Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gallegly amendment. I want to answer the question why. The question we simply have to ask over and over is, do we have an illegal immigration problem or do we not? If Members answer as I do, we do, then this amendment makes sense. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would create a pilot program in five of the seven States with the highest populations of illegal aliens to test a mandatory worker verification system. The system is simple: An employer makes an inquiry through a toll-free 1-800 number, a toll-free facsimile number, or other electronic media to confirm whether an individual is authorized to be employed in the United States. This system will protect employers from civil and criminal liability for any action taken in good faith reliance on information provided through the worker verification system. For those who believe this amendment is antibusiness, I could not disagree more. While much has been made about this being a mandate on employers, it will actually protect business men and women from harsh employer sanctions. Currently, hardworking, honest business people can do everything they are supposed to and still be held liable for unknowingly hiring an illegal alien. In addition, it will reduce the current burden on employers to be INS experts on fraudulent documents. Currently, there are a list of 29 documents that can be used for employment verification. Fortunately, H.R. 2202 reduces this number to six. However, counterfeiters have proven quite adept at tampering with or reproducing most of our identification documents. We cannot expect the business men and women in this country to be INS investigators or experts on fraudulent documents. We must provide them with the manageable and affordable tools necessary to comply with the law. It would be irresponsible of us not to provide American employers with this type of support. Under current law, an employer is required to see two forms of identification and fill out the I-9 form. An employer can comply with this and still unknowingly hire an illegal alien who presented fraudulent documentation. This employer can face thousands of dollars in fines from employer sanctions even though they followed the correct procedure for verifying eligibility. Their only mistake is not being able to detect counterfeit identification. The unfortunate consequence of this uncertainty under our current system, is that an employer may not want to take a chance on hiring an individual with a foreign sounding name or appearance for fear of hiring an illegal alien. Because this amendment requires the employer to verify eligibility for every employee, it removes the incentive for employers to treat applicants differently because of their appearance or surname. While I do not believe this is the perfect fix to our illegal immigration problem, I do believe that it takes a big step in the right direction. A pilot project, try it, test it, experiment with it, see what works, see what does not work. Junk that does not work, but try it before we mandate it nationwide, but a voluntary system, as has been said, will not work. I also believe that we are going to have to address the counterfeiting of breeder documents, such as birth certificates, to insure that an employee is eligible to work. Without a worker verification system in place with adequate resources, we will not be able to put a dent in our illegal immigration problem. I urge my colleagues to support employers and oppose illegal immigration by voting for the Gallegly-Bilbray-Seastrand-Stenholm- Beilenson-Frank amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. It is my information, according to the CBO, this is the amendment that we are talking about today.

Mr. STENHOLM. I believe it is in fact the amendment that we are considering today, Mr. Chairman. Also, we have heard a lot of other, I believe, well-intended but misinformed information concerning the cost of the technology that we are talking about on the particular card. We will be glad to provide the additional information as to the true cost of the technology involved in making this as counterfeit-proof as possible. Nothing is totally, counterfeit-proof, that is not technologically possible, but we can do a lot better job. I do not understand how my colleagues can argue that we should not do the best we possibly can in solving the problem.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support in H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act. I am a strong supporter of both illegal and legal immigration reform and I am gratified to have the opportunity to debate this important matter on the floor of the House. But before I continue, I would be remiss if I did not commend Lamar Smith and John Bryant, chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, for the leadership they have shown on this issue. Our Nation is in dire need of comprehensive immigration reform and I thank them for taking on this difficult task. We are all aware of the tremendous strain that the massive inflow of illegal aliens is having on Texas and other border States. Illegal aliens and criminal aliens are having a significant impact on State services, such as health care, public safety, education, and criminal justice. However, in addition to combating illegal immigration, I believe that we must also address legal immigration in a fair manner. I am not opposed to immigrants coming to America seeking a better life, for I am a descendent of Swedish immigrants. And while I believe that the majority of immigrants have made, and continue