[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 55 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2623-H2628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING NECESSITY TO EXPEDITE SETTLEMENT PROCESS
FOR DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS AGAINST DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BROUGHT BY
AFRICAN-AMERICAN FARMERS
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 296) expressing the sense of
the Congress regarding the necessity to expedite the settlement process
for discrimination claims against the Department of Agriculture brought
by African-American farmers.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 296
Whereas the Secretary of Agriculture has conceded that the
Department of Agriculture and agents of the Department
discriminated against certain African-American farmers during
the period from 1981 through 1996 in the delivery of
Commodity Credit Corporation and disaster assistance
programs;
Whereas, to permit the resolution of complaints that were
filed by these farmers before July 1, 1997, but not responded
to by the Department of Agriculture in a timely manner,
section 741 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1999 (112 Stat. 2681-30; 7 U.S.C. 2279 note; as contained in
section 101(a) of division A of Public Law 105-277), waived
relevant statutes of limitation that prevented the
adjudication of these complaints;
Whereas, on April 14, 1999, United States District Judge
Paul Friedman issued a final opinion and order that finalized
class action lawsuits filed by African-American farmers;
Whereas the farmers were ordered to file claims to
determine their eligibility for the settlement ordered by the
court;
Whereas the court has set and the Secretary of Agriculture
has entered into a final settlement consent decree that has
become the order of the court;
Whereas, once a claimant is deemed to be a member of the
class and has proven discrimination, the claimant is entitled
to the settlement set forth by the consent decree; and
Whereas the large volume of claims filed as ordered by the
court have severely delayed
[[Page H2624]]
the settlement process as defined by the consent decree: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Attorney General, and the
adjudicator and facilitator named in the consent decree
should strictly follow the consent decree, commit the
resources necessary to expedite the settlement process, and
ensure that settlements are reached in an expeditious manner.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
{time} 1430
General Leave
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H. Con. Res. 296.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey) be allowed to control the time allotted to
the majority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue involving the plight of the black
farmers and their efforts to get reparations in their farming
activities from the Department of Agriculture.
I started this project in 1993 when, at the time I started getting
complaints, it was my first year in office, and I started getting
complaints from black farmers to such a degree that I said we must have
some type of public hearing for this. I asked then-Secretary of
Agriculture Mike Espy to come to Pine Bluff, Arkansas and hold a black
farmers seminar. That was held.
Mikes were set up all over the auditorium, and story after story
after story came to us of the plight of the black farmers and how they
had been discriminated against. It was such a big task at that time
that we fell back to handling it case by case in what we call casework.
Since then, I had gone to five, six, seven different meetings of the
black farmers in three different cities. I have listened to what they
have had to say, and I have tried to bring their concerns up here to
Washington.
It was not, though, until the lawsuit called Pigford versus Glickman
that brought about progress. But then, in the meeting of January 8 of
this year, a particular person stood up. We had another meeting. The
mikes were still there. I was the only elected official present. One
black farmer stood up. He was bawling. He was maybe 70 years old, 75,
and he said, ``Mr. Dickey, I want you to know something. I wanted you
to know how difficult it is to even hold out hope.'' He said, ``We have
fought. We have tried to be in the farming industry for years and years
and years. We have had our problems; there is no question about that.
But we have also seen that we have been stopped from getting the full
benefits from our government through the USDA.
``We then were told that we could bring this lawsuit, and we signed
up, assigning some hope to it, only to find out that, once the lawsuit
was won, that we are now facing the same people who used to
discriminate against us in the first place to administer the lawsuit.''
He said, ``It is just hard sometimes to get your hopes up.''
I am seeing today that this concurrent resolution is answering the
call of this man. It is saying that the legislative branch is coming
out in agreement that the court decree needs to be followed, it needs
to be followed quickly. We do not need to have any further reasons for
a delay. Some of the reasons for delay now are that the USDA and the
structure that is set in the administration, the structure that is set
up to try to help the black farmers have, in fact, added another layer,
and that is an investigation by the FBI.
