continuing an anti-immigrant, anti-Latino, anti-family 
pro-hunger campaign that we have come to equate with some of those on 
the other side of the aisle.
  However, regrettably, the House Republican conferees have been 
relentless in their efforts to undermine a clean and simple restoration 
of food stamp benefits. It is unconscionable and regrettable that some 
Members in this House would use this issue and the issue of hunger that 
is faced by the most vulnerable of our population as a political ploy 
and a political tool. There is no compassion in withholding food from 
families and from children.
  I welcome the administration's proposal to extend eligibility to 
legal residents who have lived in the United States for 5 years. The 
proposal is simple and straightforward, and every Member in this House 
ought to support it. I agree with the Baca amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues vote to support it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman, who has absolutely 
misrepresented the position of the House conferees, the Republican 
conferees, on the farm bill.

[[Page H1465]]

  The gentleman asks how welfare reform is good if children are going 
hungry. The fact of the matter is, the proposal that we put forward in 
the conference on the farm bill provides food stamp benefits for 
children from day one, from the first day they enter the country. The 
proposal that the Senate had put forward made them wait 5 years. That 
is a long time to be hungry, 5 years, before they qualified for food 
stamps.
  So to say that this is something that the House Republicans are 
trying to drive a wedge through is absolutely wrong, absolutely wrong, 
and it is the kind of partisan statement that does not promote working 
out a serious and complicated problem. But we have provided for 
children, the disabled, and refugees from the day they arrive in this 
country.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to support the gentleman's amendment for the 
House. I serve as a ranking member of the committee on which the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) serves as a chair.
  There is a fundamental disagreement over this issue. The issue is, 
indeed, to restore to legal residents or legal immigrants the right to 
food stamps. In 1996, we denied that. We took them off, for whatever 
reason, and perhaps, as one of our speakers have said, it was to reduce 
the incidence of welfare. We have re-examined that on many issues. We 
re-examined that on children, on senior citizens, and found it 
unacceptable and inconsistent with our moral values and the values of 
America.
  Now, the Senate bill has certainly a more generous provision than the 
President's, but we must say, the President went a great step, and I 
support what the President has done. He said that legal residents who 
have been here 5 years indeed should have the right, the full right to 
be restored for food stamps. It also, in the Senate bill, the Senate 
bill said it would be only 4 years, so there is some room between what 
the President said and the Senate said.
  But the core of this amendment is to say that every right should be 
given to legal residents. They serve us well in our employment. We do 
not complain about that. They serve us well in our military. We do not 
complain about that. It would seem inconsistent with our own stated 
views that we would not have consistency through that.
  We indeed should support this amendment. I think it is very basic. In 
particular, the one that the President has offered is very basic: In 5 
years you are legal and you have the right. It does not say that you 
would try to make differentials between ages of children. It does not 
try to make it more complex. Becoming a citizen is complex enough. We 
should not make having the right to food tied to citizenship. It is 
unacceptable to our moral values.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my 
good friend and colleague from the committee.
  The fact of the matter is, the President's proposal is simple, but it 
leaves out children who have been here less than 5 years. They do not 
receive anything under that proposal. We are trying, in cooperation 
with the White House, and we very much respect the President's efforts 
in this area to work that out with the President and with the Senate 
conferees and the House Democratic conferees. But the fact of the 
matter is that it is not so simple as to say, you do it for 5 years and 
that is it.
  Now, the other thing that is critically important to recognize here 
is that the proposal that the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) is 
asking the conference to support, the Senate proposal, does not impose 
any standard whatsoever on an able-bodied working adult, whether or not 
they have children. If they have no children, they are between the ages 
of 18 and 60, they have absolutely no contribution. They do not have to 
have worked a day since they have entered the United States. As long as 
they have been a permanent, lawful resident of this country for 5 
years, they are able to receive food stamps. Even if they have been in 
the country unlawfully, they are able to get food stamps.
  There is absolutely no basis for giving food stamps to people who 
have made no contribution to the society. So all we are asking is, 
impose some guidelines and we can work this out.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I was about to ask the gentleman if he is 
suggesting that he would be willing to restate it, all the legal 
immigrants, plus your provision, if they had some standard? Is that a 
5-year standard, a 4-year standard?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I would tell the gentlewoman, we offered a standard. 
The Senate did not accept that. We have been continuing to negotiate 
with the Senate, with the White House, on what that standard would be. 
Yes, we have been talking about how long an individual has to have been 
working, if they are an able-bodied individual.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Would the gentleman put a time limit on what a legal 
immigrant would have?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Absolutely. We put a time limit on it, as well.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to 
instruct conferees of the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) to 
include Senate provisions on restoring the food stamp benefits for 
legal immigrants.
  Food stamps are a critical part of the safety net, and they are woven 
into helping individuals and families in time of need. This should hold 
true for immigrants who are legal immigrants and play by the rules and 
pay taxes. We are not asking for special treatment, we are asking that 
they be treated the same. To do otherwise would be discriminatory.
  We are simply asking that legal immigrants, and we are not talking 
about illegals, we are talking about legal immigrants, be treated in a 
fair manner. Despite the calls by President Bush to provide legal, 
permanent residents access to Federal nutrition programs, House 
Republicans, conferees on the farm bill, have refused to budge.
  I cannot understand the lingering biases against these immigrants. 
The President would allow legal permanent residents who have been in 
this country for 5 years to be able to get access. Why would not the 
conferees do that? We are talking about individuals that might be 
disabled, we are talking about people that might have lost their jobs, 
we are talking about possible children that are in need.
  In too many cases, immigrant children suffer from hunger right here 
in our own back yards. Their parents work hard, they pay their taxes, 
and they play by the rules, but they are in need and require 
assistance. Nutrition is just the first step to a host of health and 
social problems.
  Let us not play any more games with immigrant children. Let us treat 
them as we would treat anyone else. When we ask them to join us and 
fight in our wars, in fact, I want to share with the Members that we 
have over 62,000 immigrants serving in our military right now. Twenty 
percent of the Medal of Honor recipients are immigrants. In addition to 
that, of those, 19,928 are permanent residents that are still not 
citizens but serving our country. By the way, as we do not pay them 
enough, a lot of those military people qualify for food stamps, but not 
these particular ones.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has it exactly backwards. The proposal 
that we have put forward provides food stamps for children, the 
disabled, and refugees. The proposal that the gentleman refers to, 
section 452, only refers to citizens who have been in the country for 
more than 5 years. So if you are a child who has been here less than 5 
years, you are not covered by the proposal of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This legislation, or this proposal, I suppose, and the opposition to 
this motion has been characterized as anti-

