[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4491-H4495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HELPING HAITI TO MOVE PAST CURRENT POLITICAL CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Osborne). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I will insert some materials in the Record
about the plight of the African American farmers in this country who,
having won a wonderful court decision that resulted in a consent
decree, are still faced with discrimination, delayed payments and all
other kinds of problems which were really the basis of them bringing
the suit in 1999. So I will insert in the Record the Federation of
Southern Cooperatives' statement, the statement of our colleague the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and my own statement.
Black farmers demands:
1. To Meet with Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman before July
16, 2002 We want confirmation of her agreement to meet by 3:30 pm
today, EST.
2. An immediate moratorium on all farm foreclosures by Secretary
Veneman.
3. The immediate termination of all USDA officers who have been found
guilty of discrimination.
4. The Federal Court halt of all proceedings in the Pigford Consent
Decree until the mess can be straightened out.
5. That the USDA ceases and desists on intercepting the federal farm
program payments to farmers in the Pigford v. Glickman Class Action.
6. That the USDA cease and desist on claiming tax return payments to
farmers who are part of the Pigford v. Glickman Class Action.
7. That USDA tells us the loan status of Tennessee farmer James Hood,
Gerald Pettaway, Coach Perkins, Barton Nelson, Ernest Camel and Robert
Young.
8. The immediate firing by Judge Paul Friedman of Al Pires and Phil
Frans as lead counsel in the Pigford v. Glickman Class Action.
9. Settle the Matthew Grant (deceased), Richard Grant, Dexter Davis
and Howard Coates (deceased) administrative cases by August 1, 2002 in
a fair and equitable manner.
Federation/LAF Supports Black Farmer Protest Against USDA in Tennessee
Demands Meaningful Across the Board Response From USDA and Congress
Atlanta, GA.--This week Black farmers occupied the US
Department off Agriculture's Haywood County Agricultural
Extension Agency in west Tennessee. They decried the fact
that even in spite of the recent law suit against the USDA,
grievous violations against Black farmers continue. As the
primary organization working in support of Black farmers
across the south for 35 years, the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (Federation/LAF) supports
the efforts of the ``Black Farmers and Agriculturalist
Association'' as it's members occupy the USDA offices.
``We support this effort because it highlights the
appalling lack of justice to Black farmers over the past
century and clearly demonstrates the need for immediate and
corrective steps by Mr. Bush's Agriculture Secretary, Ann
Veneman'' said Ralph Paige, Executive Director of the
Federation/LAF.
In 1999, Black farmers settled their suit against the USDA
after years of struggle to receive information, technical
assistance and loans from this agency that was touted as
being the lending institution of last resort. The irony is
that the USDA policies invariably are in place to support
huge corporate farms at the expense of family farmers
everywhere, and, in particular, Black family farmers who now
struggle to hold on to their dwindling land base. In fact, in
1982 the US Commission on Civil Rights reported that the
primary reason Blacks have lost land is because of the USDA
itself. These facts were supported by the USDA in it's Civil
Rights Action Team report in the late 1990's.
When Black farmers sued the USDA, 22,692 farmers filed
claims. To date more than $615 million has been dispersed to
class members. Currently only 60% of those who filed claims
have received payment along with injunctive relief and
thousands who were denied class status are appealing to the
Monitor in the case for reconsideration. An additional 68,000
farmers filed late claims. The Federation/LAF has assisted
the farmers as they struggled with the severe complications
and delays in the law suit settlement process. To date,
thousands of farmers who have filed late claims have yet to
be processed and many of the initial claimants are still
suffering from bureaucratic entanglements as they await their
payment or other compensation.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing aftermaths of the law
suit settlement is the assumption that things would change at
USDA. This was not to be. While there is a Monitor in place
to assist class members should they suffer discrimination in
USDA offices, the same USDA staff that over the years has
wreaked havoc on Black farmers still sit in USDA offices
across the South. They have not been reprimanded or made
accountable in any way for their discriminatory practices.
These are the same staff who farmers face daily in USDA
offices as they seek services and loans.
All this is further compounded by a USDA and Congress that
continue to support corporate farmers rather than family
farmers
[[Page H4492]]
that have always been the backbone of American agriculture.