What has occurred in response to this man who stood up and said it is
hard to keep hope, what has occurred is the presumption has gone from
all of the claims are proper, maybe some are not, to the presumption
that all the claims were not proper and maybe some are. The delays are
unbelievable.
I have been asked by the USDA to go over and talk to the people who
are making the investigations to tell them how important it is. I got
to stand before them and hear their stories. They had planned for some
3,000 petitions, and they got almost 20,000 petitions.
This is the sort of thing that was supposed to be handled by the
court decree. Liquidated damages were given to each farmer who
attempted or did farm and was discriminated against. It was supposed to
be liquidated damages, which means there is not any proof needed except
to prove the existence of the farming intent or the presence.
They have gone through delay after delay after delay after delay. Now
we come to the concurrent resolution, which may not be the strongest
thing that we could do, but, timewise, we thought it was the best. The
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and I have looked at this thing and
said this is probably the best.
Now, that man who stood there on January 8 and said what he had to
say is, again, seeing a frustration, and that is that people who should
be helping are now objecting to this concurrent resolution.
I have instructed my office to contact every member of the Black
Caucus. We have the name, the telephone number, the time we called.
Every office has been contacted, asking them, can you support this. If
not, what do you have as an alternative?
I believe, as they have stated before, that they are going to object
to this resolution because it has some political overtones, or because
it might not be as strong as it could be. Well, I am going to have to
go back to that gentleman who stood up and said we have got even
further delays. Rather than having a stamp of approval on the actions
of the court as directed to the administration, we are going to have a
defeat, if it happens, of our effort to try to get support.
I want my colleagues to know that the black farmers at home are in
complete agreement with what I am saying here today. There has been
some controversy, but the controversy has been created outside of the
black farmers. They know who has been there. They know who is assigned
the staff. They know who has been trying to help.
This is a press release that they issued Saturday. ``The Executive
Director of the Arkansas Chapter of Black Farmers and Agriculturalists
Association today are calling for all Members of the United States
House of Representatives to support the black farmers resolution,'' H.
Con. Res. 296, ``introduced by Congressman J.C. Watts and Congressman
Jay Dickey.''
``Those of us who are affected by Pigford v. Glickman believe that
the resolution will get us closer to our goal of getting all rightful
claims approved and paid. `Some may say that Congressman Dickey is
presenting this legislation to save himself, but for us, he has already
proven himself to be willing to be a true representative for the people
in his district,' said Fernando Burkett. `We want to commend
Congressman Jay Dickey for this effort and we challenge Arkansas' other
representatives to show their support by signing onto this legislation.
This challenge is also extended to all other Members of Congress who
say that they are concerned about the plight of the black farmer.''
``The Arkansas Chapter will not allow our efforts to be politicized
in this election year. We are asking for, and it is critical that we
receive bipartisan sponsorship on this issue across America. Those who
would object and condemn those who are trying to help us have not to
this day offered an alternative to Congressman Dickey's Concurrent
Resolution. We have no choice but to support those who are trying to
help us. Even though some may say the help is small, it is better than
no help at all!'' said Burkett. ``To us the issue is not Democrat or
Republican. The real issue is who is doing, who is helping, who is
fighting for what is right!''
So we have placed before the black farmers another obstacle, and that
is
[[Page H2625]]
that there might be some political reasons for the efforts that are
being done. But the black farmers know and they have asked me to
concoct all the things that I have done.
They know what is on this list. They know I worked to get the statute
of limitations extended so that the farmers would not be precluded from
asking for their help. They know that I have aggressively sought after
and sought after protecting their rights through casework and through
solicitations up here. They know that I have supported an increase of
$10 million for section 2501. It provides small farmers assistance in
filing these claims.
They know that I have met with the Secretary of Agriculture, I have
met with the monitor, I have met with the litigators, I have met with
all of the people that are involved in this sort of thing. So they know
that, and that is why this particular endorsement is so significant.
