Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I will be guided by the leaders.

Mr. LUGAR. In any event, I am hopeful of attending the meeting at 10:30. I will miss the Senator during that period.

Mr. LUGAR. I understand. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at 2 p.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine livestock issues. subcommittee on employment and training

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise before you today to commend the first place award winners of the American Set a Good Example Competition. Each year this contest recognizes three schools who have set themselves apart as leaders in the fight against crime and violence in our nation's schools. In this, the 12th year of the contest sponsored by the Concerned Businessmen's Association of America, Arsenal Technical High School of Indianapolis, Indiana, has been recognized as one of these very special schools. While we have seen the war against drugs and violence fought on every battlefield from the streets to our homes to the workplace, there is no more important battlefield than our children's schools. In an attempt to emphasize this message, the Concerned Businessman's Association of America (CCBA), began this unique contest in 1985 in order to encourage our nation's teenagers to become involved in the war on drugs and violence. This year the CBAA deemed the efforts of the students at Arsenal Technical High School, in conjunction with the guidance of teacher Mary Allen, principal Gerald McLeish, and the funding of Dr. Chris Kasle, worthy of this prestigious award. For their project, Arsenal Technical students selected the precept of ``Do Not Murder'' taken from the ``Way to Happiness'' by L. Ron Hubbard. First, the students discussed murders which have affected them, their families and communities. Next, students put themselves in the position of Mayor and formulated ways in which they would solve the problem of violence. Each student wrote essays about their plans. Arsenal continued this project by planning a ``Set A Good Example Week.'' When a teacher saw a student set a good example or perform an act of kindness, the student received a coupon redeemable for a small pack of candy at lunch. Students received the pack of candy from a booth promoting a talent show dubbed ``Stop the Hate in 98,'' an event promoting non-violence. The student-planned talent show included an art and rap contest and generated 100% student involvement. I extend my congratulations to the students and faculty at Arsenal Technical High School for this outstanding achievement and the excellent example they have set for our nation's youth. I urge each student to build upon the successes of this program and continue to set a good example every day.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I introduce the USDA Information Technology Reform and Year-2000 Compliance Act of 1998. This legislation aims to centralize all year 2000 computer conversion and other information technology acquisition and management activities within the Officer of the Chief Information Office of the Department of Agriculture. Centralization is the most efficient way to manage the complex and important task of ensuring that all critical computer functions at the department are operational on January 1, 2000. It is also a wiser and more cost effective way to construct an information technology infrastructure to enable USDA's hundreds of computer systems to interoperate, which unfortunately they cannot now do. The Department of Agriculture is charged with enormous responsibilities and its year 2000 readiness is crucial. It has a diverse portfolio of over 200 federal programs throughout the nation and the world. The department delivers about $80 billion in programs. It is the fourth largest federal agency, with 31 agencies and offices. The department is responsible for the safety of our food supply, nutrition programs that serve the poor, young and old, and the protection of our natural resources. Since forty percent of the non-tax debt owed to the federal government is owed to USDA, the department has a responsibility to ensure the financial soundness of taxpayers' investments. The dentralized approach to the year 2000 issue at USDA has led to a lack of focus on departmental priorities. In fact, none exist. No planning to assure the continuation of the overall mission of the department has occurred. Each agency has been allowed to determine what services, programs and activities it deems important enough to be operational at the end of the millennium. This decentralized approach has also led to a lack of guidance, oversight and the development of contingency plans. At a hearing before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on May 14th, the General Accounting Office reported that eighty percent of the work remains to be done in the ten component agencies reviewed. Responsibility for keeping the mission- critical information technology functioning should clearly rest with the Chief Information Officer. In fiscal year 1998 alone, USDA plans to spend approximately $1.2 billion on information technology and related information resources management activities. The General Accounting Office has chronicled USDA's long history of problems in managing its substantial information technology investments. The GAO reports that such ineffective planning and management have resulted in USDA's wasting millions of dollars on computer systems. Last year, I introduced S. 805, a bill to reform the information technology systems of the Department of Agriculture. It gave the Chief Information Officer control over the