[[Page H1466]]

Latino and anti-family. Well, in a way I would suggest that it is an 
insult to suggest to anyone that in fact if you are doing something 
here to reform welfare, that the only people who would benefit by 
overexposure to welfare, give out more welfare, are Latinos. That, of 
course, I think is an insult to Latinos.
  In fact, I believe everything we do to try to stop the expansion of 
welfare, especially, in this case, food stamps, we are doing as a pro-
family activity. I will tell the Members why I believe that.
  The welfare law, the reform law of 1996 to which I referred earlier, 
replaced AFDC with a brand new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families, often referred to around here as TANF. This reform has been 
widely acknowledged, once again I say, widely acknowledged by both 
opponents of it originally and its supporters as a tremendous success 
leading to a dramatic drop in dependence and child poverty.
  Hear that: The TANF is an improvement, a reform of the system; 
something that had work requirements ingrained in it, something that 
had a number of other activities that were required before a recipient 
could get help. That improvement had a dramatic drop in dependence, a 
dramatic drop in child poverty, increases in employment, and it slowed 
down the growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing.
  Critics of the original program said it would throw millions of 
children into poverty, and in fact, the opposite has occurred. Poverty 
rates of black children and children in single-parent families are now 
at the lowest point in our Nation's history. TANF requires people to 
work as a condition of receiving aid.
  Food stamps continue to provide a long-term one-way handout. Work 
requirements are virtually nonexistent, and they are nonexistent in the 
proposal put forward by the Senate, the one this motion is designed to 
have our conferees accept.
  So which of us is in fact here pro-family, which of us is in fact 
pro-Latino, if they continually reference that as part of this debate? 
Is it those who would suggest that welfare, especially the handout that 
does not have any work requirement tied to it, is not the best thing 
that we can do to the people of this country?
  By all accounts, by empirical evidence, it is no longer theory, we 
now have 6 years of evidence to show that work requirements and a 
different kind of philosophy with regard to welfare is better. It does 
reduce poverty rates. It does do better things for families.

