Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I continue with discussion on this legislation by way of amendment. Mr. Chairman, I proudly stand before this House as an advocate for Africa, but I proudly stand before this House as an advocate for my district and for my people. I do not take a back seat to anybody when it comes to taking this floor or taking my place in committee to talk about the needs of people in this country or people in other places in the world. As a matter of fact, not only do I ask for money for Africa, I ask for money for south central Los Angeles, I ask for money for Harlem, I ask for money for Philadelphia, I ask for money for St. Louis, I ask for money for communities in this Nation and sections of this world where I think resources should be directed. I do it without taking a back seat to anybody. Do not forget, those of us who do this are oftentimes referred to as those who wish to tax and spend, as we would say. And so anybody who has any mistakes about what my priorities are, let me set them straight right now. I ask for money for Africa and I ask for money for Los Angeles and I ask for money for other communities that I think are in need. Having said that, let me also talk about what I have gone to the Committee on Appropriations for. There seems to be some belated debate about drugs. In the Congressional Black Caucus agenda that is published, the number one priority is the eradication of drugs in this society. I, as Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, have gone to every appropriate Appropriations subcommittee to support an increase in the Drug Czar's budget to make sure we have money for prevention and education and outreach and all of those things. There is this funny little game that is going on now where some of the people on the other side of the aisle would like to pretend that somehow they are more for the eradication of drugs in our society than people on this side of the aisle, and some attempts to undermine the Drug Czar. That little game will not work. Everybody knows that those on the other side of the aisle, who have been with the Just Say No policy for years, have done nothing, have accomplished nothing and have done nothing for the children of this society, nor have they been about the business of prevention and education. Having said that, with this bill and with this amendment, in an effort to try and make it a better bill, given all that I have said and my concerns about the fact that there are requirements in this legislation that you will see in no other trade agreement, and I have looked at them all, including the Caribbean Basin Initiative; and you have gone overboard in trying to dictate what the trade relationship will be with Africa in ways that it has not been done before, but I recognize many of you who have worked on the bill really do believe that you are doing the right thing when you try to dictate land reform policies, and when you try to dictate how much money will be spent by government on its own needs, when you try to dictate that there will be no exclusion of any industries to invest in. I understand that. But the amendment that I have brought before you today that would allow some flexibility in the review when these countries are being looked at was a simple amendment that simply codified what you said your intent was. This amendment that I have before you at this moment goes beyond simply allowing major corporations to swoop into Africa with all of its money and do the kind of investments that others will not have an opportunity to compete with. This amendment that I have before you will continue the debate, will force more conversation about what are the best ways by which to have trade agreements. In addition to that, it will encourage cooperation for joint ventures between large businesses and small businesses. We hear a lot in this Congress all the time about how much we care about small business. You ask any person on the other side of the aisle on any given day of the week, and you will hear them talk about being advocates for small business, we want to reduce the taxes, do not want to support an increase in the minimum wage, would like to do something with one-stop shopping to make it possible for small businesses to get their licenses and other kinds of things without having to go through bureaucracies, want to do more in having subsidies and loans available to small businesses. Let me tell you how you can help small businesses with this legislation. You can encourage in the conferences that are dictated, the meetings, the advisory boards, all of those things where you identify encouraging in this bill, you can encourage joint ventures between large businesses, corporations, and small businesses. That is essentially what this is all about. In the final analysis, these amendments are not tough amendments. They are not complicated amendments. They are not amendments that would undo the bill. These amendments for the most part are clarifying amendments. These amendments for the most part are good-faith amendments. These amendments for the most part are amendments that will show that those of you who have little experience in Africa are willing to at least listen to some of the information and advice that is coming from NGOs and those who have worked in Africa for many, many years. I would commend to you not only this amendment. Even though the other amendment that I advanced was just voted down and one is waiting for a vote when the votes will be taken