planning, development and acquisition of information technology at the department. Introduction of that bill prompted some coordination of information technology among the department's agencies and offices. However, component agencies are still allowed to independently acquire and manage information technology investments solely on the basis of their own parochial interests or needs. This revised legislation is now needed to strengthen that coordination and ensure that centralized information technology management continues in the future. This legislation further requires that the Chief Information Officer manage the design and implementation of an information technology architecture based on strategic business plans that maximizes the effectiveness and efficiency of USDA's program activities. Included in the bill is authority for the Chief Information Officer to approve expenditures for information resources and for year 2000 compliance purposes, except for minor acquisitions. To accomplish these purposes, the bill requires that each agency transfer not less than five percent of its information technology budget to the Chief Information Officer's control. The bill makes the Chief Information Officer responsible for ensuring that the information technology architecture facilitates a flexible common computing environment for the field service centers based on integrated program delivery and provides maximum data sharing with USDA customers and other federal and state agencies, which is expected to result in significant reduction in operating costs. Mr. President, this is a bill whose time has come. Unfortunately, USDA's problems in managing information technology are not unusual among government agencies, according to the General Accounting Office. I commend the attention of my colleagues to this bill designed to address a portion of the information resource management problems of the federal government and ask for their support of it.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I introduce the USDA Information Technology Reform and Year-2000 Compliance Act of 1998. This legislation aims to centralize all year 2000 computer conversion and other information technology acquisition and management activities within the Officer of the Chief Information Office of the Department of Agriculture. Centralization is the most efficient way to manage the complex and important task of ensuring that all critical computer functions at the department are operational on January 1, 2000. It is also a wiser and more cost effective way to construct an information technology infrastructure to enable USDA's hundreds of computer systems to interoperate, which unfortunately they cannot now do. The Department of Agriculture is charged with enormous responsibilities and its year 2000 readiness is crucial. It has a diverse portfolio of over 200 federal programs throughout the nation and the world. The department delivers about $80 billion in programs. It is the fourth largest federal agency, with 31 agencies and offices. The department is responsible for the safety of our food supply, nutrition programs that serve the poor, young and old, and the protection of our natural resources. Since forty percent of the non-tax debt owed to the federal government is owed to USDA, the department has a responsibility to ensure the financial soundness of taxpayers' investments. The dentralized approach to the year 2000 issue at USDA has led to a lack of focus on departmental priorities. In fact, none exist. No planning to assure the continuation of the overall mission of the department has occurred. Each agency has been allowed to determine what services, programs and activities it deems important enough to be operational at the end of the millennium. This decentralized approach has also led to a lack of guidance, oversight and the development of contingency plans. At a hearing before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on May 14th, the General Accounting Office reported that eighty percent of the work remains to be done in the ten component agencies reviewed. Responsibility for keeping the mission- critical information technology functioning should clearly rest with the Chief Information Officer. In fiscal year 1998 alone, USDA plans to spend approximately $1.2 billion on information technology and related information resources management activities. The General Accounting Office has chronicled USDA's long history of problems in managing its substantial information technology investments. The GAO reports that such ineffective planning and management have resulted in USDA's wasting millions of dollars on computer systems. Last year, I introduced S. 805, a bill to reform the information technology systems of the Department of Agriculture. It gave the Chief Information Officer control over the planning, development and acquisition of information technology at the department. Introduction of that bill prompted some coordination of information technology among the department's agencies and offices. However, component agencies are still allowed to independently acquire and manage information technology investments solely on the basis of their own parochial interests or needs. This revised legislation is now needed to strengthen that coordination and ensure that centralized information technology management continues in the future. This legislation further requires that the Chief Information Officer manage the design and implementation of an information technology architecture based on strategic business plans that maximizes the effectiveness and efficiency of USDA's program activities. Included in