[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12472-12477]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 12473]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 12474]]

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 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. 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,

[[Page 12475]]

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 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.

[[Page 12476]]

     
                                  ____
   [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 
     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. 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

[[Page 12477]]

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.

                          ____________________