                              {time}  1645

  So I certainly take it as a personal affront when someone suggests 
that I would promote something that is anti-family, anti-Latino or any 
of the other anti- arguments that were thrown against it. I suggest to 
my colleagues that it is exactly the opposite.
  Creating another system of welfare without the kind of requirements 
that TANF has intrinsically brought to bear in this discussion is anti-
family. That is what we can do to screw up families; to increase 
poverty is to expand this program of food stamps. My opposition to this 
plan is not designed to be anti-family. It is just the opposite.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, what an interesting debate to talk about 
welfare when I know we are really trying to talk about hunger and 
poverty and children and the fact that legal immigrant children should 
not be treated differently just because maybe they speak a different 
language. Maybe they have parents from another country. Maybe they even 
have parents who are serving this country in the military. Some of 
those very parents represent children in my district. They are serving 
us right now proudly in Afghanistan and my colleagues are telling them 
that they cannot have food on the table, that they are not going to get 
a meal even though their dad or mom is probably out there serving our 
country on a 24-hour watch.
  That is what we are talking about. The face of these children is not 
someone who just came over the border, and let me further say that some 
of these immigrant families, a majority happen to be children. They are 
not all on welfare. Many of them just lost their jobs. Believe it or 
not, there is a recession that is going on; and in our districts where 
unemployment is up to 9 and 10 percent, there are people who are very 
hungry.
  They are not looking necessarily for a free handout. They are going 
to have to be here for 4 years and work. They are going to have to be 
here to prove themselves worthy of this kind of assistance that our 
great country should make available.
  I think immigrants come to this country because they know there is a 
better life here for them; but most come with the thought that they are 
going to be working hard, and we should justly support this motion to 
instruct the conferees to reinstate those benefits and allow for 
children as well as seniors and as well as families, working families 
who are in this situation now, where recession is hitting them hard, 
they do not have enough food to provide three meals a day.
  Some are lucky enough at school, our children, that they get maybe a 
snack there; and my colleagues are telling them that they cannot have 
the opportunity to have a full stomach for tonight. I think that is a 
bad message to send.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would say to the gentlewoman that I agree with a couple of the 
points she made, but the problem is she has not read the section that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) has cited of the Senate bill 
that he wants us to support because that section provides nothing for 
children who have been here for less than 5 years.
  The proposal that we put forward covers children, refugees and 
disabled individuals who have been here less than that time, but she 
also said something else that is very important.
  She said people would have to have been here and to have worked in 
order to receive these benefits, but the proposal that the gentleman 
from California asks us to support has absolutely no work-history 
requirement in it whatsoever, whereas the proposal we have put forward 
has a work-history requirement.
  That is what we are asking for. Do not do this blindly. Let us help 
the people who truly need the help, but let us not give a blank check 
to people who have not contributed to our society.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ferguson). The gentleman has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be on the floor 
with a distinguished colleague like the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca), and I thank him so very much for his leadership on this issue 
along with my colleagues.
  It is equally interesting to be on the floor with my distinguished 
colleague from the Committee on the Judiciary, and let me frame the 
argument that I believe has limited merit. I do not even know why we 
are here arguing a point that is obvious.
  It is interesting, when we were looking and debating the H-1B visas, 
giving benefit to individuals who would come in and give businesses 
opportunities for enhanced talent from other countries, we had no 
opposition from the other side. In fact, it was a midnight train that 
they passed the H-1B visas because those individuals were of a certain 
economic level, and no one had any anti-immigrant conversation at that 
time. In fact, they were rolling across those of who were talking about 
jobs and the opportunity for Americans to be trained in high 
technology.
  Interestingly enough, when we talk about feeding people and making 
sure that families have the opportunity to apply, that is the 
distinction here. These are not handouts. The provisions that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) is supporting is simply saying 
that people have an opportunity to, as a legal resident, to apply if 
they are in need. That is a legal resident who has worked. That is a 
legal resident who has children. That is a legal resident who is 
disabled. It is a legal resident who is fighting in the United States 
military right now, putting