The recently passed Farm Bill is a prime example of these
policies, which provides for huge subsidies to benefit the
largest corporate farmers in America. There is little in the
2002 Farm Bill that will assist small farmers.
For example, after the 1982 US Commission on Civil Rights
cited the USDA violations against Black farmers, the Federal/
LAF formed a coalition to address this issue. The Federation/
LAF wrote the Minority Farmers Rights Act which, thanks to
the Federation/LAF and coalition support, was incorporated
into the 1990 Farm Bill. It is now known as the ``Outreach
and Technical Assistance Program'' (Section 2501). This
marked the first time that federal monies were to be devoted
to provide technical assistance to minority farmers.
Initially Congress authorized $10 million annually for the
program, and in the 2002 Farm Bill Congress raised the
authorized to $25 million. Yet the Congressional
appropriations committee has never even come close to
appropriating the authorized amount for this important
program, which serves thousands of black and other
minority farmers.
Out of the huge federal budget, not more than $3.2 million
has ever been appropriated for Section 2501, which must be
distributed among numerous community based organizations and
land grant colleges. Once again, this year Congress appears
to be denying the needed funding for this program, suggesting
an appallingly low $3.4 million appropriation. This will yet
again severely dilute the resources and technical assistance
that could be provided to farmers. Many view funding for this
program as a hand-out to African American community based
organizations and historically Black land grant colleges,
while at the same time Congress distributes billions of tax
payers dollars into the coffers of corporate agriculture.
``The $3.4 million appropriation for thousands of minority
farmers is too limited in comparison to the millions given to
the top five corporate farmers in America'' said John
Zippert, Director of Programs for the Federation/LAF.
``Where, we ask, is the justice and democracy in a system
that builds the wealth of the top 5 farmers in a country of
270 million people? A program, such as 2501, however, serves
thousands of farmers and insures pluralism and equity for all
farmers and not just a few.'' The success of the Minority
Farm Outreach and Technical Assistance Program cannot be
overestimated. In virtually every area where the program has
been implemented on a sustained basis there has been an
increase in the number of Black farmers as well as farmer
sustainability and profits.
Additionally, there needs to be a speedy implementation of
other sections of the 2002 Farm Bill that deal with equity
for minority farmers which include: the appointment of a new
USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; sections of the
bill that address a more equitable selection of the County
Committees that govern agriculture policy at the local level;
making more USDA direct and guaranteed loans available to
family farmers; insuring that injunctive relief available
through the Black farmer law suit is effectively disbursed
which is, for one, priority consideration for USDA loans.
Even in spite of the law suit and now the on-going
complaints by Black farmers due to the egregious treatment
they continue to receive from USDA, Congress does not seem to
open its eyes to programs already in place that could
alleviate many of the problems experienced by minority
farmers. Clearly, Congress needs to support programs that
have a proven track record and the USDA needs to address the
problems of its staff and the continuation of their
discriminatory practices.
Finally, notwithstanding the huge number of farmers who
have not been processed in the case as mentioned above, there
are thousands of Black farmers across the country who learned
about the suit too late to participate. It is also clear that
the Black farmer settlement should have been stronger in
addressing the systematic discrimination in the
implementation of USDA programs. We urge U.S. District Court
Judge Paul Friedman to seriously consider all of these issues
as he reviews the problems in the law suit settlement and
ways in which the case could still be used to improve the
USDA's performance and services to minority farmers.
``Organizations that support Black farmers are often
accused of playing the race card, but we have to play the
card that we are dealt. It seems clear that race and size of
farm operation are the reasons for the lack of support and
assistance from Congress and the USDA and we demand a change
in these policies toward an equitable and just agriculture
system in America'' said Jerry Pennick, director of the
Federation's Land Assistance Fund.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, more than 200 black farmers in Tennessee
stormed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and occupied the
agency's offices last week for six long days to protest the
mistreatment they've suffered at the hands of USDA county officials.
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman has reportedly agreed to meet with
the farmers this Friday, July 12th, to address their grievances. In my
opinion, something had better come out of this meeting to address the
wrongs these farmers have suffered for so long.
We thought we had settled this problem in 1999 when the black farmers
signed a race discrimination settlement with the Department of
Agriculture. That law suit, Pigford v. Glickman, charged that the
Department had wrongly denied black farmers loans, crop subsidies and
other farm program benefits because of discrimination. The Department
was so indifferent to its responsibility to guard against
discrimination that it had no procedural mechanism in place to deal
with discrimination complaints; indeed, it had disbanded its Office of
Civil Rights years earlier, in 1983.
