[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.

                          ____________________