[[Page H1467]]

themselves on the line and offering themselves so that we might live 
free.
  When it is good for the goose, and high profile, expensive 
businesses, roll over the folks over here on the other side of the 
aisle. Vote on it when we are in airplanes, gone in the dark of night 
or in the late of day; but when it comes to dealing with people who are 
in need and they are making a point, suggesting that we are throwing 
food stamps all over the world, we are not. It is an application 
process, based upon a criteria of need; and if someone does not need 
it, they will not get it.
  This is a sham and a shame. I think we should support the gentleman 
from California's (Mr. Baca) motion to instruct, and we have got to 
realize that legal residents are serving this country and fighting for 
Americans and deserve fairness and equality.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I hope that the debate is not as confusing to folks who are 
watching this as to those of us who are sitting here and listening.
  I want to first commend the gentleman from Virginia for his effort to 
try to deal with this issue. I do not believe he goes far enough, but I 
do want to recognize that my friend and colleague from Virginia has 
made some efforts; and he has always, I know, in committee made efforts 
to try to be reasonable, and quite honestly I believe is someone who 
has his heart in the right place. So I want to make sure I mention 
that.
  The issue for many of us is that the proposal that I believe the 
gentleman from Virginia is bringing up that conferees from the 
Republican side of the aisle brought to the conference for discussion 
while it did do a good job when it came to children, it did not do a 
good job for the parents of those children; and as a result, many of 
the conferees on the Democratic side had to oppose the proposal by the 
gentleman.
  If the gentleman would be willing to put forth his proposal with 
regard to his children and the disabled and with refugees and then we 
work out the disagreement with regard to adults, I think we could go 
somewhere because I think all of us want to take care of kids. None of 
us want to see a child go to school malnourished, because we know from 
our own experience, forget about the research. From our own experience 
as parents, what happens if a child goes to school hungry?
  So we can get somewhere, and I believe there is a fix here; but I 
would hope that we would not undermine the ability to help families who 
are working. We are not talking about families on welfare, families who 
are working to make sure they sustain their families at the basic 
level.
  We are not talking about giving these folks a chance to go buy the 
lollipops and the Popsicle and all the extra stuff. We are talking 
about basic food stuffs. Remember that the people we are talking about 
are for the most part working American families that have not yet 
become citizens, but have been here for quite some time; and the study 
shows most of them work longer hours than do most native-born 
Americans.
  Unfortunately, because they work in jobs for the most part that pay 
$7.50 an hour or less, about 42 percent of those work in those kind of 
jobs, they have a hard time. They are working. They do not get 
benefits. They have no health care. They are the people that are mowing 
our lawns, caring for our seniors, for our grandparents. They are the 
people who are caring for our kids; and because those are professions, 
those are occupations which we have not yet in this country come to 
recognize as valuable, believe it or not, caring for our kids, the 
people who care for our kids we pay them less than $7.50 an hour, they 
suffer especially during recessions.
  All we are saying, let us not do it to folks who are trying to do it 
the right way, not by applying for welfare: working, working long 
hours, working two jobs. Let us help them make sure that their kids are 
fed decently. Let us make sure we do not make them have to miss a rent 
payment to feed their kids, and we could do that without causing others 
to suffer.
  I believe this is something we can work out. We should support this 
motion to recommit by the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for his kind 
words, and we are trying to work this out. I would say to him, however, 
that this motion to instruct conferees is not well geared toward 
accomplishing that because it only deals with the section of the Senate 
bill that covers the 5 years and above. It does not take care of 
children, refugees, and disabled individuals who have been here a 
shorter period of time; and so that, I think, is why this is 
counterproductive.
  The President has also shown considerable leadership on this issue. 
He would like to provide assistance for noncitizens who have been here 
for 5 years or more as lawful, permanent residents of the United 
States; but the fact of the matter is that when we do that we have got 
to have some guidelines. We have got to have some standards of what 
kind of work history they need to have shown before they get it and how 
long these benefits are going to be available to them.
  That is all we ask is to work that out, but supporting this motion to 
instruct the conferees moves us in the opposite direction, does not 
move us toward that.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority whip.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca) for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this very, 
very important issue to this Congress and to this country.
  Mr. Speaker, every day our country is blessed by the coming to our 
great country of many, many immigrants. We are constantly, as a 
society, reinvigorated by their courage, by their determination, by 
their family values, by their commitment to community and to a brighter 
future in America.
  Every day from the day they arrive and throughout the contributions 
they make to our country it is a blessing to us. Indeed, I think just 
about every person in this House and in this room certainly at this 
time is a product of those aspirations and dreams.
  Then it is sad to see how those immigrants to our country before they 
become citizens, but while they are legal immigrants, are not valued by 
our country. Many of them work, and I have good news for our colleague. 
The gentleman from California's (Mr. Baca) motion to instruct does 
allow children to be eligible for food stamps regardless of when they 
enter the country.
  So the concern that the gentleman raised that the gentleman from 
California's (Mr. Baca) motion does not address children and their 
needs is incorrect, and I know that that will be good news to him; and 
his amendment and his motion to instruct does address work and does 
have a worker requirement in it, and it does allow refugees to be 
eligible for food stamps without a time limit. So the concerns that he 
raised, saying that his motion did not address it, I am happy to inform 
my colleague that he does because he is asking us to agree to the 
Senate language.
  This is really unfortunate because it is the third incident in less 
than 2 months where the Republicans have brought to the floor 
amendments or motions which are unfriendly to newcomers to our country. 
We saw this first during the campaign finance reform bill where one 
Republican Member even referred to legal permanent residents in the 
United States who were not citizens as potential enemies of the State.
  We saw it in the debate on 245(i), which is a very important 
correction in our immigration bill where we only won that vote by one 
vote, and some Republicans did vote for it, but many voted against it 
and voted with the Republicans who wanted to squelch that important 
initiative to the immigrant community.
  What we are talking about today is really about fairness, fairness to 
our newcomers as our ancestors had anticipated and hoped for fairness 
when they came here.