to make, significant contributions to our society, I oppose increasing immigration levels until we control the overwhelming number of illegal aliens coming into our country. In order to combat and deter illegal immigration, H.R. 2202 steps up both border security and interior enforcement. Increased manpower, technology, equipment, and physical barriers will help to provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] with the tools they need to control our borders. Additionally, the bill removes the incentives, such as jobs and public benefits, that encourage illegal immigration. This bill specifies that illegal aliens are denied public benefits, makes enforceable the grounds for denying entry or removing aliens who are or are likely to become a public charge, and makes those who agree to sponsor immigrants legally responsible to support them. This bill also enhances enforcement and penalties against alien smuggling, document fraud, and passport and visa offenses, as well as, reforms rules and procedures to make it easier to remove illegal aliens from the United States. In terms of enforcement, one of the most important things we can do is to create a worker verification system. H.R. 2202 includes a voluntary pilot program in five of the seven States with the highest populations of illegal aliens to test an employment eligibility confirmation system. During House consideration of this bill, Representative Elton Gallegly will offer an amendment to make this pilot program mandatory. I believe this amendment is critical to making immigration reform successful and will vigorously support it. If we do not have some type of worker verification system in place we will never have a serious opportunity to combat illegal immigration. In addition to worker verification, Representative Bill McCollum's amendment, which directs the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to make necessary improvements in the Social Security card to secure it against counterfeiting and fraudulent use, will make great strides in eliminating the magnet that draws illegal immigrants to our country--jobs. I firmly believe that in order to control our illegal immigration problem we must secure identification documents against counterfeiting. Without worker verification and secure documentation, much of what we are proposing here today will be difficult to enforce. I urge my colleagues to support these vital amendments, and support this comprehensive reform package on final passage.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCollum amendment. This is not a national identification card; nothing could be further from the truth to make this argument. We have to look and, first off, answer a simple question: Do we have an illegal immigration problem? The answer usually comes back, yes, we do. If we do, then we have to use all of the tools available to us to help solve the problem. We currently have the technology to make identification cards highly resistant to counterfeiting. I do not know why we do not use it. Frankly, I believe we need to look beyond the Social Security card, as the previous speaker just mentioned, and apply this same technology that we have available to birth certificates and the other documents used to verify one's status in our country. I think that would be committing the resources to the problem that we need to have in this country if we are, in fact, going to solve the problem. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the McCollum amendment at an annual average cost of approximately $51 million over the next 10 years. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. That is in the bill, in the gentleman's bill, that has already been adopted. We added that as part of our bill because we agreed with the wisdom of the majority.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, title I includes the provisions from the Senate-passed farm bill: Restores the rice payment, eliminates the peanut loan rate penalty, provides oilseed market loans at 85 percent, retains current dairy law but prohibits the collection of assessments in calendar year 1996. A refund is provided for those already collected. Requires contract acres to be devoted to agricultural uses, allows operators to sign for contracts, CRP equipment, at the same time but only if already eligible for CRP. Summary of the trade title: It includes the Roth amendment as approved by the House. It reauthorizes market promotion export enhancement, exports credit guarantees, food for progress, farmer to farmer and food aid programs, provides greater flexibility in the administration of export programs. Promotes export of dairy products to the maximum extent possible consistent with WTO commitments, increases the amount and variety of food that may be drawn each year from emergency reserves. In the conservation title: It includes the CRP Program as authorized under the House-passed version today, exactly the CRP as was approved by the full House. It also includes a wetlands reserve program, an environmental quality incentive program better known as EQIP. It also provides under subtitle B, Conservation Funding: CCC funding is authorized for CRP, WRP, and EQIP. In EQIP, 50 percent of the funding is targeted to livestock producers. Under miscellaneous, we include the Senate miscellaneous provisions on forestry, State technical committees, conservation, and private grazing lands. A summary of the nutrition title; this is very important to a large number of Members: It reauthorizes for 7 years the Food Stamp Program and the commodity distribution programs, including the