I would wish those people who want to curse the darkness and not
light a candle would come talk to our farmers in Arkansas and find out
how they feel. I think it is all over the Nation. We must pursue this.
We must pass this so that they can keep going.
Now my colleagues may say, well, what difference does it make? I am
on the Committee on Appropriations, and I have pledged to the black
farmers that, if I can get the support of the Members of Congress up
here, if I can, that I will go and try to get increased funds for the
investigation of these claims so that we can hurry them up.
At one point, it was stated that there was not enough time, that the
money was too scarce, and that the budget was in jeopardy; and that is
the reason why they had to slow down.
I went over and said that I would pledge whatever I could to do that.
This is how critical it is, if we had this vote, and this concurrent
resolution in support of the black farmers is, in fact, defeated, then
I do not know how we can go and ask for additional appropriations. All
we can do then is just wait for the members of the Black Caucus to give
us an alternative or the members of the Democratic Party.
Our farmers just this Saturday went to visit a representative of the
Black Caucus who came to Arkansas. They thought he is going to come, we
are going to have bipartisan support, which we have been trying to get
all this time, and he is going to help. It turned out that that was not
the case, that he came and asked them to do some political chores that
they said they could not do at this time. So there is hope dashed again
for the black farmers.
I just hope, Mr. Speaker, that today we would honor the intent of the
court decree, we will honor the effort of these farmers who have, all
these years, tried to stay in the profession, tried to stay in farming,
and have been, by court order, found to be discriminated against.
We ask, through this resolution, the administration to please comply
with the court order expeditiously so that we can, in fact, bring this
to a close and solve the problems that have existed for all these years
for the black farmers.
One other thought that I want to state, this is not the only
discrimination that exists. If people think that we can just abandon
this whole idea once we pay the $50,000 to those people who are worthy
of it, abandon the idea that there is no more discrimination, that is
not the case. There still is. These black farmers still need a
listening ear. They need somebody who will listen and will react. That
is another reason why I say vote for the concurrent resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the time allocated to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) will be controlled by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the plane of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson) is late, and I am pleased to manage on my side and in his
absence.
Mr. Speaker, I want to express some concerns regarding this
resolution. H. Con. Res. 296 is offered by the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Dickey) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Watts), which
attempts to express the sense of this Congress regarding their urgency
to expedite the settlement process for the Pigford Black Farmer class
action suit that has been filed against the Federal government. No one
can disagree with the essential concept of this resolution when more
than 9,000 claims remain unresolved.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, when all the claims are settled in
accordance with the Pigford consent decree, an estimated $2 billion
will be expended to redress past discrimination in agricultural lending
and program benefits. But outreach and technical assistance funding for
future needs will remain inadequate.
I do want to indicate that this consent decree is the result of a
bill that was introduced by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton), who also cannot be here; and that were it not for the
Congressional Black Caucus, this consent decree could not have gotten
through. It was the energy and the determination of the Congressional
Black Caucus that made that consent decree possible. It was the
Congressional Black Caucus that got the time extended so that these
farmers could, indeed, file for these claims, if there is any dispute
about what members of the Caucus have done.
Regardless of what we do or say in this resolution, it is
questionable whether USDA, Justice or the monitor can legally expedite
the settlement process where denials can be overturned due to rushed or
inadequate decisions.
Although I do have some appreciation for the concept between H. Con.
Res. 296, we question the sincerity of the efforts to help keep African
American farmers on their land as well as to help them remain
competitive in production agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, all of us who are familiar with production agriculture
under the current economic conditions of low commodity prices recognize
that farmers need to modernize operations in order to make a profit.
Most of our farmers cannot afford to modernize without having an
extension of credit.
