[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1713-S1714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 515. A bill to provide a mechanism for the determination on the 
merits of the claims of claimants who met the class criteria in a civil 
action relating to racial discrimination by the Department of 
Agriculture but who were denied that determination; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing the Pigford Claims 
Remedy Act of 2007. This bill establishes a new cause of action for 
those African-American farmers who filed late claim petitions as 
required by the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree, but whose petitions 
were rejected.
  These rejections have effectively barred African-American farmers 
from the one process that was established to bring closure to the 
claims of discrimination by African-American farmers, many of which 
have been pending for decades.
  My bill attempts to remedy what appears to be a lack of sufficient 
notice,

[[Page S1714]]

indicated by the late applicants. It helps bring justice for farmers 
who have historically been discriminated against while being mindful of 
the constitutional constraints on Congress's authority. This bill will 
provide a new cause of action that will assist those putative claimants 
whose claims have never been evaluated on the merits.
  Studies conducted by the USDA revealed the depth and impact of this 
disparate treatment. In 1994, the Department of Agriculture 
commissioned a study to analyze the treatment of minorities and women 
in farm programs and payments.
  In 1997, Secretary Glickman commissioned the Civil Rights Action Task 
Force to look into allegations of racial discrimination in the agency's 
loan program. In conjunction with this the Inspector General conducted 
its own investigation into the allegations of disparate treatment.
  Each report confirmed what African-American farmers already 
experienced first hand. USDA failed to act to adequately address these 
past wrongs. It took a class action lawsuit filed by African-American 
farmers in 1997 to get USDA to respond.
  The resulting Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree was believed to be a 
turning point in this unfortunate history. Hopes were high that 
African-American farmers would finally be compensated for the history 
of injustice. The consent decree was intended to provide a swift 
resolution for the claims of discrimination that had gone unaddressed 
for decades.
  Yet, in a sad twist, the process that was created to provide a forum 
for those whose claims had been shut out, has itself shut out more than 
75,000 African American farmers who wish to have their claims of 
discrimination heard.
  Hearings before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution revealed 
that almost 76,000 farmers who submitted late claim petitions were 
denied entry because they could not show that extraordinary 
circumstances prevented them from filing a timely complaint.
  Despite the lack of knowledge about the consent decree, which was 
cited by more than half of these petitioners, lack of notice was not 
deemed an extraordinary circumstance under the consent decree. So these 
petitioners are left without any recourse to have their claims of 
discrimination heard on the merits. These people should be allowed to 
have their case heard.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______