[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 18, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11471-S11475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CREDIT CARD RATE FREEZE ACT OF 2009

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to make some brief comments. I will 
yield to my colleague from Colorado, Senator Udall, in a moment, and 
then at the conclusion of his comments I will propound a unanimous 
consent request. I will not do that until I know there is an objection 
that will be rendered, and I would certainly wait until I know that is 
coming. I will not, obviously, make the request until that person 
arrives so they can express their objection. Regretfully, I might add, 
they are going to express that objection, but, nonetheless, I don't 
want them to be worried that I would somehow try to sneak this in, 
knowing there is an objection to be filed.
  I rise this afternoon in support of legislation that would do 
something that I think most Americans would support as well, regardless 
of where you live and what your economic circumstances may be; that is, 
to freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the 
full protections of the Credit Card Accountability Act we wrote earlier 
this year go into effect. As many of my colleagues will recall, on a 
vote of 90 to 5, we passed a bill early this year by a near unanimous 
vote because we all heard the same stories from our constituents across 
the country: Credit card companies charging outrageous fees; consumers 
finding out that the interest rates had been jacked up for no apparent 
reason whatsoever; families struggling to make ends meet and being 
driven further and further and further into debt by what I would 
describe as abusive practices.
  On that day, on the day we passed the bill, we declared that credit 
card companies were unfairly padding profits at the expense of the 
people we work for, so we put a stop to it. Today, it is no different, 
unfortunately. Knowing that the Credit Card Act will finally protect 
consumers from these abuses, the industry has tried to make one last 
grab for their customers' pocketbooks, and that is what has been going 
on over these past several months. I think this behavior is deplorable, 
to put it mildly. We can, once

[[Page S11472]]