Emergency Food Assistance Program, better known as TEFAP. It also ensures funding for 7 years for the modified Food Stamp Program and in American Samoa that benefits the elderly, blind, and disabled. Under miscellaneous, it includes the Fund for Rural America, what we just debated but was defeated. We also include the Everglades amendment, exactly providing the $200 million to the Secretary of the Interior to conduct restoration activities in the Florida Everglades for the purpose of private acreage within the Everglades agricultural area. It is the language that was included in the Senate bill and also what we just approved earlier in the amending process. There is also a technical amendment dealing with AQI. I urge support of the motion to recommit. I might also say, if I have additional time, it is supported by numerous organizations from the producing side of the communities, the environmental community, and the food and nutrition community. It also answers many of the questions that the secretary has had about the legislation before us. We believe that it will expedite, and this is the final point I would make of our recommittal, if there is one thing that I would hang my hat on, I believe that this recommittal would in fact expedite the consideration so that our farmers who have been waiting for months for a farm bill will be able to get it out of Congress to the President in a form he will sign and do it expeditiously. That is something that everyone wants. point of order

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to briefly explain the amendment in careful, concise language so that everyone can understand it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude in whatever time I have remaining, and I shall be very brief in just saying again, the last speaker that spoke on the majority side was speaking not to the amendment before us. We are not quarreling with the change, the historic change. That is not part of our amendment. The debate on the transition market program is over. It is done. Those that oppose it, oppose it. Those that support it, support it. Nothing in our amendment did anything to that. We did not intend to. What we are suggesting is the same spirit of transition and help go to the oil seeds that are going to the other crops. That is all we are suggesting. Then the Fund for Rural America, that is additional spending for the rural community needs, not for farmers, and we do not take any money away from farmers. We recognize the spirit of a capped entitlement, something I have worked for for years. I want to see it in every entitlement. But in capping the entitlement, we think a 46 percent cut when we are talking about rates of increase of 6 and 7 percent in every other entitlement, we think that is too severe. I think that any Member from a rural community that does not see that has been looking with some blinders. That is my opinion. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of the de la Garza amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like for my friends on the other side to pay particular attention, because there have been a couple of speakers that have, I know, spoken not intentionally erroneously, but have made some erroneous claims about this amendment. First off, there is no intention, and you will not find anywhere in this amendment that we are designing this to have a slush fund for the Secretary of Agriculture. I fully expect that we will be dealing with these issues in the Committee on Agriculture under farm bill No. 2. If we can come to a resolution thereon, and we can expect then to decide and direct how these moneys shall be spent, we shall do so in the proper legislative process. Only if we fail to bring a bill out will it come to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, and I cannot imagine us failing to do our job. As I said to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations a moment ago, it would be my firm hope that we could work in cooperation with the appropriators in resolving these issues. The question before us today is whether we are going to provide the resources for rural America. Let me remind ourselves that last year in the agriculture appropriation bill we had the Castle amendment and the Olver amendments. The Olver amendment, and we heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a moment ago, got 169 votes. The reason we could not do more last year, there was not enough money in the discretionary spending. There will be less money this year in discretionary spending. Therefore, if we are going to provide the resources for this, now, today, and on this amendment is the only way we are going to get it done. Interesting, Mr. Chairman, is the opposition to the oil seeds amendment. I have in my hand a Dear Colleague from one of our colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], saying, ``Please join me in sending this letter expressing support for the market loan provisions for soybean and other oil seeds included in the Senate version of the farm bill.'' This is it. We are not doing anything more than what the Senate has already done and what our soybean growers all over the United States are asking us to do. I do not understand why all this year, every single amendment that comes from this side of the aisle has been zeroed; no support, no bipartisan support if it comes from this side of the aisle. This is the first time in history, at least as long as I have been here, in which we have had that kind of attitude towards amendments, even amendments that are supported by the other side. I do not understand this, how