the bill is authority for the Chief Information Officer to approve expenditures for information resources and for year 2000 compliance purposes, except for minor acquisitions. To accomplish these purposes, the bill requires that each agency transfer not less than five percent of its information technology budget to the Chief Information Officer's control. The bill makes the Chief Information Officer responsible for ensuring that the information technology architecture facilitates a flexible common computing environment for the field service centers based on integrated program delivery and provides maximum data sharing with USDA customers and other federal and state agencies, which is expected to result in significant reduction in operating costs. Mr. President, this is a bill whose time has come. Unfortunately, USDA's problems in managing information technology are not unusual among government agencies, according to the General Accounting Office. I commend the attention of my colleagues to this bill designed to address a portion of the information resource management problems of the federal government and ask for their support of it.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Thursday, May 14, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine the year 2000 computer problem compliance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Farm Credit Administration.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LUGAR. I yield myself that time. Mr. President, let me make as clear as I can the parliamentary situation. We have tried, in the Ag Committee since last fall, to pass a sound research bill. We succeeded last fall. The House did not act finally until the end of the session and did not appoint conferees until a short time ago. It has been a very difficult conference--not the first time such a thing has occurred. Conferences in the Congress have occurred frequently. Compromises are made. Mr. President, to suggest glibly that we can go back to conference if the motion made by the Senator from Texas passes, simply excise what he wishes, and return to the Senate with a bill, is inaccurate. I have tested the conferees, and they will not change. The Senator from Texas may not change. Furthermore, if changes are made, the Secretary of Agriculture has written to the committee that he will recommend the President veto the bill. Now we can all estimate, Is the President bluffing? Is the Secretary accurate? Will somebody weaken on the House side--maybe many people--and suddenly see the light? Conceivably, Mr. President. And I pledge I will try. Patiently, for 6 months, I have tried, and if need be, I will continue to do that. My prediction is, there will be a considerable delay with regard to crop insurance, probably a year or 2 delay in terms of research, and in due course I have no idea what will happen on the food stamp issue. But, Mr. President, let me simply say, we have a remarkable possibility for achievement here today that I hope will not be defeated on a very narrow point. I understand the objections of our colleagues, but I understand an overwhelming majority, 74 Senators, expressed themselves in writing that this is their will. I hope we will have an opportunity to manifest it in passage of the report. I yield back our remaining time.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have requests from other Senators wanting to speak on other subjects. I would ask the Chair, is it possible we could move to disposition of the business before us?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the ranking member, Senator Harkin, was characteristically gracious and generous, and I appreciate his comments. I want to tell him how much I have appreciated working with him and with all of our colleagues on what I believe is a monumental advance for not only American agriculture, but for feeding the world in the next 50 years, as well as the assurance of our farmers immediately in crop insurance and humane measures with regard to nutrition programs. I simply mention, Mr. President, that Dave Johnson and Terri Nintemann have been mentioned. Of course, our distinguished Randy Green, who does so much on the majority side in likewise guiding all of the committee staff efforts. But I also will mention Marcia Asquith, Beth Johnson, Andy Morton, Michael Knipe, Bob Sturm, Debbie Schwertner, Carol Dubard, Kate Wallem, Kathryn Boots, Chris Salisbury, Danny Spellacy, Terri Snow, Whitney Mueller, and Jennifer Cutshall, because this has been a 2-year effort on the part of all of these individuals and they have contributed highly. I have consulted with the distinguished majority leader, Trent Lott, and with the distinguished ranking member, Tom Harkin, and it will be our request that there be a final rollcall vote. I alert colleagues that that will be coming, hopefully soon. I appreciate very much the leader working with us to make this time possible and this opportunity to debate. I mention specifically the importance of the contribution of Senator Gramm, who is a member of our committee, who argued well a point of view that did not prevail but, at the same time, sharpened the focus of all of us on those things we believe are important in this legislation. Finally, I mention Senator Domenici, who had only a very small speech but an important one with regard to caps and entitlements in the budget and overall considerations. We are mindful of what he had to say and grateful for his support ultimately of our effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LUGAR. Let me inquire of the distinguished Senator from Kansas. Does the Senator require time at this moment?