again, put a stop to it, and that is what I will be proposing shortly.
  The legislation I rise to discuss would immediately freeze interest 
rates on credit cards to ensure that Americans are protected until the 
full provisions of that law go into effect in February. The holiday 
season is upon us. Hard-pressed Americans want to go out and do what 
they can to help their families and to celebrate at a very difficult 
time. Some joy--and a lot of that will have to occur, obviously, by 
taking a credit card out to make those purchases during the holiday 
season, the Thanksgiving break coming up, for putting food on the 
table, traveling, calling a family member, calling a friend. All those 
activities, to some degree, given the hardship people are feeling, will 
require them to use that credit card in too many cases.
  To do so, of course, they are watching in this window an industry 
continuing to skyrocket these rates as well as these fees on people.
  Let me tell my colleagues something: The reason we allowed a gap 
period between the passage of the legislation and the imposition of the 
regulations or the statutory requirements was because the industry came 
to me and said: Senator, we are going to need some time to administer--
to change how we provide these kinds of benefits to people, so would 
you give us a little window here to operate. On the basis of that 
request, we did so. They wanted longer, but we thought February was 
fine. If that had been what they had done, I think most of us would say 
we understand that. Unfortunately, they have taken that window and used 
it as a way to jam in on the consumers of this country, particularly at 
a time when, again, people are losing their jobs, their homes, their 
health care, their retirement, and the holiday season is upon us.
  Every 6 months, card companies will be required, under our bill, to 
review each account they hit with a high rate hike since January of 
2009 and reduce the rate if the customer has become less of a credit 
risk.
  As consumers, obviously, we have a responsibility to spend within our 
means and to pay what we owe. We bear that responsibility. But the 
credit card industry as well has a responsibility to deal with their 
customers honorably. There is nothing honorable about what has happened 
with these significant rate increases and fees. Most importantly, they 
don't have a right to rip off American families, especially when the 
Congress has already gone on record opposing the very actions they are 
engaging in and doing so in a timeframe that was given to them to 
adjust to the new changes that will occur under the credit card 
legislation. Instead of fulfilling that obligation, they are using it 
as a window to grab as much as they can out of the pockets of hard-
pressed consumers.
  So let us help consumers have a break in all this. I see my colleague 
from Colorado and I will yield to him for a couple minutes and when he 
finishes his remarks I will make a unanimous consent request that we 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 189, the Credit 
Card Rate Freeze Act; further, that the bill be read a third time and 
passed, and that a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate. This would provide us a window of about 
12 weeks--that is what it amounts to, between now and the 1st of 
February--during this holiday season to put a stop to these outrageous 
rates and fees being charged to people.
  I hope my colleagues, whether you agreed with the bill--although most 
did; 90 colleagues voted for the bill in the spring--why wouldn't you 
join us today in allowing 12 weeks for a freeze on these rates that are 
occurring to give our fellow citizens across this country a chance to 
meet these obligations.
  With that, I yield to my colleague from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise in support of the 
motion that has been made by the senior Senator from Connecticut, which 
requests consent for the Credit Card Rate Freeze Act. I wish to 
associate myself with his remarks. I am a proud original cosponsor of 
his bill. I wish to urge, as our chairman has, our friends on the other 
side of the aisle to lift their holds on this important legislation.
  Credit card companies have forced unfair and abusive practices on 
American consumers for too long. I have fought for several years and 
introduced a number of bills that would put an end to these practices. 
We passed a law this year that will level the playing field for 
consumers and put an end to the worst abuses by February of next year.
  Let me tell my colleagues what has been happening since then. Credit 
card companies are using that time before the new law goes into effect 
to get rate and fee hikes in under the wire. It is happening at the 
worst time possible, as the chairman pointed out. American families are 
struggling in a recessionary period. The last thing our families need 
is higher interest rates and extra fees, especially on consumers who 
are already playing by the rules.
  This has been a classic case of a David versus Goliath situation. I 
say it is time to take on Goliath and stop credit card companies from 
gaming the system at the expense of American consumers. This bill 
Chairman Dodd and I are supporting would provide consumers and small 
businesses who play by the rules a better foundation to pay off their 
debts, or to buy groceries and business supplies, and most important, 
they should get fair treatment from the credit card companies.
  This is a critically important bill for economic recovery. It is the 
right thing to do. I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to 
join us and allow it to move forward.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his remarks. Many 
others have similar views on this. I regret that there is going to be 
an objection filed to a measure that would have allowed us to do 
something meaningful for our fellow citizens at this time of the year.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 189, S. 1927, the Credit 
Card Rate Freeze Act of 2009; further, that the bill be read the third 
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, on behalf of several Senators on this 
side of the aisle, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am sorry there is an objection. I 
will yield to the Senator from New Jersey. I will take the floor after 
the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, to my colleague from New York, Senator 
Bennet and I are here on a different matter. If the Senator will be 
brief, I am happy to wait until he finishes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for his usual graciousness. I 
commend my colleague from Connecticut for the outstanding job he has 
done on this issue. I regret that the consent to move to the 
legislation has been blocked.
  The bottom line is this: We know there are real problems in the 
credit card industry. We know that things are happening you would never 
imagine would happen. People are moving interest rates--maybe you had 
your balance at $4,000, 7 percent, and you know your family budget, and 
then it goes up to $23,000. This legislation would have stopped that.
  What the banks are doing now is jumping the gun and moving things 
ahead in a way that is very wrong. To move up the date would simply 
make sure this legislation affects more people than it would have. It 
is a good idea. I hope we will still reconsider it later. I hope the 
public, who cares about this, will let all Senators from both sides of 
the aisle know how important this is.
  With that, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. He has been such a 
leader in fighting for consumers throughout this session. He deserves 
every American's thanks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I know my colleague from Colorado, 
Senator Bennet, wants to speak to this issue as well. He has been a 
champion, along with me and several others, to try to bring justice to 
an issue that is incredibly important.

[[Page S11473]]

  It is no secret that decades of indifference and discrimination in 
lending practices at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made it 
difficult for minority farmers--specifically Hispanic farmers--to make 
a living at what they love to do and have done, in many cases, for 
generations, leaving many no choice but to leave the farms and ranches 
they have tended to all of their lives.
  In the year 2000, 110 Hispanic farmers brought a lawsuit against the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture for the same egregious discriminatory 
practices that resulted in a historic settlement with African-American 
farmers. For 8 long years, under the last administration, thousands of 
Hispanic farmers who joined the suit waited and waited and waited for 
justice. Some of them died waiting and will never be made whole. For 8 
long years, the Bush administration did nothing.
  These hard-working farmers, Hispanic families, who bought a piece of 
land and built a family farm--their small piece of the American dream--
were wrongly denied loans and other benefits in violation of the Equal 
Credit Opportunity Act by county committees that review Farm Service 
Administration credit and loan applications for approval. Consequently, 
these farmers filed suit in the hope that it would change the 
discriminatory practices at the USDA, how it treated America's minority 
farmers; but under the Bush administration, nothing changed, the 
discrimination continued.
  Then something did change. We got a new President and a new Secretary 
of Agriculture, who described past practices at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture as ``a conspiracy to force minority and socially 
disadvantaged farmers off of their land.'' Consequently, the 
administration committed to appropriate $1.25 billion in the fiscal 
2010 budget to settle some of the outstanding discrimination lawsuits 
but not all of them. To date, Hispanic farmers, women, and Native 
Americans have not yet seen a settlement.
  We need to remedy this situation once and for all. The new U.S. 
Department of Agriculture Secretary needs to make these farmers whole. 
Secretary Vilsak has created a task force to review the park and civil 
rights complaints and announce new efforts for the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to end any and all discriminatory practices, and I commend 
the secretary for addressing this lingering issue. But more needs to be 
done.
  As I said, along with seven of my colleagues, in a letter to the 
President, quoting from that letter, we said:

       The U.S. Department of Agriculture's corrective role in 
     this instance has been clearly laid out, and there remains no 
     legitimate reason to delay action for any of the affected 
     groups.

  The fact is that 8 years after a do-nothing Republican administration 
that earned the U.S. Department of Agriculture the designation of ``the 
last plantation,'' putting people's lives and livelihoods at risk, we 
simply cannot wait any longer. Certainly, for example, Alfonso and Vera 
Chavez cannot wait any longer. The Fresno Bee reported last week that 
Mr. and Mrs. Chavez stopped farming 7 years ago when they could not get 
a USDA loan. In fact, they said they not only could not get the loan 
but they were discouraged from applying and, even worse, they believed 
they were given misinformation so they would not apply. To quote Vera 
Chavez, who told the reporter, ``It was like they didn't want us to 
have the money.''
  Mr. and Mrs. Chavez owned 300 acres. They sold off 200 of those 
acres, shut down their packing house, and leased the remaining hundred 
acres to survive. Vera said, ``It is why we have been hanging onto 
those 100 acres, so my children and grandchildren can have a little 
piece of land we worked so hard to get. I am not going to give up. But 
we have written so many letters, had so many meetings, and nothing 
seems to be moving forward.''
  We need to move this forward. It is about fairness, about doing what 
is right. When we see discrimination in any form, and when those who 
have been wronged because of their race, gender, or heritage are forced 
to sell what they have worked a lifetime to build--abandoned by the 
last administration that cared more about Wall Street than Main 
Street--we have to make things right for them, for people like Vera and 
Alfonso Chavez. We need to make sure that they can keep their farms and 
give them back their lives. All these farmers are asking for is a 
commonsense solution sooner rather than later, because they have waited 
long enough.
  I received a letter that is addressed to the President. It is a 
letter from the named plaintiff in the landmark case Pigford v. 
Glickman. That was a case that brought together African-American 
farmers in that landmark decision, who were also discriminated against. 
The letter to the President by Mr. Pigford says, referring to Hispanic, 
Native-American, and women farmers:

       They have suffered the same discrimination by the United 
     States Department of Agriculture as African American farmers. 
     Just as USDA addressed the claims of African Americans on a 
     classwide basis, it should similarly settle the 
     discrimination claims of Hispanic and other minority farmers 
     on a classwide basis.
       . . . Furthermore, it makes no sense for four minority 
     groups to suffer the identical discrimination from the same 
     federal agency and yet only one of those four groups to be 
     compensated on a classwide basis.

  It goes on to say:

       Mr. President, fundamental fairness and simple practice 
     demand that you close the entire book on all discrimination 
     at USDA and, consistent with section 14011, ``resolve all 
     pending claims and class actions in an expeditious and just 
     manner.''