The settlement was supposed to address a variety of past racial
injustices. It was supposed to pay $50,000 each to any black farmer who
had suffered discrimination. It was also supposed to forgive those
debts the Department of Agriculture had unfairly assessed against black
farmers from 1983 to 1999. Incidentally, the sum of $50,000 payments
and forgiven debt was estimated to be about $2.2 Billion. This
agreement was supposed to assure black farmers discrimination-free
access to USDA programs in the future. It was supposed to guarantee an
expedited procedure designed to resolve quickly those claims that black
farmers had pending with USDA for years.
The settlement might have been heralded today as a terrific agreement
except for the fact that the Department's performance, meaning its
execution of the agreement, did not live up to its promise.
Past wrongs were not redressed fully and timely.
Black farmers continued to get significantly lower program yields
than their white counterparts in the same counties.
Without attributing blame here, there was some question of whether
the filing deadlines were well publicized, and, when the deadlines were
extended, it still reportedly remained difficult to know when or how to
get or file the appropriate application.
As a result, the Department has only paid out about $650 million of
the $2.2 Billion in damages estimated at the time of the settlement.
At the very least, the Secretary has to put in place immediately a
moratorium on foreclosing black farmers. Justice requires a waiver for
those farmers who lost their farms or who could not repay their loans
because they suffered discrimination or natural disaster.
The Secretary has to institute policies that assure us that career
employees at the USDA are taking seriously the promises USDA made to
the farmers, namely, that USDA intended to remedy decades of
discrimination. Among those policies, the Secretary must track the
extent to which black farmers are participating in these programs. She
must ensure that black farmers are being treated fairly and
respectfully at the County level. She must therefore assure us that the
county committee elections are democratic--and that means fair and open
elections. She must appoint minority voting members if minorities are
not otherwise represented.
Finally, it is high time that we have an Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights at the Department of Agriculture. It was wrong that that
office was disbanded in 1983. It is a shame and a disgrace that nothing
has been done to remedy that omission after the signing of this so-
called settlement.
If the Secretary does these things that I've respectfully suggested
are the bare minimum, and addressed the remaining demands of the black
farmers, then the protest last week in Tennessee will not have been in
vain and the meeting this Friday will not be the empty gesture the
black farmers have grown accustomed to expect from the USDA.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the plight of the Black Farmers continues
to be fragile and uncertain in spite of the Black Farmer's Law Suit or
because of it. The recent ruling by the U.S. Appellant Court in
Washington, DC. Pigford v. Ann M. Veneman'', clearly said that the
farmers have suffered double-betrayal first by the Department and then
by their own lawyers.
The Recent protest of Black Farmers in the State of Tennessee
demonstrates that the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to
ignore minority farmers who are small and disadvantaged.
The recent legislative victories for Civil Rights within the Farm
Bill must be implemented immediately to ensure that passed practices of
discrimination and denials are prevented and corrected. Those victories
included:
(1) An Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at USDA
(2) Language that required the Secretary to track program
participation of minority farmers; county committee elections to be
fair and open; the appointment of a minority voting member when not
represented
(3) Provide waivers for farmers who lost their farms or who could not
repay their loans due to discrimination or natural disaster.
Additionally the Section 2501 Outreach Program to assist
disadvantaged farmers was reauthorized and an annual funding level
increased from $10 million to $25 million with
[[Page H4493]]
approved increased funding for research and extension for Historical
Black Land Grant Colleges.
I call on the House of Representatives to fully fund these programs
and on the Administration to immediately implement these policies and
administrative changes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this particular special order is brought
about because of the circumstances in Haiti, which a number of us have
been working on in this body for many years, both Democrats and
Republicans. We have followed with great interest the attempts to get
the democratic, both political and economic, bases in place in Haiti,
so we want to discuss this program and these efforts with the
membership today.
First of all, there has been what we call a political stalemate that
arises from alleged irregularities in an election held in May 2000. As
a result, there has been a freezing of needed financial aid that we
think maybe there is a new effort coming forward to unblock. So we have
new hope that the political part of this problem will be resolved and
that Haiti will begin to receive funds from international
organizations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the
Inter-American Bank and others that are anxious to help Haiti, which is
in a very serious economic crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I will put my statement in the record and also
background information on Haiti. In addition, I will include a letter
to the distinguished Attorney General, John Ashcroft, which expresses
the strong dissatisfaction toward the Haitian asylum seekers who are
singled out and returned without any interviews or determination of
whether they are at risk in going back to their country.