Mr. LUGAR. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the report with regard to the conferees on agriculture reform is supported by 17 out of the 18 members of our committee. I make that point because the 17 have written to our leader asking him for this debate. They are grateful for that opportunity. The 18th was predictably our colleague and a very valued member of the committee, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, who objects to the conference report and has offered this recommittal motion as a way, in my judgment, of defeating the conference report. Let me just offer a word of clarification. As the chairman of the conference and one of the conferees, along with Senator Cochran and Senator Coverdell on the Republican side, we supported the conference report after meeting with House colleagues who had very considerable enthusiasms of their own. This is not the first time that the Senate and House have met in a conference and have had to wrestle with issues that were distinctly different in the bills and have come to a compromise which, in my judgment, is a sound one, which was supported immediately by all the conferees in the House and the Senate in both parties and by 74 United States Senators who have written to the majority leader supporting this conference report. They do so because it is extremely timely. There are farmers in the field now dependent upon the crop insurance provisions. If we are not successful today, of course, we will return to the conference, but I have already turned to the conferees and they are unanimous that we should proceed with the same bill and we will be back in the Chamber delayed by days or weeks as the case may be. The Senate may then pass the conference report. Perhaps the distinguished Senator from Texas is correct that this is going to pass by a very large majority. But is it any more certain that this same conference report will pass days and weeks hence, if we can get floor time, than today? I doubt it. Now, the reason why conferees will not change the conference report is that the distinguished Senator from Texas has asked for a very narrow change that does not make a lot of sense. Let me review, Mr. President, respectfully, why I make that comment. Before welfare reform, all legal aliens were eligible for food stamps, for SSI, the Social Security income payments, and for Medicaid. Before welfare reform, all of these persons were eligible. With the passage of welfare reform, most legal aliens became ineligible until such time as they became citizens. But, Mr. President, follow carefully if you will. Refugees and asylees continued under welfare reform to be eligible for SSI, for food stamps, and for Medicaid. No new entitlement here. Welfare reform simply continued their eligibility from the pre-welfare reform days. Now, the balanced budget amendment restored Social Security to some of the legal aliens; namely, to children, elderly, the disabled who were in this country on August 22, 1996, when we passed welfare reform. And it made asylees and refugees who already had benefits, who retained those, eligible now for 7 years of Social Security income and Medicaid. Mr. President, you might ask, while we were at it we all passed this bill, the balanced budget amendment with enthusiasm. Why did we not change the food stamp provision from 5 years, which the refugees and asylees had, to 7 years to conform with what we were doing on income and the rest? Well, we did not because the Finance Committee had jurisdiction over that particular money. The Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over food stamps. We were not in the picture. We are today. The intent of the motion of the Senator from Texas is in essence over the idea that the 5 years the refugees and asylees already had should not go to 7 years, and we should go back to conference to apparently knock back the 7 to 5. It is something which most Members find incomprehensible. The distinguished Senator has a larger point, I believe, in his motion. He believes that however you phrase the food stamp situation, it is a beacon of hope for persons to come to our country, as he says, for years, for decades. Well, perhaps, but the asylees and the refugees are not swarming across our borders. They are people one by one who must present themselves and say and affirm: I am a potential victim of persecution, well-founded, and they have to prove that. If they do not prove it, they do not get in. And frequently people who had not gotten in went back and were killed. There are consequences to those decisions. The people presenting themselves are Evangelical Christians; they are Jews from the former Soviet Union; they are Cubans who have tried to escape Castro; they are people who have fled from Somalia and from racial persecution in Bosnia recently. These are tough cases, and we recognized that in the welfare reform bill. We said keep them with a safety net because they do not have sponsors. They come with the shirts on their backs. And we have done so because we are a humane people. What sort of people are we to think about denying persons who have come in these circumstances to our shores? This is not a neon sign advertisement. It is simply a fact of the kind of country we are. To send all of this back to conference over the fact that 5 years of eligibility these people now have should be changed to 7 seems to me to be an item the Senate should reject and do so decisively. Finally, let me just simply say that Larry Craig, the distinguished Senator from Idaho, has said: This is more than just a reauthorization bill. Legislation before the Senate today is an investment in the future and represents our commitment to America's farm families. By providing the technical assistance and extension activities that help expand farm income, improve resource management, and develop new crop varieties, federally funded agricultural research assures that our Nation will continue to lead the world in farm production and help bolster the stability of our rural areas. I concur with that. This is not a question of an entitlement. It is the question of our commitment in the farm bill. We committed to America's farmers, for a 7-year period of time, a proposition--freedom to farm, the idea to manage your own land and plant for the future. And American farmers have responded to that. They have planted over 10 million more acres. They have raised their income. They have raised exports for America. But we said there will be a safety net in this transition from the old days of supply management. It includes payments to farmers that decrease over the next 5 years. It includes the CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program, that tries to protect the environment for a 5-year period of time. We believe it needs to include farm research during this same period of the next 5 years, and crop insurance with those guarantees. The argument is, it could be done year by year, but this is not of great assurance to our farmers. So, for all these reasons, I ask the Gramm amendment be defeated and we move on, then, to prompt passage of the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, Mr. President. Can we amend the request that there be an additional 5 minutes for me to speak?