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Mr. Pigford's 
letter to the President.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                November 18, 2009.
     President Barack H. Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Obama: As the named plaintiff in the 
     landmark case Pigford v. Glickman, I urge you to direct the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Attorney General to begin 
     immediately good faith negotiations to resolve the pending 
     discrimination lawsuits brought on behalf of Hispanic, Native 
     American and women farmers pursuant to Section 14011 of the 
     Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (``2008 Farm 
     Bill''). They have suffered the same discrimination by the 
     United States Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') as African 
     American farmers. Just as USDA addressed the claims of 
     African Americans on a classwide basis, it should similarly 
     settle the discrimination claims of Hispanic and other 
     minority farmers on a classwide basis.
       As you may be aware, between 1997 and 2000, in addition to 
     my lawsuit, three other identical lawsuits were filed in the 
     same courthouse: my suit on behalf of African American 
     farmers, Keepseagle v. Glickman on behalf of Native American 
     farmers, Garcia v. Glickman on behalf of Hispanic farmers and 
     Love v. Glickman on behalf of women farmers.
       In my case and the Keepseagle case, two different judges 
     (Friedman and Sullivan) certified the cases as class actions 
     on the basis of USDA's admitted failure to investigate 
     discrimination complaints filed by African American and 
     Native American farmers at USDA's behest. USDA failed to 
     investigate the complaints because it had secretly dismantled 
     its civil rights investigatory apparatus in the early days of 
     the Reagan Administration. In the Love and Garcia cases, 
     however, a different judge, Judge Robertson, refused to 
     certify classes on the same basis that Judges Friedman and 
     Sullivan had applied in my case and Keepseagle, respectively, 
     notwithstanding the fact that the D.C. Circuit had renewed 
     those certifications on at least three occasions and had 
     found no fault with the certifications. Indeed, in my case, 
     the D.C. Circuit expressly approved a settlement that has to 
     date resulted in nearly $1 billion being paid to 
     approximately 15,000 African American farmers.
       While USDA and DOJ use the lack of class certification as 
     an excuse to refuse to bring about a just and efficient 
     resolution of these cases through negotiations of classwide 
     settlements, such excuses ring particularly hollow. First, 
     USDA and DOJ have steadfastly refused to settle the 
     Keepseagle case despite the fact that it was certified as a 
     class action eight years ago. Second, tens of thousands of 
     African American farmers who missed the filing deadline to 
     participate in the settlement in my case have filed new 
     lawsuits pursuant to Section 14012 of the 2008 Farm Bill. 
     While none of these cases has been certified as a class 
     action, the government has expressed its desire to settle 
     these on a classwide basis and you have announced your 
     intention to appropriate an additional $1.25 billion to cover 
     their damage claims. Third, of the four identical cases 
     handled by three different judges, two judges have certified 
     classes on the basis of USDA's admitted failure to 
     investigate discrimination claims. Fourth, class 
     certification is a procedural matter that does not address 
     the underlying discrimination that is in fact admitted.
       Secretary Dan Glickman, the original defendant in all four 
     cases, has testified before Congress that USDA has ``a long 
     history of

[[Page S11474]]