Today I rise to support Haiti in their ongoing efforts to end the
political stalemate and move past the political crisis. Haiti's
political stalemate stems from alleged irregularities in the May 2000
legislative elections. Efforts to reach an accord have been hampered by
waves of violence which culminated with the December 17, 2000 attack at
the National Palace. The continuing dispute has kept Haiti isolated on
the international front freezing badly needed financial aid from
abroad. According to the U.S. the OAS and many foreign governments, the
Provisional Electoral Council unfairly tabulated results from Senate
districts, which resulted in ten contested seats. It is the
Congressional Black Caucus' position that the issue of electoral crisis
should not be tied to these humanitarian funds. The political haggling
between the U.S. and Haiti is killing the people of Haiti.
We must be encouraged with the movement on the political front, even
though it may not be as much as we would like. For the first time in
two years the President and the Opposition party met though they were
unable to come to an agreement. However, OAS Assistant Secretary
General Luigi Ennui met with President Aristide on Monday and insisted
that ``The government is assuming its responsibilities.'' This is
especially positive in that it is an indication by the representative
of the U.S. that the Government of Haiti is responding appropriately.
This acknowledgment overcomes a great hurdle for the Government of
Haiti and indicates significant progress. It is reported that Aristide
has proposed elections for all 83 House of Assembly seats and two-
thirds of the 27-seat Senate in November. Local elections would be held
next year. We must encourage all parties to continue to come to the
table to work out agreement for the good of all Haitians.
Also, we must end the unfair treatment of Haitians. Under the current
policy in Miami, most people who arrive in the U.S. seeking asylum
remained free after showing credible fear of persecution until their
requests are decided. Before December, the INS routinely released
refugees who passed credible-fear interviews--unless they were deemed
special security risks connected to September 11. That is still the
case for asylum seekers from Colombia, Venezuela, Central America and
almost any place else--for everyone except Haitians. Unlike others,
Haitians seeking a chance to prove that they deserve asylum status are
immediately imprisoned even if they, like others are able to
demonstrate initial grounds of credible fear for an asylum claim.
[Memo from Cynthia Martin, Legislative Director and Counsel, Cong. John
Conyers, Jr., to CBC AAs/COS; CBC Contacts; CBC LDs; CBC Press Scys;
CBC Schedulers, July 10, 2002]
Haiti Special Order
Please join us for the special order on Haiti. We have the
second Democratic hour--it should begin at approximately
7:30.
Let's support Haiti in to efforts to move past the current
political crisis.
a. background
Haiti's political stalemate stems from alleged
irregularities in the May 2000 legislative elections. Efforts
to reach an accord have been hampered by wave of violence
which culminated with the Dec. 17, 2000 attack at the
National Palace. The continuing dispute has kept Haiti
isolated on the international front freezing badly needed
financial aid from abroad. According to the U.S., the OAS and
many foreign governments, the Provisional Electoral Council
unfairly tabulated results from Senate districts, which
resulted in ten contested seats. It is the Congressional
Black Caucus' position that the issue of electoral crisis
should not be tied to these humanitarian funds. The political
haggling between the U.S. and Haiti is killing the people of
Haiti.
The U.S. Congress suspended aid with the following language
which was a part of the Legislative Affairs Appropriation
bill in July of 2000. In July of 2000, Mr. Conyers attempted
to thwart efforts to have direct aid to Haiti suspended by
introducing a motion to strike the language which precludes
assistance to the government of Haiti unless it met the two
following preconditions: (1) The Secretary of State reports
to the Committee on Appropriations that Haiti has held free
and fair elections to seat a new parliament; and (2) The
Director of the Office of National Drug Policy Control
reports to the Committees on Appropriations that the
Government of Haiti is fully cooperating with the United
States efforts to interdict drug traffic through Haiti to the
United States.
Mr. Conyers stated, ``This language limited assistance to
the Government of Haiti and continues to represent a double
standard. In effect, we are holding Haiti to a higher
standard than we are holding other nations including
ourselves. Lest we forget, it was only a few years ago that
we had to send in federal re-enforcement to allow people to
vote in my own backyard of Flint, Michigan and we, the great
democratic country of the world had to enact not one but two
voting rights acts to give blacks and other minority's
unfettered access to the polls. And even today, this access
continues to be undermined by court determinations of
gerrymandering. But for those of us who are uncomfortable
examining our own struggle with democracy as we are the
beacon of democratic values, let us examine how we have dealt
with other countries in similar straits, such the country of
Peru.''