up, and even if this work does not get done while this bill is going through the House, there will be attempts, if this bill passes, to continue to work to make it a better bill. There will be attempts to continue to work on the Senate side to make this a better bill. And then there are other opportunities where attempts will be made. Those opportunities lie with trying to influence the President of the United States when these kinds of agreements are forged. I say to you, in ways that you perhaps do not understand when you talk about Africa, Africa is not simply another place in the world for many of us. Whether you know it or not, it is from whence we come. It is the land of my ancestors. It is a place that is as dear to me as Ireland is to the Irish, as Israel is to the Jewish community, as other places in the country are to those whose families, whose histories emanate from those countries. And so I do not speak about this simply in an intellectual way and not simply in a policy way in the tradition that you understand. Yes, this is an emotional issue with me, and even though we have members of the Congressional Black Caucus who will stand here in the finest tradition and try to promote and be advocates on behalf of Africa in ways that make you all comfortable, I really do not care if you get uncomfortable with my advocacy for Africa. It is a place that I hold dear. It is part of my legislative agenda. It is a place that I care about in ways that perhaps you will never understand. I do not think that you understand that what I do for Africa, what I advocate for Africa comes from deep within my heart. It is not a political game. It is not about trying to send the message that perhaps ``I'm okay, you're okay.'' This is serious business about saving a continent. This is serious business about being concerned about the resources of Africa and what happens to them. This is serious business about not having the United States or any other country do what we have done in too many places in Africa. This is about never ever having another Mobuto; this is about never ever having another Savimbi; this is about never ever seeing another catastrophe in Rwanda like we saw. This is about trying to get ahold of a direction for this country as it relates to Africa. This is about trying to be fair in the dissemination of resources. This is about respect. It is about saying to those heads of Africa, you have a voice, and while we want to help you, we are not going to run roughshod over you. This is not about trying to open up opportunities to go in and drill oil without compensating. This is not about trying to take out the diamonds and the gold without compensating. This is about creating that debate at this moment, this time in history, that will give a direction to Africa that will never have us go back again, but move forward with good will and with a conscience and get rid of the kind of policies we have had in the past on this continent.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on this amendment?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS. One of the criticisms of the NGOs about this bill is precisely what we are trying to cure. This amendment in no way allows anybody to pick and choose anything. As a matter of fact, the flexibility that is codified in this kind of amendment speaks to the responsibility of the President in negotiating the agreement, not to countries to pick and choose. And this bill in no way allows that to happen. The intent that the gentleman described is the intent that I have captured in language to satisfy the criticisms and the objections of some who do not wish to vote for this bill because they do not understand that implicit in the bill is that kind of flexibility. I would suggest to the gentleman that we are basically saying the same thing, and that if we are interested in not only helping to communicate this to those who have some concerns but ensuring that we do not have the kind of legislation that would be misread or be misimplemented in ways that will take all of the requirements and strictly review them and strictly hold them to a certain kind of standard, then I think there is no need to oppose this simple amendment. As a matter of fact, I really do believe that the gentleman would gain friends and votes by simply codifying the intent that the gentleman described.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to present several amendments. This is one of three amendments. I rise today to present these amendments in an attempt to answer some of the concerns that have been raised about this bill. I take this opportunity to say that I am deeply respectful of all who have spoken on the bill. I am deeply respectful of the proponents and the opponents of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. It is incumbent upon those of us who have identified concerns with this bill to not only try to make it a better bill, but to acknowledge that none of us are right on this bill. Some of us have advanced this bill as the best thing that could ever happen for Africa. While I wish that was true, it is not necessarily true. And for others, who have condemned this as the worst thing that could have ever happened, that is not true either. What we have, I think, is an attempt by those of us who care about Africa to try to advance something that will lead us to a trade agreement. I think all of the Members of this House who are involved in this legislation would like to get to the point where we can do a good