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will consume much of my time at this juncture, reserve the balance, and yield to other colleagues. I am very pleased that the Senate is now prepared to debate the conference report on S. 1150, the Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998. I thank especially Senator Tom Harkin, the ranking minority member of the committee, and all committee members for their efforts to work together to fashion legislation to garner the support of 74 Senators and a large host of agricultural, nutrition and religious organizations. I point out that we had a good conference with our House colleagues. This is complex legislation. This is not the first time the Congress has had a conference report. It is usual, at least in matters of this variety, for the report to attract less attention. But ours is important. And I appreciate this opportunity to highlight that importance this morning. Our initiatives will help farmers in this country to produce food for the world's people and to do so at a profit while guarding the environment of this country and the world. S. 1150 also resolves a funding crisis for the Federal Crop Insurance Program, preventing the loss of coverage for farmers in every State. The bill extends an important initiative from the 1996 farm bill that provides resources for rural development and research priorities. And, finally, S. 1150 allows food stamp benefits to be provided to limited groups of the disabled, the elderly, political refugees, and children who immigrated to this country legally. Many of our colleagues have called for dramatic increases in funding for Federal scientific research. This advocacy is altogether appropriate. Unfortunately, agricultural research has received much less attention. Funding has declined in real terms for some years, and Mr. President, has declined in some areas to a point that we are no longer prepared to resist some of the insect and other disease pests that endanger our food supply. It took visionaries like Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug who came before our committee and eloquently pointed out how agricultural research is the future of mankind. It is the basis upon which mankind will be able to persist by the year 2050. Millions of people are now alive who would have died from malnutrition had it not been for the food productivity gains from people like Dr. Borlaug, and the thousands of other scientists. Whether it is through the ``Green Revolution'' of the 1960s, or today's biotechnology, researchers have found ways to coax more food from each acre, tapping more fully the potential of plant and animal food sources. Further gains in output are not only possible but they are essential if the food needs of the 21st century are to be met. An increasing world population with rising incomes will require more and better food, feed and fiber. It is estimated, as a matter of fact, that their demand will be three times the demand for food which we now have in this year. Not every farm around the globe is well suited for food production. We have an interest in avoiding the further deforestation and the exploitation of rain forests around the world and other sensitive ecosystems that will be farmed only at a terrible environmental price. Production must be trimmed in areas most appropriate for agriculture such as the United States. An important part of the answer to this global crisis is our bill, S. 1150. It devotes $600 million over the next 5 years in mandatory funding to the initiative for future agriculture and food systems. These funds will be competitively awarded to scientists who will undertake cutting-edge research in priority areas such as genome studies, biotechnology, precision agriculture, and other critical fields of work. The new funds will augment the $1.8 billion existing annual budget for research within the Department of Agriculture. To make certain the existing budget is spent in the most efficient way, S. 1150 also makes a number of reforms to the Nation's research and extension statutes. These reforms will establish benchmarks and set new requirements for coordination of work among universities, placing new emphasis on activities that cut across several disciplines, involve multiple institutions, and integrate research with public dissemination of those results. S. 1150 will provide $200 million per year in mandatory spending to continue fully funding the Federal Crop Insurance Program. These funds, which under current law would need to be appropriated from discretionary accounts, are an integral part of the agreement between private insurers and the Agriculture Department that allows affordable crop insurance to be afforded to the Nation's farmers. Current caps on discretionary spending do not take these expenses into account. Therefore, if the conference report is not approved soon, Congress will either search for discretionary accounts in USDA and other agencies that can be sacrificed to provide the crop insurance funding, or, failing that, contemplate the prospect of insurance policies being canceled for thousands of farmers who annually face the uncertainty of how the weather will affect their crops. S. 1150 offsets about half of these crop insurance costs. For the remaining half, the conferees found reforms and spending cuts within the Crop Insurance Program itself that saved the requisite amount of money. These cuts, such as reducing the level of reimbursement provided for companies' administrative costs, set the stage for further reform and improvement of the crop insurance system in the future. The conference report also provides for $100 