The Inter-Development Bank also weighed in to preclude the
distribution of aid when Executive Director of the United
States, Larry Harriman, sent a letter to the President
Igglesias of the Inter-American Bank requesting the Bank not
to authorize disbursement of the 145.9 million in loans which
has been approved prior to this legislation. This was an
unprecedented step--never taken at this stage before by the
Bank.
These loans are designated for the social sector: Rural
roads and rehabilitation program, $50 million; reorganization
of the health sector, $22.5 million; potable water and
sanitation, $54 million; and basic education program, $19.4
million.
b. encouraging signs
(a) IDB has agreed to send mission to Haiti to investigate
the re-institution of extending loans to Haiti.
(b) Political crisis end in sight--For the first time in
two years President and the Opposition party met though they
unable to come to an agreement. However, OAS Assistant
Secretary General Luigi Ennui met with President Aristide on
Monday and insisted that ``The government is assuming its
responsibilities.'' This is especially positive in that it is
an indication by the representative of the U.S. that the
Government of Haiti is responding appropriately. This
acknowledgement overcomes a great hurdle for the Government
of Haiti and indicates significant progress. It is reported
that Aristide has proposed elections for all 83 House of
Assembly seats and two-thirds of the 27 Senate seats in
November. Local elections would be held next year. We must
encourage all parties to continue to come to the table to
work our agreement for the good of all Haitians.
(c) Haiti Gains full integration into Carioca.
c. immigration
Under the current policy in Miami, most people who arrive
in the U.S. seeking asylum remain free after showing credible
fear of persecution until their requests are decided. Before
December, the INS routinely released refugees who passed
credible-fear interviews--unless they were deemed special
security risks connected to Sept. 11. That is still the case
for asylum seekers from Colombia, Venezuela, Central America
and almost any place else--for everyone except Haitians.
Unlike others, Haitians seeking a chance to prove that they
deserve asylum status are immediately imprisoned even if
they, like others are able to demonstrate initial grounds of
credible fear for an asylum claim.
____
[Memo from Bob Corbett, June 16, 2002]
Haiti's President, Opposition Leaders Meet
From: Greg Chamberlain
(By Michael Deibert)
Port-Au-Prince, Haiti, June 15 (Reuters)--Haitian President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide met with opposition leaders on
Saturday for the first time in two years to resolve a two-
year-old electoral crisis, and both sides made positive
remarks afterward.
One of the opposition figures who attended the meeting said
Aristide told them he would act to address their concerns. An
Aristide
[[Page H4494]]
aide said the president wanted to put an end to the dispute
that has resulted in the freezing of some $500 million in
international aid.
Aristide met with officials of the Democratic Convergence
opposition coalition at the Port-au-Prince residence of
Haiti's papal nuncio, Luigi Bonazzi, the same location where
they last met two years ago.
The Convergence has charged that legislative elections held
in May 2000 were tabulated unfairly to favor Aristide's
Lavalas Family political party. Convergence member parties
then refused to participate in presidential elections that
saw Aristide gain the presidency for a second time in
November 2000.
After an apparent coup attempt in December 2001 during
which gunmen stormed the National Palace, Aristide partisans
took to the streets of the capital, burning down offices and
homes affiliated with the opposition.
``Aristide has assured us that he will act to satisfy the
conditions needed to restart the negotiations,'' said Luc
Mesadieu of the Convergence-affiliated MOCHRENA party, who
attended the meetings along with opposition figures Gerard
Pierre-Charles and Hubert de Ronceray.
``He said that he will act against impunity and address the
issues of reparations and insecurity.''
The Convergence's conditions for restarting substantive
electoral negotiations include the holding of new elections
for several disputed seats, the payment of reparations for
property destroyed during the December unrest and the
disarming of individuals they charge are pro-government
militants.
``President Aristide feels that it's time to step
forward,'' said National Palace spokesman Luc Especa. ``He
would like to put an end to this crisis so we can concentrate
on development and improving the lives of the people of
Haiti.''
The meeting was arranged by Luigi Eniadi, assistant
secretary-general of the Organization of American States, who
arrived in Haiti on June 10 to push for a resolution to the
electoral dispute, sources close to the two sides said.
OAS officials were not immediately available for comment.