                              {time}  1700

  We talk about family values. Nowhere are those family values stronger 
than the immigrant community. We talk about living the American dream 
and aspiring for a better life. Those

[[Page H1468]]

people bring courage to our country. They are a constant source of 
invigoration to our society, and I hope that my colleagues will support 
the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). A family of 
four with two wage earners making the minimum wage are still eligible 
for Food Stamps because the minimum wage is so low.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
motion which I support. I would just suggest that there are two things 
that are pretty much universal in our country that ought to support 
this motion. One thing that is universal is the presence of hunger in 
all parts of the country. The reason that I have come to the floor to 
share the story that I represent, in a sense, a very upscale area. 
There are a lot of software millionaires in my district. I represent 
Microsoft Corporation. But even at the height of the economic boom in 
the year 2000, the food banks in my area of Washington were 
experiencing an increase of people coming into the food bank from 
anywhere from 12 to 50 percent depending on what time of the year.
  I think that story is an untold story across America. Even in the 
midst of great prosperity, we have had individuals, because we have a 
wage structure in this country that does not sufficiently honor work 
for a lot of folks, that they are still hungry.
  The second thing that I think is universal in this country, or ought 
to be, is respect for everyone that works at every wage level. I 
represent a lot of people who work in software countries, many of whom 
are legal immigrants, who are fairly well compensated, and their work 
is absolutely fundamental to the American economy. But I hope Members 
will agree with me that people who are working in our nursing homes 
caring for our parents, the people who are cooking our food in our 
restaurants, the people who are working in the hospitals helping clean 
the ER rooms after surgery of our relatives, those people deserve the 
same level of dignity and the same level of respect and legal 
protection as other folks who are here legally in this country working 
over 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I would submit those two universalities of this country, 
which are pockets of hunger, and respect for all levels of dignity of 
work, ought to merit that we pass this motion and do it proudly, and 
turn our back to the sad statement that some people have been making 
lately in this Chamber that legal residents somehow are unAmerican.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) said, but the problem is when he refers to lawful citizens 
working over 5 years, what the gentleman is asking us to support has no 
such work requirement in it. I think it is certainly negotiable within 
the conference, within the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture 
that are meeting to work this out, that we could come up with a work 
history requirement that would be acceptable for both sides. But the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) does not have that in the language 
that he refers to in the Senate bill. For that reason, I have to oppose 
this motion.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thought there was a work requirement of 
16 quarters?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is an either/or work requirement. 
Someone can be here 5 years and never work a day, or be here for 16 
quarters of work and qualify, not both. That is the crux of the matter. 
There has got to be a work history requirement for an able-bodied 
adult, and there is no such requirement in the motion.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman in favor of the 5 years 
if the 16-quarter requirement is there?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. We certainly could work that out. The proposal we put 
forward was 20 quarters.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. But there was also a time line? It was only for 3.5 
years?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we limit it to 2 years, I believe, in the 
offer.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
would the gentleman be willing to remove the time lines and give legal 
residents the same right?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. No, because an individual, after they have been here 
for 5 years is a lawful, permanent resident, and they are entitled to 
apply for United States citizenship. And if there is a need to have 
benefits extended for a longer period of time, they have that option.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I both know it takes a 
long time and is very expensive for people to become legal citizens, 
and tying food and hunger to citizenship is very difficult.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, that is why we allowed 2 years. That is a 
very long time to apply for citizenship. Almost all of the people who 
apply get their citizenship within 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this 
motion. There have been some intimation here that this is a political 
debate. This is not a political debate. It is about people putting food 
on their table for their family and their children.
  Last week in conference, House Republicans blocked a proposal to 
restore Food Stamps to legal immigrants. It is a proposal that has the 
support of House Democrats, the Senate, and the Bush administration. It 
benefits over 350,000 people. It helps keep people from starving until 
they can put food on their table on their own, and it provides a safety 
net for those less fortunate and need assistance.
  House Republicans sought to block it, and block it they did. This is 
a responsible proposal, and it is simply the right thing to do. Legal 
immigrants who work hard, live by the rules, pay taxes, even serve in 
our Armed Forces deserve access to Food Stamps. Equal treatment, fair 
treatment, we should be promoting these values. But instead of 
supporting policies that embody these values, Republican House leaders 
prefer to dole out subsidies to corporate farms.
  In this debate, that is their priority. In this debate, this is what 
they decided to do. It is bad policy and it is wrong to send people a 
message that responsibility is a value that we are going to ignore. 
Legal immigrants have not had access to Food Stamps in the past 5 
years. In the past 5 years, children have gone hungry as a result. This 
Congress should not end until we have taken action to restore Food 
Stamps to legal immigrants. We should reward the value of hard work. We 
should reward immigrant families who strengthen our economy and our 
cultural life. Let us restore Food Stamps. Let us get the job done this 
year. Vote ``yes'' on the Baca motion.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Missouri, what has 
transpired in the conference regarding the farm bill has been 
inaccurately portrayed. The Senate tendered to the House a proposal 
that had nothing in it for the children, the refugees, and the disabled 
individuals that the minority leader referred to.
  We tendered an offer which provided Food Stamps for noncitizens who 
have been here from day 1 if they are disabled, they are children or if 
they are refugees.
  The difference of opinion between the House and the Senate conferees 
in terms of our proposals are that for those people who are adults, 
they are able-bodied, they are able to work and between the ages of 18 
and 60, they ought to have some work history and be able to show that 
they were contributing, tax-paying members of our society; but they do 
not require that in the proposal that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Baca) has set forth. That is why I am opposed to this motion to 
instruct conferees.