million in new funding for Funds for Rural America, recognizing the pressing needs of those in rural areas and working to improve the quality of life for those living in rural America. The conference report restores food stamp benefits to about 250,000 legal immigrants who otherwise would be ineligible for this portion of the Nation's safety net. Generally, the categories of immigrants covered by S. 1150 correspond to those who last year regained access to the Supplemental Security Income--the SSI Program--under separate legislation; namely, the balanced budget amendment. These immigrants, the elderly, the disabled, political refugees, and seekers of asylum, were either in the United States legally before the passage of the historic 1996 welfare reform law--and that is the case for the elderly, the children, and the disabled--or in the case of asylees and refugees, were subject to political persecution for other circumstances that makes their residence here less than fully voluntary. In addition, immigrant children under 18 who were in the United States legally before the passage of welfare reform will also become eligible. There was no corresponding restoration of SSI benefits last year since children are generally not eligible for SSI. Senate bill 1150 fully offsets all costs. It reduces expenditure of mandatory funds for computer acquisition by USDA, a practice generally not available to other departments or even to most agencies within USDA. The bill scales back some recent increases in employment and training funds within the Food Stamp Program. Finally, the bulk of savings in S. 1150 are achieved by correcting an unintentional provision in the welfare reform law which would otherwise allow States to be paid twice for the same administrative costs of providing food stamp benefits determining eligibility and performing other such functions. S. 1150 is the result of lengthy negotiations, careful thought, and dedicated work. It will help our Nation increase its food supply at a profit to our farmers. The bill shores up the crop insurance system in a timely way, allowing producers to manage risks intelligently. It gives access to the Food Stamp Program to vulnerable individuals who reside in this country legally. A large coalition of organizations who support this conference report are actively seeking Senate passage. Commodity groups, bankers, those involved in the crop insurance industry, scientific societies, and nutrition advocates, religious organizations, and 67 land grant colleges and universities have voiced their support for this legislation. Mr. President, I appreciate that many Senators who have written in favor of this legislation by petition or through individual letters to the majority leader have indicated strong support for all of these provisions. But obviously there are Senators--and we shall have a debate this afternoon on the specific question of refugees and asylees and food stamps for these persons as legal immigrants. Let me dwell for just a moment on the particulars of that issue. Refugees are immigrants whom the State Department has permitted to enter the United States for the purpose of escaping persecution in their home country based upon their political or religious beliefs. I want to underline that, Mr. President. These are not persons seeking access to our country illegally, coming across the Rio Grande or the Canadian border or some other nefarious way. They are persons who, by definition, the State Department--and by direction of the President, working with the Judiciary Committees of Congress--has permitted to enter because they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Asylees are immigrants who meet the same standards as refugees except they have made it to the United States on their own and applied for permission to stay to avoid having to return to a dangerous situation of jeopardy in their country of origin. It is not easy to gain either category status. In order to gain admission as a refugee or asylee, someone ordinarily must show that he or she has ``a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her own country of origin.'' The mere fact the would-be immigrant's native country is repressive or enmeshed in civil war is insufficient to support application for refugee or asylum status. The applicant must be able to show individually that he or she is specifically and personally at risk. Many people who have not been able to satisfy this strict standard have been imprisoned or killed by oppressive regimes as they went back, sadly enough. The casualty list of those who failed the test individually, a very rigid test, is very long and death occurred to many of these people as they were forced to return. Now, a somewhat more lenient standard currently exists for applicants from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and for Jews and Evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union. Under the Lautenberg amendment, these persons must only show that they have a ``credible basis'' for their fear of persecution in their homeland. The Lautenberg amendment liberalized the ability of persons from these countries to seek refugee status, but it is scheduled to expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Although some Members may wish to extend this amendment, CBO has said an extension would have a cost. But I point out that even as we discuss this conference report today, the House of Representatives is about to take up a religious liberty and freedom situation. In the Foreign Relations Committee, we will have a hearing on the very same subject today. And I would just say that those who are rigorous in rooting