trade bill. We differ on what the guiding policy should be to get to that point. Some Members think that everything in this bill is good and should be embraced. I am one who believes that there are some things in the bill that are unnecessary, that may be harmful and need to be dealt with. I take this opportunity to try to deal with some of this in amendments. My first amendment is a very simple amendment that says, no country would be forced to have to comply with all of the requirements of this bill. This underscores the flexibility of the President to take a look at countries and make some determination about whether or not they are in compliance with some things, whether or not they are working toward compliance, whether or not they are making progress, whether or not they are, in fact, acting in good faith despite the fact they do not meet all of the strict requirements. When I talked with the proponents of this bill, they said to me, that was the intent of the bill. I said to them, that was not clear. As I looked at the laundry list, I became concerned. I pointed out some of my concerns. For example, if we take a look at page 40 of the legislation, line 20, item 5, it says, appropriate fiscal systems such as reducing high import and corporate taxes, controlling government consumption, participation in bilateral investment treaties and the harmonization of such treaties to avoid double taxation. I would have struck that from the bill if I had had my way. I attempted to do that. That amendment was not accepted. However, this amendment would at least give the President the opportunity to evaluate whether or not a country is moving in that direction, whether or not they should move in that direction in a strict way or whether or not there is some flexibility, as we look as things such as controlling government consumption. What does that mean? For some Members, they would spend less money on education and health. For some Members, that would mean we would spend less money on the infrastructure. For some Members, that would mean something quite different than what I would be concerned about. I think that we need some flexibility to review these kinds of things, and for the President, who will be making some determination about these things, to determine exactly what is meant in this policy direction and to have the ability not to force anyone to have to be in strict compliance with every aspect of this bill as it tries to give us some direction for public policy. I do not think there should be any opposition to that. That, I am told, is the intent anyway. I said to those who told me that that was the intent that then they should have no problems with me just restating it in ways that are understood. I have talked with many of those who represent nongovernment organizations. I have talked with some of the proponents of the bill. I have talked with Members on the opposite side of the aisle; to date and since this amendment was placed in order in the Committee on Rules, I have not heard any objections. Certainly, I would ask that my colleagues would support me, given this kind of flexibility and documenting it as it was intended when the bill was constructed. Again, let me bring to the attention of the Members that this is not a bill that is perfect. As a matter of fact, there are many things that I would strike in the bill if I had an opportunity to. I think that if we have enough flexibility to at least act in good faith by supporting this kind of amendment, it may go a long way to getting Members who have some trouble with the bill to support this legislation. In the final analysis, I think what we all want is, we want to develop guiding policies. We want to give the direction. We want to make the flame work by which to have a treaty, by which to have an agreement, by which to work out with Africa ways by which we can do trade that respects Africa and respects the guiding principles of this country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important and enlightening debate, and this is precisely what I wanted to happen. I wanted to hear arguments against a kind of real commitment to ongoing funding for Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Of course, it is easy to talk about other countries who may be indicating that somehow they are sensitive to the problems of our country and they would like to do something to be helpful. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the stepchild of appropriations from this country in relationship to their needs and their numbers. While I appreciate what the gentleman did last year, and I hope the gentleman will do even better this year. I want this debate to go forward. I want the debate to go forward because the NGOs who have been pointing to the problems of this bill, pointing to the problems that we have, as we try to be good advocates for Africa, I wanted them to know that there is some of us who are committed to this fight and committed to this struggle, even in light of tough opposition and the kind of arguments that have been raised by the chairman. I will not yield because this is the only time that I am going to get to tell the Members publicly what I think about the way that Africa has been treated. Those of us who have spent years, not only trying to dismantle, get rid of apartheid in South Africa, but those of us who have tried to give support to places like Angola, where people on the other side of the aisle were supporting Savimbi, and a country whose resources have been