The extension of credit was a major issue in the Pigford class action
suit. Under the factual background section of the Pigford's court's
opinion, Judge Freidman said, ``It is of utmost importance that credit
and benefit applications be processed quickly, or the farmers will lose
all or most of the anticipated income for the entire year.'' Further,
Judge Friedman said that ``it does a farmer no good to receive a loan
to buy seeds after the planting season is past.''
In the Pigford class action, there was sufficient facts to support a
finding that Federal employees discriminated against African American
farmers when they denied, delayed, or otherwise frustrated the loan
applications of those farmers.
{time} 1445
Therefore, it is clear that the even-handed extension of agricultural
credit is the main issue that this resolution should address.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, none of the language in H. Con. Res. 296
makes a specific reference to discrimination in the agricultural
lending process; therefore, it cannot express the sense of Congress
regarding the expedited settlement of this class action suit.
The Commodity Credit Corporation and disaster assistance program
language of paragraph two of this resolution should not be linked to
credit in a meaningful way to adequately express Congress' resolve to
alleviate lending discrimination that affects farmers.
Mr. Speaker, if this Congress really wants to help African American
farmers stay on their land and be productive, we should fully fund
section 2501, the outreach and technical assistance program for
minority and limited resource farmers and ranchers. This program
provides assistance with loan applications and farm implementation
plans so that these African American farmers can effectively
demonstrate their ability to handle cash flow if they receive a loan
from USDA's Farm Service Agency.
My colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), is a sponsor
of this resolution. The gentleman from Arkansas is a member of the
House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies of the
[[Page H2626]]
Committee on Appropriations that funds the section 2501 program. It
would be interesting to know whether the gentleman from Arkansas would
support the full funding of this program in an effort to provide some
real meaning to this resolution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me from the outset
associate myself with my colleague's comments in opposition to this
sense of Congress resolution.
This sense of Congress resolution produces a cruel hoax on African
American farmers in this country. Those of us who have labored very
diligently trying to get relief, to no avail under the last two
Congresses, really got to the point of having to go to court rather
than an administrative remedy. But as I look at House Concurrent
Resolution 296, it provides no relief, no direction, nothing other than
some comfort or cover for Members of Congress when they have not done
the representative acts that they should in their respective districts.
The 2501 program, which was a program specifically designed for
outreach for African American farmers, languishes in the
administration's budget and it is constantly opposed by members of the
other side on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations. I challenge the supporters of this amendment to provide
the necessary monies so that outreach and other things can be
complemented rather than curtailed.
If we look at the Department of Agriculture and its historic
discrimination against African American farmers, this sense of Congress
resolution addresses none of those past discriminations. The last
plantation is still the last plantation. Employees of the Department of
Agriculture continue to pose a problem for many borrowers of color.
This resolution is a hollow effort to try to correct some political
missteps made by my colleague from Arkansas. This is not the way to do
it. The way to do it is to provide in appropriation language monies
necessary to assist these black farmers who have proven the historic
discrimination.
In addition to this, John Boyd, President of the National Black
Farmers Union, said that should kill this resolution. It did not and
will not do anything for African American farmers.
Mr. Speaker, the other issue that I want to bring before my
colleagues today is the notion that the Congressional Black Caucus
labored long and hard trying to get support from this body on behalf of
African American farmers. It was only with the help of the President
and some Members on the Republican side, not the sponsors of this sense
of Congress resolution that we were able to get language inserted in
the last two appropriation bills allowing for lawsuits to be brought on
behalf of black farmers. It was only because we were able to get the
language inserted that we were able to bring suit and the farmers,
through the help of Judge Friedman, received some support.
But it is still very difficult, Mr. Speaker. Sure, there are problems
associated with the lawsuit, but it is because of a cumbersome
government, a government that continues to only work for those who have
when it should work for those who have not. This sense of Congress
resolution does not get at the heart of the problem at the Department
of Agriculture. We still have 14,000 employees who work for the
Department of Agriculture who are paid by Federal dollars yet they are
not Federal employees.