____
[Memo from Cliff Stammerman to Cynthia Martin, Paul Oostburg, Michael
Riggs, July 10, 2002]
OAS Official To Break Political Impasse in Haiti
(Dow Jones International News Service via Dow Jones)
Port-Au-Prince, Haiti (AP)----Abandoning what may be the
last OAS attempt to mediate an end to Haiti's 2-year-old
political impasse, Assistant Secretary-General Luigi Einaudi
left Wednesday, empty-handed.
``The way we have approached the problem has not produced
the expected results,'' Einaudi told reporters as he prepared
to fly back to the Organization of American States
headquarters in Washington, D.C.
``We need a new formula,'' he said, without spelling out an
alternative.
But Einaudi's impatience with opposition politicians
filtered into his brief comments, leading some to conclude
that the OAS may bypass the opposition in the future.
``The curtain has fallen on the sorry farce of OAS-mediated
talks,'' said former President Leslie Manigat, who withdrew
from the opposition negotiating team earlier this year.
Now, the OAS probably will use the pretext of an upcoming
electoral deadline to go with an elections timetable set by
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's Lavalas Family party,
Manigat suggested.
Einaudi's visit, which began Friday, was his third this
year and his 24th since the crisis arose over flawed 2000
legislative elections swept by Aristide's party.
The international community blocked hundred of millions of
dollars in aid that it says will not be released until both
sides agree on new elections.
Einaudi said he would ask the OAS Permanent Council for new
instructions later this month.
____
[Memo from Misty Brown to Keenan Keller, Cynthia Martin, Kathleen
Sengstock, John Schelble, Noelle Lusane, Brandi Hilliard, Michael
Riggs, Paul Brathwaite, June 19, 2002]
Haiti--IDB Issue
Hey guys, I'm happy to report that the IDB's Full Board of
Directors approved the waiver requested by the bank's
management to allow a mission to travel to Haiti to discuss
reformation of the four loans. ``Go CBC!!''
Of course my next question became ``how soon?.'' I was
informed that logistically the IDB will move post-haste.
However, this mission will also include input from the OAS as
well as the World Bank and therefore the need to coordinate
efforts might delay the trip a bit. Nonetheless, it is the
IDB's intention to move forward and to express the CBC's
desire to the other parties that the mission is to move as
thoroughly and quickly as possible to review conditions for
renewed lending to Haiti.
As I pointed out in my earlier e-mail, receiving this
conformation in writing will take just a minute. However, we
can be reassured this time this information is on point. Good
work!!!
____
[Memo from Paul Brathwaite, Policy Director, Congressional Black
Caucus, to Misty Brown, Keenan Keller, Cynthia Martin, Kathleen
Sengstock, John Schelble, Noelle Lusane, Brandi Hilliard, Michael
Riggs, June 19, 2002]
Misty, Thanks for the clarification and for your work on
this issue. And, thanks to everyone for helping out this.
We'll keep our fingers crossed.
____
[Memo from Misty Brown to Keenan Keller, Cynthia Martin, Paul
Brathwaite, Kathleen Sengstock, John Schelble, Noelle Lusane, Brandi
Hilliard, Michael Riggs, June 19, 2002]
In a follow-up conversation with the IDB, I wanted to
clarify the e-mail I sent out on yesterday. My Member was
told on yesterday that the mission to Haiti was a go, to
which I immediately relayed to you. However, as your e-mail
pointed out only the Programming Committee deliberated on the
management's proposal re: sending a mission from the IDB to
Haiti to address or redress the loans. Support of this
mission will require a suspension of the rule that states
that ``as long as a country is in the arrears, missions as
well as loans will remain suspended.'' Nonetheless, the
Programming Committee forwarded the Management's proposal to
the Committee as a whole with a favorite response.
The Committee as a whole (which includes all 14 Countries)
meets today. They will either ratify, amend, or veto (for
lack of a better term) the measure. It is my understanding
that given the pressing nature of the issue and the strong
support from the CBC for the mission, the Committee is
expected.
I was told that we might have a verbal answer as early as
this afternoon. However, a written response from the Board
will take some time.
Let's stay in touch as events unfold. Thanks, Misty.
____
June 20, 2002.
Hon. John Ashcroft,
Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: We write to express our
strong dissatisfaction with the current policy towards
Haitian asylum-seekers which we believe is discriminatory and
falls short of the law and principles according to which the
American government should act. Under the current policy in
Miami, asylum seekers from Haiti are treated differently
from--worse than--asylum seekers from any other country
solely on the basis of their national origin. This policy is
highly discriminatory and supported by questionable legality
and justifications.