drained because we were on the wrong side of history, just as we were on the wrong side of history with Mobuto, countries that have been in desperate need of our help, yes, I want to send a signal that we are going to give ongoing support for them. So, yes, I created this debate about it. I am glad that the chairman rose to the challenge. I am glad that the chairman described it in some of the ways that he did. I think the chairman is interested in giving ongoing support to Africa. I am going to be asking him again, as many of us will be asking him again, to do even better, to meet the President's mark with an increase for Africa. Yes, I know this sets out and identifies an amount for a period of time because it puts the light on the need. It sheds the light on a section of this world that we have not really paid attention to. We can travel on all the CODELs we want to, and we can go over and speak to all the heads of government, and tell them how much we love them. But if you do not bring the resources, and you do not bring the money, and you do not treat them the way you treat other countries, your words are shallow, and they mean nothing. So, yes, I dare to come to this floor and challenge my colleagues to make a strong commitment to Africa, put it in the legislation, where we dare put do you not have too much government consumption, where you tell them to privatize, where you tell them what they will do with their land reforms. If you are bold enough to dictate to sub-Saharan Africa, how they should control their country and take away from them the right to guarantee the things that protect and secure their countries by not allowing investment in some sectors, then I have the audacity to tell you to come and put the money in the bill and guarantee it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I believe all that has been said is all that can be said. This is not a complicated amendment. What we do is simply codify the intent of the bill to allow for flexibility; to say that no country would have to be in absolute strict compliance with every item that is required in the bill; that there could be some recognition of countries that are making every effort, of countries that are working in ways that are acceptable in forging a trade agreement with that country. So I would ask that my colleagues support the idea that this bill that we have before us today is the framework, it is the guidepost, it is the direction leading toward an agreement with Africa on trade. We want to be as fair as we can possibly be. We do not want to be overly harsh. We do not want to be overly punitive. We do not want to do anything that will interfere with their ability to really get involved with trade in ways that will benefit them and their people. I think that we do not know everything and we are not always as wise as we would like to be. We come up with the best ideas that we can when we try and forge these agreements. And recognizing that, let us allow for this flexibility so we do not make the kinds of mistakes that are not easily corrected.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment achieves an important goal of supporters of development assistance for Africa. This amendment sets a floor for appropriations of not less than the funding year levels for the crucial monies that have historically made up the Development Fund for Africa. The amount appropriated for these purposes for funding year 1998 is $700 million. This amendment achieves this goal by amending section 497 of the Foreign Assistance Act to specify that the amounts to carry this chapter for each fiscal year from 1999 to 2007 shall be at least the amount funded for fiscal year 1998. As I attempted to describe in the last amendment, we have criticisms that have come from many nongovernmental organizations who have spent years working on the question of Africa. I recognize that some of the work that is being done today by opponents and proponents of this bill is work that is new to them, and that they do not bring with them the same kind of historical background and perspective on Africa as some of the nongovernmental organizations who have spent years working on these kinds of questions. And so when I advance this amendment, I advance it because of concerns about what are we doing. Are we simply trying to undermine the support that we give to Africa with trade that will take some time to realize? Are we committed to the proposition that they deserve to have assistance and that that assistance should not in any way be eliminated or diminished or reduced; that we should be going forward, not only from the base that was established last year, but we should increase it? As a matter of fact, the President has an increase in his budget for it. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, that is the trouble with this kind of mandatory minimum sentencing making. If, for example, the gentleman was in possession of a small amount of drugs, crack cocaine, had a gun, and while he was out there said to his friend, oh, I will sell you half of it, two 19-year-olds, that is the furtherance of a crime. They have got the drug trafficking.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Is that IRS?