We have three personnel systems operating within the Department of
Agriculture. So, clearly, we have a problem with the Department of
Agriculture that no sense of Congress resolution can correct. We need
legislation making sure that all the employees who work for the
Department of Agriculture are, in fact, in one personnel system, unlike
the three personnel systems that we have now.
We also need legislation, Mr. Speaker, that will also look at the
discrimination that has gone on historically. We need to fully fund the
civil rights division of the Department of Agriculture. As my
colleagues know, this division was dismantled for a number of years and
it was only because the Congressional Black Caucus fought that we did
put monies back into the Department of Civil Rights in the Department
of Agriculture.
There are a number of other problems associated with this resolution,
Mr. Speaker. It is called too little, too late. It cannot be decided,
after people have lost their land, some have even, because of stress
associated with land loss, died, now provide a sense of Congress
resolution that is really a Band-Aid on a cancer. What we need is
comprehensive legislation to address the black land loss issues in this
country, to look at the systemic discrimination continuing to exist in
the Department of Agriculture, and the full funding of the outreach
programs necessary for African American farmers in this country to be
viable.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is not in the best interest of African American
farmers. All of us are interested in making sure that all Americans
benefit from the goodness of this country, but to now decide at this
late juncture, when the gates are open, when all the livestock has been
gone, the land is sold, to decide to come here with a sense of Congress
resolution is not where we should be.
I challenge my colleagues who are supporting this sense of Congress
resolution to help join the Congressional Black Caucus in fashioning
comprehensive legislation that will really provide long-term relief for
the African American farmers in this country and not a Band-Aid just to
get by this election cycle.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand I have 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to say quickly that I agree with what the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) says to a very large degree. I have been
involved in this, as I said, since 1993. I have heard the complaints
straight on. I have not known how to handle them. It has been only
since 1995 that I have been on the Committee on Appropriations.
I will say that I have voted for everything they have mentioned. I
voted for 2501, I voted for the statute of limitations, I voted for
every other measure in the appropriations subcommittee, every one, and
not one time has any member of the Black Caucus come to my office and
asked me to help in any way.
I want my colleagues all to know that I am available. If it is
necessary for me to come to the Black Caucus, like I have tried to do
on this resolution to ask my colleagues to help on this, I will come.
We have to find a solution.
My problem is it looks like there is some kind of qualification as to
who can help the black farmers in the minds of the opposition to this
and who cannot. I understand that I am a Republican and I am a white
person, but I am also concerned and I have been active, as this list
shows, in trying to be an advocate for the black farmers in their
dilemma.
I have said before, and I will say it again, that it is not something
that we can say we are going to handle just with this lawsuit and
settling it. We have to move forward and get complete cooperation. I
want to find a way. I waited a long time before filing this resolution.
I was waiting for the Black Caucus or anybody else who is interested,
any Member of the Democrat or Republican Party to come forward with
some kind of idea. No idea has come forward. So we are now cursing the
darkness again and not lighting the candle.
I will pledge my time, my energy, and my position on the Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations to push as hard as
I can, no matter what the results of this might be, for the black
farmers.
I want to answer the question about political missteps. The gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) said I have made political missteps.
That is only in his eyes. I will read again from the Black Farmers and
Agriculturalists Association release. These are the people I spoke
before. I spoke for about 45
[[Page H2627]]
minutes. I stayed there after that and took casework and everything
else. There was not a problem then. But, again, for some reason,
somehow the fact I would make statements to the people who I was
closest to, and who they were the closest to as far as an elected
official, it has been called a political misstep.
``The Executive Director of the Arkansas Chapter Black Farmers &
Agriculture Association today are calling for all Members of the United
States House of Representatives to support the black farmers resolution
introduced by Congressman J.C. Watts and Congressman Jay Dickey.