     . . . discrimination'' and that ``[g]ood people . . . lost 
     their family land not because of a bad crop, not because of a 
     flood, but because of the color of their skin.'' Rosalind 
     Gray, a former director of USDA's Office of Civil Rights, has 
     testified that ``systemic exclusion of minority farmers 
     remains the standard operating procedure for FSA [the Farm 
     Service Agency].''
       In addition, both during his confirmation hearing and 
     subsequently, Secretary Vilsack made strong statements 
     expressing the administration's desire, consistent with 
     Section 14011 of the 2008 Farm Bill, to settle all of the 
     pending discrimination cases. Unfortunately, USDA's action 
     have fallen short of the promises contained in Secretary 
     Vilsack's statements. Indeed, the refusal by USDA and DOJ to 
     entertain settlement discussions on a classwide basis is 
     totally at odds with the clearly expressed will of Congress 
     as expressed in Section 14011 and irreconcilable with 
     Secretary Vilsack's repeatedly stated desire to settle all 
     the pending lawsuits. Furthermore, it makes no sense for four 
     minority groups to suffer the identical discrimination from 
     the same federal agency and yet only one of the four groups 
     to be compensated on a classwide basis. The Clinton 
     Administration properly saw fit to order USDA and DOJ to 
     begin negotiations with the representatives of the African 
     American farmers when confronted with the obvious injustice 
     in that case. In announcing last spring an additional $1.25 
     billion for African American farmers who missed the filing 
     deadline in my case, you stated your hope that your action 
     would ``close a chapter'' in the sorry history of USDA 
     discrimination against minority farmers. Mr. President, 
     fundamental fairness and simple practice demand that you 
     close the entire book on all discrimination at USDA and, 
     consistent with Section 14011, ``resolve all pending claims 
     and class actions in an expeditious and just manner.'' 
     (Emphasis added.) The only thing standing between ``an 
     expeditious and just'' resolution of these cases is the will 
     to do it. You, sir, are in a unique position to end once and 
     for all USDA's all-too-well deserved reputation as ``the last 
     plantation'' and to bring long-overdue accountability and 
     transparency to the USDA-administered farm credit and non-
     credit farm benefit programs.
           Respectfully,
                                               Timothy C. Pigford.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. We urge Secretary Vilsak to ensure all farmers will be 
granted the same consideration so they can begin to rebuild their lives 
and their farms this year. Despite clear language in section 14011 of 
the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, which urges the 
administration to settle lawsuits brought by Hispanic and other 
farmers, the administration clearly needs to assure Hispanic farmers, 
many who have come to me, Senator Bennet, and others to ask for help, 
that it fully intends to address these cases consistent with section 
14011 of the 2008 farm bill.
  We simply cannot continue down this winding road to nowhere. To 
ignore the plight of the thousands of Hispanic farmers, families who 
seek nothing more than justice, who want only a chance to keep the 
farms and ranches they worked so hard for all of their lives, is wrong.
  For 8 years, thousands of families like the Chavezes were ignored. 
Now we need to change that. We need to move quickly to resolve what is 
clearly and patently unfair and unjust. You will never turn the page on 
the past discriminatory practices within USDA until all victims--every 
last one of them--are made whole for the loss of their land, their 
dignity, and their hope for a decent life for themselves and their 
families. Let us move quickly to give them the chance they have waited 
for, the chance to rebuild their lives.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I am very pleased to rise today to join 
the Senator from New Jersey to discuss the injustices committed against 
Hispanic farmers over the course of many years. I also thank Senator 
Menendez, the congressional Hispanic caucus, and my colleagues who have 
come to the floor to demonstrate their leadership on this issue.
  For the reasons Senator Menendez laid out, it is long past time to 
call attention to this indefensible injustice and to lend our voices to 
a better way forward. As is well known, for years--decades--minority 
farmers were systematically discriminated against when they visited 
local USDA farm service agency offices all across this country. They 
were denied loans and farm program assistance because of their skin 
color, ethnicity, or gender. Senator Menendez did a good job describing 
the case.
  I want to give some examples from my State, because in many cases, 
because of this discrimination, these farmers lost their livelihoods 
and their way of life. If we choose to let some of them make their 
case, and deny that chance to others, then we repeat these historic 
civil rights wrongs all over again.
  Among the many letters I have received is a declaration from Mr. 
Gomez of Alamosa, CO, a former USDA employee who served his country for 
30 years. In seven pages of excruciating detail, Mr. Gomez explains how 
he, as a loan officer, witnessed discrimination in granting of FSA 
loans. Reasons loans were denied were recorded as ``insufficient 
experience,'' or other subjective terms. As Mr. Gomez gained more 
responsibility, he was eventually in a position to review loan 
applications from around the region he supervised, and he became 
increasingly aware of a pattern of discrimination.
  In another letter, Mr. Sandoval of Antonito, CO, tells of repeatedly 
being turned away from local loan offices and denied FSA loans on 
grounds that he did not have the ``character'' necessary. Mr. Sandoval 
explains how his inability to access credit through the USDA limited 
his ability to grow his farming operation and become a more successful 
farmer.
  Another Mr. Sandoval of Commerce City, CO, writes:

       This has been going on for so long that some farmers have 
     lost their lives waiting for justice to prevail.

  Mr. DeHerrera, also of Antonito, CO, writes:

       In desperation, I approached [someone] at the . . . FSA to 
     request a loan of approximately $80,000 so I could at least 
     keep the farm from being foreclosed. . . . He told me very 
     hatefully that they refused to approve either my loan or the 
     loan of the Sandoval brothers.

  He continues:

       I am convinced [FSA] refused to approve the Sandoval's loan 
     because both the buyer and the seller of the farmland to be 
     purchased were Hispanic American farmers.

