Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - February 07, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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, 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/