``Those of us who are affected by Pigford v. Glickman believe the
resolution will get us closer to our goal of getting all rightful
claims approved and paid. `Some may say Congressman Dickey is
presenting this legislation to save himself, but for us, he has already
proven himself to be willing to be a true representative for the people
in his district,' said Fernando Burkett. `We want to commend
Congressman Dickey for this effort and we challenge Arkansas' other
representatives to show their support by signing onto this legislation.
This challenge is also extended to all other Members of Congress who
say that they are concerned about the plight of the black farmer.''
``The Arkansas Chapter will not allow our efforts to be politicized
in this election year. We are asking for and it is critical that we
receive bipartisan sponsorship on this issue across America. Those who
would object and condemn those who are trying to help us have not to
this day offered an alternative to Congressman Dickey's resolution. We
have no choice but to support those who are trying to help us. `Even
though some may say the help is small, it is better than no help at
all,' says Burkett. `To us the issue is not Republican or Democrat. The
real issue is who is doing, who is helping, who is fighting for what is
right.' ''
And what this statement says, I would say to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), is that these people are recognizing that
the person who is standing up for them is doing it for what is right,
not because it is political. There is no political gain in this from
the standpoint of trying to get help for the black farmers, for me or
for anybody else at this point, because it is beyond politics. It is
that serious a problem.
{time} 1500
And I pledge, I ask for help. I would like for my colleague to
communicate. I have asked him to support this. He said he did not know
about the resolution. I tried to get a copy to him. When I talked to
him at the airport, he said he had not read it yet.
As far as John Boyd is concerned, he is a member of another
organization. He is not involved. He has never been to any of the five
or six meetings that I have been to. He has never seen what it is like
in Arkansas. He does not know what motivates me to try to help.
Even though John Boyd has been in my office, we have had our picture
taken together, he asked me for a favor even, and I did it because we
had something in common. John Boyd does not have a problem with me or
he would not have come to my office, he would not have had his picture
made with me. We have talked about it because we have something in
common.
So what is the deal? Why are we going to let this become a public
record where we have rejected the pleas of the black farmers? As stated
by this letter, we rejected their plea for help that someone please and
come and help them, no matter what it might be to support those who are
trying to help us. It is better than no help at all.
All they see and all they hear in this effort on behalf of the Black
Caucus and other people is that this is just one more reason for them
to hear the word ``no.'' ``No.'' ``No.'' ``No.''
What we can do is if we can work together, we can work through the
appropriations process through the Committee on Agriculture and
everybody else, we can work through all of those if we will just get
together.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time
remaining and to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) reclaims her
time and yields to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses the sense of Congress
regarding it necessary to expedite the settlement process for
discrimination claims against USDA brought by black farmers.
This resolution is well intended. However, much more needs to be
done.
Mr. Speaker, in 1997, following four decades of systemic
discrimination at USDA, black farmers from throughout the Nation
consolidated their claims of discrimination into one class action
lawsuit. In that lawsuit, Pigford v. Glickman, the lead plaintiff was
from my congressional district.
On January 5, 1999, the plaintiff entered into a 5-year consent
decree with USDA. The Court approved the settlement on April 14, 1999.
Since that time, we have had reason to be hopeful and reason to be
fearful. We are hopeful because, after months and months of discussion
and negotiations, the name plaintiff's case, Mr. Pigford's, has been
settled.
Yet we are fearful, because more than a year after the Court approved
the settlement, thousands of cases have not yet been adjudicated.
That fact alone makes this resolution somewhat useful. We are hopeful
because more than 8,000 cases have been upheld by the adjudicator. Yet,
we are fearful because almost 40 percent of the cases have been denied.
We are hopeful because more than $200 million has been paid to
claimants. Yet, we are fearful because only a little more than 4,000
claimants have been paid thus far.
Indeed, USDA, in its April 2000 report, Commitment to Progress,
acknowledged that there has been some difficulty in coordinating
payments and that, in some cases, payments have been delayed.