anyone can say, ``Sign this Dear Colleague in support of,'' and then turn around and vote against this amendment. We hear and listen, and everybody reluctantly opposes this. Why do we reluctantly oppose it if we are for it? Everyone in agriculture in rural America understands that rural America needs water and sewer, and we had an amendment earlier on research. We know we are shortchanging. This is an opportunity to do it, and do it within the full respect of balancing our budget fairly, and having agriculture share fairly in those reductions. Mr. Chairman, I will summarize again, so everyone understands the de la Garza amendment. Mr. Chairman, it provides $3.5 billion for rural development. It provides the money that all of us, by our votes, and I have those recorded votes in which we said last year we need to provide some additional resources for rural America. In industries like the wool and mohair industry, for example, that are now going it on their own, market-oriented, and others as we move in this market-oriented direction, every one of us in our agricultural speeches say we have to have some additional resources and seed money if we are going to make it out there. This provides the opportunity for the Committee on Agriculture, in our full deliberations, in a bipartisan way, to act and to make the decisions as to how this money shall be expended, not the Secretary of Agriculture, but to have this committee, and then hopefully, in full consultation with the Committee on Appropriations, because I have become very alarmed when I see, day after day, bill after bill, a constant confrontation between appropriators and authorizers. I submit to my chairman, whom I deeply love and respect, this is not the best atmosphere for anyone to continue. I wish the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, would also have fully understood and appreciated what I was trying to say. We need to build cooperation. We need in our budget deliberations to make sure, as best we can, that we treat all categories of the budget in a fair and equitable manner. It goes without saying, the facts speak for themselves; if every function of the budget had been cut as much as agriculture since 1986, our budget today would be balanced, and we could be honestly talking about a tax cut, capital gains, inheritance tax relief, all of the things that we are all for. But we know it has not happened in other areas. And then immediately my critics will say, ``Well, Charlie, you are just using 1986 because that is a convenient number. That was the highest level of spending in history.'' So I say, fine, let us forget 1986, let us go back to 1955. Let us take a comparison of spending category by category since 1955. Interestingly, the only function of the budget that has been cut since 1955 is agriculture, 27.9 percent. Agriculture in rural America has done more than its share. The next dearest to us is defense, 11.9 percent increase. Two areas of near and dear importance to all of us. So the Fund for Rural America provides the funding, again not as much as we would like to see but we have got budget restraints. The oilseed marketing loan, everybody is for it. It makes good sense. This is an opportunity for us to do it. And it is fair and equitable because the oilseeds, the soybean industry in particular, but all of the oilseeds have traditionally gone it alone. Here we are in this bill saying continue to go it alone, instead of offering a little bit of help through the marketing loan that they have asked for that we have a Dear Colleague from a member of the Committee on Agriculture saying, please, join me in a Dear Colleague. Join me in a vote. If we want to do it, let us vote. Continuation of permanent law, I agree with the chairman, this, you know, 1949 act, it is not very workable today, but it works, and that is all we are looking for here. We are just trying to put something in that forces us to act and in a timely fashion. So that is a summation of the de la Garza amendment, and I ask for the support in a bipartisan way from all of our colleagues who in their heart know this is the right vote for America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].

Mr. STENHOLM. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the remarks of the chairman. And we have no objections also, and we also assure him that we will work with the gentleman regarding the previous amendment that he dropped.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the recommittal be resubmitted with the point of order that has just been sustained, that portion dealing with nutrition programs be extracted from the consideration, everything else shall remain as previously explained.

Mr. STENHOLM. I do, Mr. Speaker. If the gentleman from Kansas insists that the nutrition programs dealing with the feeding of the people with the food that is produced by our farmers should be stricken from this farm bill, I will extract that from our recommittal so that no longer is an issue because I understand the point of order.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I thank the gentleman because his first question was correct; his restatement of the question was not correct. We are not putting the Gunderson amendment back in. The gentleman is correct; the House voted overwhelmingly against the Gunderson compromise amendment. We are not putting that back in, but we are in fact repealing the Solomon amendment because there is a general belief that many who voted for the gentleman last night did so because of concerns of the nutrition programs.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?