As we understand the policy of your department in Miami,
most people who arrive in the U.S. seeking asylum remain free
after showing credible fear of persecution until their
requests are decided. If the request is granted, they are
allowed to stay. If the request is denied, they are subject
to deportation and may be held in detention pending their
removal. But beginning in December of last year, the INS has
followed a sharply different and more restrictive policy
regarding those people who arrive here from Haiti. Unlike
others, Haitians seeking a chance to prove that they deserve
asylum status are immediately imprisoned even if they, like
others, are able to demonstrate initial grounds of credible
fear for an asylum claim.
When the INS implemented this policy after the arrival of a
boat carrying Haitian refugees in December of last year, your
department explained that the policy was intended to
``discourage further risk taking and avoid an immigration
crisis of the magnitude which existed during the early 1980's
and 1990's with the Haitian and Cuban mass migrations.'' But
this explanation would appear to be contradicted by the
simple fact that the policy does not apply to Cubans and
there are many more potential refugees from Cuba than Haiti,
due to Cuba's closer proximity for a risky sea voyage and
larger population. Furthermore, we understand that Haitians
arriving by airplane are also subject to this policy, with
Haitians already approved for asylum being indefinitely
detained. These reports make the deterrent justification
deeply suspect.
Thus far, pursuant to this policy, we are aware of more
than 250 Haitian asylum seekers now detained in Florida. This
causes particular problems with regard to children who are
separated from their parents and placed in separate
facilities. In some cases the children are released without
their parents, and the parents are not always able to
ascertain the whereabouts of their children. In addition,
many complaints have arisen regarding the conditions in
which the asylees are held. There is extreme overcrowding
at the Krome Detention facility, and some women are being
held in maximum security county jails with violent
criminals.
Many of the detainees--probably most--do not have legal
representation. And those that do have counsel often face
cases so expedited that the lawyers assisting them have
insufficient time to adequately prepare the detainee's
claims, thus leading to increases in denials of asylum and
orders of removal since the policy went into effect. Indeed,
the very fact that these Haitians are confined under these
difficult conditions makes it less likely that they will be
able to prove their claims, regardless of whether the claims
are legitimate. The policy seems clearly designed to
warehouse and then deport Haitians as quickly as possible,
regardless of the merits of their cases and regardless of the
[[Page H4495]]
law on asylum claims which gives all asylum-seekers an equal
chance to prove their claims without regard to their national
origin.
We would like you to include in your response to this
letter, answers to the following questions:
How many Haitians are currently being detained by the INS
in Miami and in which facilities? How many have been detained
since December when the new policy went into effect?
How many Haitians have been intercepted on the high seas on
a monthly basis over the last year? How many were brought to
United States? How many were returned to Haiti?
How many Cubans have been intercepted on the high seas on a
monthly basis over the last year? How many were brought to
United States? How many were returned to Cuba?
Why does this policy apply only to Haitians and not to
Cubans or people of any other nationality? How is this
distinction singling out Haitians justified by law?
What was the rate of approval for Haitian asylum seekers
prior to the institution of this policy? What is the rate of
approval since the policy came into effect?
As the number of detainees appears to be small, though
significant, it does not appear that a mass exodus of
Haitians is taking place. And we stress again that there do
appear to be fewer Haitians in this asylum category than
Cubans. Thus, the decision to single out Haitians for this
harsh treatment while they are seeking to avail themselves of
the American tradition--and law--of granting refuge to people
who face unjust persecution at home is discriminatory and
unfair.
We see absolutely no justification for this policy. We
strongly urge you to reverse this policy in Miami and treat
Haitian asylum-seekers equally to the way we treat asylum
seekers from other countries, as is required by law.
Representatives Barney Frank, John Conyers, Jr., Joseph
Crowley, Howard L. Berman, Barbara Lee, Rosa L.
DeLauro, Xavier Becerra, Corrine Brown, Carrie P. Meek,
Alcee L. Hastings, Michael E. Capuano, Maxine Waters,
Scherrod Brown, Michael M. Honda, Maurice D. Hinchey,
Jose E. Serrano, William D. Delahunt.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now with great pleasure that I yield
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), whose concern with Haiti
I think has preceded her coming to the Congress. She has worked
diligently on the subject.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for his leadership and for organizing tonight's special order
on the humanitarian crisis in Haiti. I also want to acknowledge the
leadership of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), the chairperson
for the Congressional Black Caucus' Haiti Task Force, for her strong
commitment to the people of Haiti.