out food stamps need to consider Jews and Evangelical Christians. Specifically, we are talking about those in other fora. We don't need to talk about them in the Chamber. And these are very important issues, leaving aside ag research, crop insurance, and whatever brought us to this point. Now, the overwhelming majority of refugees come from just a handful of countries, and I want to go through these specifically. Communist countries: Vietnam, Cuba, Laos; countries making difficult, often violent, transitions: The former Soviet Union and Bosnia; brutal authoritarian regimes: Iraq and Iran; and countries where Christians are persecuted for their beliefs: Parts of the former Soviet Union and Sudan; or Somalia where the central government is dissolved and the land is ruled by myriad petty warlords. In recognition of the difficult circumstances of their departure from their home countries and their lack of sponsors in the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require refugees and asylees to refrain from becoming public charges here. Indeed, a specific program of cash and medical assistance is authorized to support newly arrived refugees. Limited appropriations have forced this program to serve only as an adjunct to the basic Federal benefit programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. As I mentioned before, the agricultural research conference report, one in which we are involved, did not make all of this up from scratch. We simply have adopted precisely the sections of last year's Balanced Budget Act on which we all voted, and at that time at least there was a recognition that people who are in these difficult straits really ought to be treated in a humane manner. Among the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act that the ag research bill would apply to food stamps--and we have already adopted it once before--is a 2-year extension, from 5 years to 7 years, of the eligibility for benefits of refugees and asylees for the food stamp situation. The 1996 welfare law set the exemption for refugees and asylees at 5 years to correspond roughly with the earliest date that most refugees and asylees can apply. So, Mr. President, we philosophically already have crossed that bridge in the Welfare Act quite apart from the Balanced Budget Act--refugees, the same people, asylees, 5 years. The argument is whether that 5 years should become 7 years; it is not whether we should be paying these refugees and asylees support in a humane way. Most refugees and asylees cannot apply to naturalize until they have been in our country for 4 years and 9 months. That limit soon proved unrealistic because of long, long backlogs in Immigration Service processing and adjudication of applications to naturalize and in swearing in successful applicants--no fault of the refugees and the asylees, Mr. President, an administrative hassle at INS. In a number of INS offices, the backlog exceeds 2 years. If a refugee's and asylee's eligibility ended after only 5 years in our country, they could be left without recourse while their applications to naturalize are in the INS pipeline. The extension of their eligibility for SSI and Medicaid to allow them to receive benefits during their first 7 years in the country was not controversial last year. It was included in all major Republican and Democratic proposals for legal immigrants. I repeat that--all Democratic and Republican proposals. The change was not made applicable to food stamps technically, because the money for restoring benefits to immigrants was allocated to the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over food stamps, and on that basis a change that clearly would have automatically flowed did not occur. Finally, Mr. President, it should be noted that this provision does not assure refugees and asylees of receiving 7 years of benefits; it only exempts them from the new restrictions on legal immigrants' eligibility during their first 7 years. Refugees and asylees will still have to meet all the criteria for everyone else in America to qualify for the benefits. Even refugees and asylees who are self-sufficient for much of their first 7 years in the country will lose the benefit of that exemption after 7 years. They cannot carry it over in terms of months of eligibility beyond the 7-year time. By conforming food stamp rules to those already adopted for Medicaid last summer, the ag research bill will avoid imposing multiple inconsistent eligibility rules on State and local agencies that finally have the responsibility to administer all of this. The number of refugees entering the country is controlled primarily by ceilings--ceilings, Mr. President--adopted by the President each year in consultation with the Judiciary Committees prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. These ceilings have been declining and are expected to decline to reflect generally improved world conditions since the collapse of the former Soviet Union. For example, in fiscal year 1992, some 114,000 refugees were admitted under the quotas. But by 1996, this number had declined to just under 75,000. In fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, CBO now estimates the annual quota will be 65,000; approximately 15,000 additional people are granted asylum each year. So, Mr. President, this is a total of 80,000 persons--or 90,000, as of 1996. Each year, many more people apply for admission as refugees than can be accommodated under the quotas. Thus, an increase of immigrants seeking admission as refugees would not increase the number admitted; it would merely swell the backlog and the waiting lists. The only significant