  Reading through the many letters I have received from Hispanic 
farmers in Colorado and the meetings I have had all across my State and 
the letters from people all over the country, a pattern emerges--one of 
thinly veiled discrimination that starts by discouraging Hispanic 
farmers from applying for FSA loans in the first place. All too 
frequently, this discrimination resulted in the loss of a farm and the 
loss of a way of life.
  I have had farmer after farmer say they had to get out of the 
business of farming, that they could not leave their farms to their 
children, which is the only dream they have in their life, because of 
the discrimination they suffered at the hands of our Federal 
Government.
  President Obama's new Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, has 
repeatedly, much to his credit, emphasized his commitment to addressing 
the longstanding civil rights problems that have plagued the Department 
and to charting a new era. I commend the Secretary's commitment and the 
dedication the Obama administration has made to chart a new future for 
the USDA.
  Yet that does not fix the wrongs of yesterday. Congress has taken 
some positive steps, and the administration has created a process for 
resolving the claims of some minority farmers, even dedicating 
significant funds toward this end. But a path to justice has not yet 
been charted for Hispanic farmers.
  The best way America can send a message that our government will not 
discourage minorities from participating in public programs, will not 
discriminate against them, is proactively to pursue justice.
  It is time the administration and Congress come together and do more 
than just acknowledge past wrong doing at the USDA. It is time to 
address that wrongdoing.
  I will say that my predecessor in this job, Ken Salazar, our great 
Senator from Colorado, now our Interior Secretary, comes from a part of 
my State called the San Luis Valley. Ken Salazar's family settled that 
land long before Colorado was even a State. If you drive down there and 
visit San Luis, what you will see is an irrigation ditch that was dug 
before our State was even a State. Among the names of the people, the 
names of the farmers and the ranchers who were entitled to take water 
from that ditch because

[[Page S11475]]

they had been there, and had been there to dig that ditch, is the name 
Salazar, the proud name Salazar. It is wrong, after generations of 
people have committed their lives and their families to agriculture in 
places such as Colorado and all across the country, that we have 
discriminated against them for decades and, when that discrimination is 
discovered because of some legal technicality or because they got the 
wrong judge, they find themselves unable to redress that 
discrimination.
  I am very pleased to have the chance to be here today with Senator 
Menendez and other colleagues to call this to the attention of the 
administration and to say that we need to do more than just acknowledge 
this problem. It is time for us to help address the problem.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, today I join my colleagues in 
bringing this body's attention to an issue of fundamental fairness that 
continues to remain unaddressed.
  More than 10 years ago, Hispanic farmers from my home State of 
Colorado joined other Hispanic farmers throughout the country to stand 
up against injustice. They chose to confront--rather than accept--
discrimination when they filed their case against the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture on grounds that the Farm Service Agency denied loans and 
disaster benefits in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and 
the Administrative Procedure Act.
  Earlier this month, I met some of these farmers in Colorado's San 
Luis Valley. Many of these men and women proudly trace their heritage 
to some of the first settlers of Colorado who were the first to till 
the soil of the San Luis Valley and establish Colorado's earliest 
farming communities, spurring the development of southern Colorado.
  Now, I understand that every farmer takes on enormous risk to keep 
our country fed and prosperous. Yet when these farmers applied for 
Federal assistance intended to make them whole again--assistance 
intended to help family farmers stay in business--the record suggests 
that this aid was denied or delayed, not because their request lacked 
merit but because of their Hispanic heritage.
  I found that shocking. It wasn't any weather event that led these men 
and women to financial hardship or the loss of their family farm. The 
obstacles they faced when applying for a loan or disaster assistance 
were far worse than any drought, flood, hail or windstorm they had ever 
confronted. It was discrimination based on their heritage that kept 
them from receiving timely support from an agency whose mission is to 
support all of America's farmers equally.
  Evidence of discriminatory practices in the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture is an unfortunate and shameful part of our history. On 
several occasions, I have joined my colleagues in the Senate and in the 
House to express our desire to bring this disgraceful chapter to a 
close. During the most recent debate on America's 2008 farm bill, we 
affirmed that it is the sense of Congress that all pending claims and 
class actions brought against the Department of Agriculture by socially 
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers be resolved in an expeditious and 
just manner.
  I would like to acknowledge that Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack 
has been courageous in this matter, and I am pleased that the 
administration views this as a priority. I am also pleased that the 
Secretary has expressed his intent to ensure that no other farmers 
experience the same discrimination and that he will take definitive 
action to improve USDA's record on civil rights. I remain ready and 
willing to work with the administration and my colleagues to support 
this policy.
  I want to emphasize that this is an issue of fundamental fairness. 
The sooner we can resolve this, the sooner we can look forward to a 
USDA that serves all Americans equally. It is my hope that these cases 
be resolved expeditiously and fairly so that the farmers and their 
families who have suffered the real effects of discrimination can 
finally put this matter to rest.

                          ____________________