[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.
____________________