[[Page H1469]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California earlier 
suggested that if we did not pass this motion, that this would be a 
signal to people coming into the country that we were denying them the 
American dream.
  We have gone from suggesting that some help may be needed for 
families here who are not employed sufficiently, to saying that 
essentially welfare is the American dream. That this is what we should 
hold out, this is the carrot that we should hold out to people, because 
part of the American dream is access to welfare.
  We have heard continual references to the degradation that would be 
the result of nonpassage of this motion and continuing the process of 
restricting Food Stamps to people who are not citizens for a period of 
time. But listen to what degradation, in fact, occurs. This is all 
documented. The reports from which I quote are reports that are 
available to anyone in this body. Again, they are empirical 
information. It is not something that we just make up or theorize about 
with regard to the effects of especially Food Stamps.
  ``The traditional welfare system comprised of programs such as AFDC, 
Food Stamps and public housing dramatically undermined work ethnic, 
reduced employment and generated long-term dependence. For example, the 
Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, a massive controlled 
experiment on effects of welfare conducted in the early 1980s, showed 
that for each additional dollar of welfare aid led, on average, to a 
reduction of employment and earnings of 80 cents. These anti-employment 
effects should apply to cash as well as noncash aid.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is what we are trying to avoid. I suggest, and I 
must say that I would go further than the gentleman from California, I 
do not believe that Food Stamps are an improvement on one's condition. 
I do not think it is a good thing. I would be opposing an expansion for 
any group; but I guarantee, it is not a good thing for the people that 
we are identifying here. As all empirical evidence suggests, welfare, 
especially the old AFDC program and Food Stamps, are degrading.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first I commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) for his contribution, standing up for welfare reform. This 
was a tremendous triumph, a bipartisan triumph, a law signed into 
effect by President Clinton, that was pushed by the Republican 
Congress, supported by a great many Democrats, and he is simply, and I 
agree with him, trying to avoid unnecessary erosion of an important 
principle, and that is we should be giving people a hand up rather than 
a hand out.
  Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion to instruct conferees, the 
Republican offer in the conference is to give people a hand up and to 
help those people who are most in need: Children, the disabled and 
refugees. We also make Food Stamps available for others if they have a 
work history, and we make it available to them for a limited period of 
time.
  What the gentleman from California is asking the House to accept in 
terms of what the Senate put forward does absolutely nothing for 
children who have been in this country for less than 5 years.