exception to these quotas is Cubans escaping Castro's regime and admitted under the Cuban Entrant Program. That number has fluctuated in recent years from a low of 3,000 in 1991 to a high of 19,000 in 1996. The number of refugees and asylees coming to the United States is controlled by Congress and the administration. The major current example of this, as I pointed out, an exception, is the Lautenberg amendment, which allows the southeast Asians, Jews, and Evangelical Christians to gain admission as refugees under more lenient rules than those applied to other applicants. CBO has concluded enactment and repeated extension of this provision has prompted the administration to increase the quota on the number of refugees admitted, and a further extension is likely to cause the administration to raise the refugee quotas by about 18,000 per year. The number of refugees admitted in the early 1990s as described above includes refugees admitted under the Lautenberg amendment. CBO estimates the increased number admitted will increase Federal costs for means-tested programs, but three-quarters of the cost will come in the Medicaid and SSI Program. Let me point out, Mr. President, and there is no way that Members would know this without the research of our committee, but it is unlikely that the modest amounts of money available in the food stamp benefits would make, under any circumstances, coming to America more appealing for prospective refugees. The average monthly food stamp benefit for these persons will be under $72 per month, less than one- fifth of the SSI benefit, which is now estimated by CBO as roughly $411 per month. It is estimated the fiscal cost of the refugee situation will be $50 million a year. I conclude this part of the argument by saying the distinguished occupant of the Chair, as chair of the House Agriculture Committee, and I, worked together on a farm bill which, in conjunction with welfare reform, cut food stamp costs by roughly $24 billion. There are many in the Finance Committee who deserve great credit for rearranging the circumstances of welfare. But when it comes to significant changes in the cost of welfare in this country, significant reform of food stamps, there are no persons, in my judgment, better able to address this problem than the distinguished occupant of the Chair and myself. We were there. That was the bill that created the entire framework for savings under welfare reform, created the entire framework for fairness, for oversight. I think that simply needs to be said, at a time when we are talking about, at most, 80,000 persons escaping persecution, and as to whether they should be given an extension of 2 more years due to INS hassles and administration, to become citizens. I think that is a very serious point. Finally, some have raised the question that this is an entitlement program. I point out that the proposals we are making do not entitle anyone to anything. Essentially, we have several multiyear proposals in the farm bill of 1996. They include the Conservation Reserve Program. They include payments, annually, to farmers who are now leaving various crops, or maybe farming altogether, as the case may be, but without regard to planting. In essence, for years we have adopted multiyear programs in farm bills because it was the preference of the Congress not to return to agricultural legislation annually. We are, in this bill, mandating that for 5 years we should do something very important, at the rate of $120 million per year, and that is try to find out, if we can, how to triple our food supply so our acres are more productive, our farmers are more productive, and so the rest of the world will not starve. I believe that is a very important undertaking. I hope all Senators will see the wisdom of this and support this humane and farsighted measure. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I want to summarize our debate--which has been a good one this morning--by saying that it is very important that we act today to pass the conference report. As the distinguished Senator from Mississippi stated eloquently and correctly, failure to do that will throw into chaos farmers who are now planting and who count upon crop insurance, reformed albeit as we have reformed it, as an underlying safety net in the year of El Nino, remarkable weather circumstances, it is unthinkable simply to kick away that safety net through our indifference. Secondly, Mr. President, the agriculture research, which has been characterized as an entitlement, along with crop insurance and other provisions, of course, is a 5-year program, as is our farm bill program. We have payments to farmers and Conservation Reserve Program payments for the environment. We have designated $120 million for vital research which we believe is necessary simply to fight back the pest diseases that are now jeopardizing our growth. Mr. President, the yield of wheat in our country has been flat in yield per acre over the last 15 years of time. The breakers are not occurring, and we must triple and not have a zero gain. Finally, let me simply say that there will not be people lined up all over the world trying to get into America to ruin our welfare reform. As a matter of fact, welfare reform has brought about a better America. This bill will help preserve that in a humane way. Provisions that were made under SSI for income for the very persons who are being talked about today--the elderly, the children, the disabled, and those who have come with a well found sense of persecution to escape torture-- will, in fact, be aided in a humane way that I believe all Senators would want to support. I thank the Chair.