For the past several months I have worked with my colleagues here in
Congress to communicate to the White House that it is really time to
revisit, now, United States policy toward Haiti. Since the 2000
elections, Haiti has been in a political impasse, as the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) mentioned. This impasse has framed U.S. policy
in such a way that very little bilateral assistance is being sent to
Haiti and all multilateral assistance has totally been blocked.
Despite the political problems, we have been increasingly aware of
the humanitarian crisis which is brewing in Haiti. Much of this crisis
can be directly pinned to the social sector resources being blocked
from the small island nation. In fact, the United States representative
to the Inter-American Development Bank directed the bank's president to
block disbursal of four social sector loans to Haiti. These loans had
been approved by the bank's board of directors and were ratified by the
Haitian parliament. Considering Haiti's current crisis, this action is
really inexcusable.
In April, I was joined by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
and all 38 of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus as we
introduced legislation that would decouple political impasse from the
humanitarian crisis in Haiti. This legislation is called the New
Partnership for Haiti Resolution, which now has over 60 cosponsors. So
I strongly urge my colleagues to join us by signing on as a cosponsor
on a bipartisan basis to this resolution.
I have learned today in a Dow Jones International news report that
what may be the last attempt by the OAS Secretary General to mediate an
end to a 2-year-old political impasse has failed. It is clear that
efforts to come to a resolution are not working.
Furthermore, we really cannot wait to end the political impasse,
because humanitarian relief must be sent. We cannot wait any longer.
The time has come for the United States to demonstrate strong
leadership by reforming its policy toward Haiti. The United States
policy of stalling the delivery of international humanitarian aid to
Haiti is fostering instability and anarchy in this struggling
democracy. Haiti's miserable poverty is indisputable. Furthermore, we
can no longer bury our heads in the sand on this issue.
{time} 1945
Without strong United States leadership, the crisis will continue to
spiral out of control.
Already, the national rate of persons with HIV and AIDS has risen to
300,000, or 4 percent of the entire population, leaving 163 children
orphaned. The infant mortality rate has increased to 74 deaths out of
every 1,000 babies born, and now, five mothers will die out of the same
number of births. Mr. Speaker, 125 patients die daily of disease-
related illnesses.
While most of the Western world has eradicated diseases like polio,
health officials report that many Haitians do not have the resources to
pay for lifesaving vaccinations for their children. This is just
morally unacceptable. We must remember that many diseases know no
boundaries. The doctor-to-patient ratio has fallen to 1 to 11,000,
leaving very little chance that sick persons in the rural areas will
ever get even the basic health care.
So it is unacceptable to simply stand by and watch a season of misery
inflict pain, suffering, and death on human beings right here in our
own neighborhood. We must address this injustice. We must release IBD
funds to Haiti. It is really our moral imperative, and we must urge
President Bush to step up to the plate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her
excellent exposition of the circumstances there.
Am I correct in thinking that there is a ray of hope, that it looks
like the political differences are being resolved to the satisfaction
of the World Bank authorities and that we may be moving toward a
resolution of the problem?
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am cautiously optimistic. I believe that
there is a team that went down to Haiti to begin to look at what is
going on in the four sectors and we have urged, and I believe the
gentleman participated in the meeting, the bank officials to really
understand why these loans should be released, and regardless of
whatever the political situation is, that the humanitarian assistance
is very important to prevent misery and untold deaths which are now
occurring as a result of no funding being there.
Mr. CONYERS. So the gentlewoman is saying that regardless of what the
political position is, people should not starve or become destitute,
subject to the ravages of extreme poverty, merely because there is a
political dispute between the parties.
Ms. LEE. Absolutely. People have a right to basic health care, basic
food, and basic shelter. There is no way that we should be party to
creating more misery, and by our blocking funds which have already been
negotiated; these are contracts that have already been signed off on,
and for us to block that creates even more misery which creates even
more instability, so it becomes a vicious cycle. And I believe, as all
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, as does the gentleman, that
we must make sure that we take the moral high ground on this and
encourage the loans to be released so that we can move forward to
assist the people of Haiti, because they so deserve to be assisted.
____________________