                              {time}  1715

  Secondly, it does not impose a work requirement that is not 
independent of the 5-year standard. In other words, what he is asking 
us to say is you can either have worked or been here 5 years, one or 
the other. You do not have to have both. That is not the position of 
the President of the United States, that is not the position of the 
House conferees, and it should not be what this House adopts as we take 
these negotiations forward.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to instruct conferees and 
let the negotiations go forward in a good-faith way to come up with 
something that is fair to those people who are truly in need but does 
not give a blank check to people who have not contributed to our 
society and, therefore, have no work history to justify receiving these 
benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, I thank the gentleman from Virginia in reference to the 
debate, but I think he has not really read the bill and does not have 
his facts together. The bill itself and the instructions do have a work 
requirement. Apparently he opposes the President's proposal that 
actually states this, and it does have a work requirement. And no 
individual is eligible unless they have demonstrated that they have 
worked. So a lot of false statements have been made here. And these 
people have contributed to our society. They have. These are legal, 
permanent individuals who have contributed to our society, who have 
worked, are working citizens, are taxpayers who have contributed. These 
are individuals who are veterans and children who deserve assistance.
  This is about meeting our needs. This is about allowing legal 
immigrants who are in the United States for 5 years or more to have the 
opportunity to apply for food stamps if they are low income. This is 
the President's proposal. It allows children eligible for food stamps 
regardless of when they enter the United States. So we talk about not 
offering to children, yes, we are offering to children. Yes, we are 
providing assistance to them.
  And then it does cover the work requirement, too, as well. This 
restores the disabled opportunities to apply for food stamps, 
regardless of the date that they entered. I believe that we have the 
responsibility to all of us in America to provide assistance for many 
of our children. We want to make sure that our children are not 
starving and that our children have an opportunity to go to school on a 
full stomach. This is the right course. We should support the 
restoration of the 5-year plan, the plan submitted by the Senate that 
basically tells us what we should be doing in complying, in helping and 
assisting many individuals throughout our country.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Baca 
Motion to Instruct the Farm Bill Conferees to adopt the Senate 
provisions that provide eligibility for food stamps to lawfully 
present, hard-working immigrant families in their time of need.
  Legal immigrants are individuals who have played by the rules. They 
work hard and pay taxes that support the food-stamp program to which 
they may be denied access if Mr. Baca's motion does not pass.
  The fact is that many legal permanent residents lose their jobs 
because they work in industries hit hardest in times of economic 
downturn and as a result, lack the finances to buy food for their 
families.
  When you consider that more than one in five low income children 
belong to legal immigrant families, it is even more unconscionable taht 
in their time of need, they will be denied the most basic of safety-net 
programs.
  As the world's wealthiest nation, it is inexcusable that a high rate 
of hunger exists among low-income legal permanent resident families 
living in this country.
  We must not allow this tragic situation to continue. No one in this 
country, especially innocent children, should go hungry.
  Therefore, Congress should follow the President's lead and expand 
access to the food stamp program for these hard-working, legal 
residents and their children.
  Support the Motion to Instruct.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Baca. Each day in this country, 
thousands of children go hungry because their families are ineligible 
for food stamps. Many of these children are American citizens and many 
are legal permanent residents.
  No matter their status, or the status of their parents, there is no 
excuse for denying children access to food.
  No doubt many Members on the other side of the aisle will oppose this 
motion. They want to make it impossible for hard working, taxpaying 
U.S. residents to feed their families just because they are not yet 
full citizens. We are not talking about people who have come to this 
country illegally or people who refuse to work.
  Legal permanent residents, like our parents and grandparents, have 
followed the rules and come to America to work for a better life for 
their families. They serve in our military and in their communities and 
continue to make this country a vibrant, diverse nation that is the 
envy of the world.
  Despite support by the Administration for benefit restoration, House 
Republicans continue to stall the Farm Bill conference by opposing help 
for minorities and the poorest among us. This is wrong, it is unfair 
and it is

[[Page H1470]]

not in keeping with the spirit and ideals this nation was founded upon.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Michigan). All time has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________