We are hopeful because the adjudicator has identified more than 2,000
loans for cancellation. Yet, we are fearful because, to date, less than
150 of those loans have actually been canceled although promised. We
are fearful because only three of Track B claims, the major claims,
have been tried.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that our fear
outweighs our hope. It greatly concerns me, and it should greatly
concern each of us as well that in my home State of North Carolina,
much like every State where farming is a way of life, there has been a
64 percent decline in minority farmers in just over 15 years, from
6,996 in 1978 to 2,498 farms in 1992.
Black farmers are declining at three times the rate of white farmers.
There are several reasons why the number of black farmers are
declining so rapidly. But the one that has been documented time and
time again is the discriminatory environment present in the Department
of Agriculture, the very agent established to accommodate and assist
the special needs of farmers.
The plight of the black farmer in America is a plight that has been
fueled by the sting of discrimination. Once land is lost, it is very,
very difficult to recover. And land has been lost by black farmers and
black families.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult enough for small farmers to eke out an
existence in this time of inclement weather, economic downturns, and
big farm takeovers. This difficult situation should not be made more
difficult by discrimination rearing its ugly head.
When the history of this century is written, it is my hope that the
year 2000 will be recorded as significant in the effort to change the
course and the culture of the United States Department of Agriculture
and the muddied legacy that it has left for black farmers.
This resolution is a step, perhaps, well-intended in the right
direction, but it is a very, very limited step.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
[[Page H2628]]
Clayton) for her statements. And I think those are the reasons why I
have gotten involved. It has taken me a longer time to learn that than
she has. But since 1993, I have been listening, I have been meeting, I
have been listening, I have been talking, I have been trying to find
out. Now what we have is one last plea on my part on behalf of the
black farmers.
My statement of January 8 was we cannot proceed any further without
my colleagues in Congress being supportive of this effort. If we vote
this concurrent resolution down, we are going to be changing it from
legislative remedies to political, and I beg my colleagues not to do
that.
These black farmers have not, in any way, done anything to deserve
this, to be considered a political football, that someone has to be of
a certain party or had to be a certain type of person to be able to
bring something like this. It is a legislative matter. It is brought so
that we can show concurrence. That is what it is.
I plead with my colleagues to let this pass so that we can, at least,
say we are in unity with the black farmers. And then we can go forward
from there. If we take it away from that, from being legislative, and
we make it political and say, no, sir, we are not going to do this
because somebody may get credit or can blame somebody else, then the
black farmers are going to get a no in the same way that they have been
getting noes for years and years and years. A no is a no, no matter
what we say to it.
I think it would be a real disservice to their commitment and to
their sacrifice for us to say no to them again. I plead with my
colleagues to vote for this resolution.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today the House will be
considering House Concurrent Resolution 296, a resolution expressing
the sense of Congress that the settlement process for discrimination
claims brought by African-American farmers against the Department of
Agriculture be carried out in a timely and expeditious manner.
The Secretary of Agriculture has conceded that the Department of
Agriculture discriminated against certain African-American farmers in
the delivery of payments from the Commodity Credit Corporation and
disaster assistance programs during the period from 1981 through 1996.
This discrimination has had a significant impact on the lives and
economic well-being of these African-American farmers and their
families.
A Federal District Court Judge ruled in April, 1999, that these
African-American farmers, as a result of this discrimination, are
entitled to settlement from the Department of Agriculture. However,
even a year later, these claims have not been addressed by the
Department of Agriculture in a timely manner. These settlements are
desperately needed and much-deserved. The Court-mandated funds will
help these farmers recover their losses due to this discrimination and
provide them with the financial means to get back on their feet.
I rise in strong support of this resolution and I would like to thank
Representative Dickey for his efforts to ensure that these claims are
dealt with fairly and expeditiously. I ask my colleagues in the House
to join me in urging the Department of Agriculture to expedite the
settlement process and commit the necessary resources to assist these
farmers.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that their remarks are
to be directed to the Chair and not in the second person to other
Members of the House.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Dickey), that the House suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 296.
The question was taken.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________