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), I have learned so much about this issue. Members have put so much work into this, those the Members representing agricultural districts, and the entire Black Caucus is engaged in trying to get justice for farmers. One of the things we all know is that we have lost black farmers in America who would have been perfectly happy to farm their land, raise their families, purchase their homes. They have lost the ability to do that because they had no support. As a matter of fact, in many cases they were undermined. The Members have taught me about the systems that have worked in these communities and the boards that are set up, and how on those boards you have people who have supported each other in not only getting the loans and the subsidies, but they have indeed sat there making decisions that worked against farmers, and then they were part of foreclosing on the farms, and they ended up in the hands of some of the very people who had in fact made decisions against their ability to get some assistance from their government. It is outrageous, it cannot be tolerated. Before I yield back my time, I would like to submit for the Record a letter that we did as a Congressional Black Caucus, dated January 13th, 1998, that took issue with the way they were handling Mr. Ross before he finally got a settlement. I would like to submit a letter of February 20 that confronts the Justice Department about the way they have dealt with the statute of limitations issue, and I would like to submit for the Record the report that identifies the systematic discrimination of farmers who have been trying to get some assistance from their government. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the following correspondence: Gary R. Grant, Tillery, NC, February 17, 1998. Re: Discrimination Complaints: Matthew Grant, Richard D. Grant, Gary R. Grant. Secretary Dan Glickman, US Department of Agriculture Washington, DC Dear Mr. Glickman: At the invitation of the USDA, my family and I made the long trip to Washington, DC for a meeting scheduled with Mr. Lloyd Wright, Monday, February 9. We agreed to come for what we were led to believe would be the final settlement of the negotiations process over the discrimination complaints filed by my father Matthew Grant, my brother Richard D. Grant and by me. We took our children out of school so that they would have a first hand experience of how our government works. Matthew Grant has filed complaints against USDA for over 20 years. Because of the severe stress and anxiety he has endured and the impossible odds set against him by the officials at USDA, he is now suffering from congestive heart failure. My father is a man who has never consumed alcoholic beverages, never smoked, and has led a life unencumbered by unhealthy habits and practices. My brothers and sisters and I painfully watch as this strong indefatigable man deteriorates. We lament the stress and worry he continues to endure because of USDA. As we made plans to travel to Washington, and to bring our father, he lastly committed, ``I just can't make it. I honestly don't think I can survive another face to face experience with these people.'' (Meaning the USDA and DOJ) After being delayed in Washington for three (3) days of non-negotiations, we finally bulldozed our way to speak to you on Wednesday, February 11. We were directed by you to go immediately to Acting Secretary Pearlie Reed's office. There we met with Mr. Wright, Mr. Reed, Judge Ramsey and the new attorney from DOJ, Mr. Charles Rauls, Acting General Counsel. After another day of waiting for negotiations to begin, nothing substantive transpired at this meeting. At this point, we decided to go home because we had already made too many sacrifices to be there nor could we afford the continued personal expenses of these unproductive meetings and delays. We needed to come home to see about our father and mother, to get back to our jobs and to get our children back to school. We left the meeting with the understanding that we would go home and USDA would contact us within 24 hours to bring resolution to our complaints. To date we have had no response from Mr. Wright, Mr. Reed, nor Mr. Rauls. We are not going away. We will fight for our rights and for justice to the death. Our children got the history lesson that no classroom could provide. They learned first hand how racist, unfair, prejudicial and tyrannical the USDA continues to treat our family. We await your immediate response. For justice and equality, Gary R. Grant. Congressional Black Caucus, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, January 13, 1998. Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General: Once again I must take time out from my busy schedule to ask that the Department of Justice (DOJ) stop denying justice to black farmers. As you are aware, black farmers have endured generations of well-documented and continuing discrimination at the hands of this government. This discrimination has caused black farmers to lose their land, their livelihood, and their homes. Secretary Dan Glickman of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other top level government officials have pledged to remedy this discrimination and to immediately resolve the backlog of over 700 claims which have been languishing at the USDA without any action. However, now that the USDA is finally attempting to resolve some of these cases, the DOJ has constructed roadblock after roadblock to scuttle the settlement agreements made by senior USDA officials. The latest roadblock comes in Mr. Eddie Ross' case. The USDA settled his case by a Resolution Agreement on November 19, 1997, with full agreement by the Secretary, the USDA Office of Civil Rights, and the Office of General Counsel. The Farmer Service Agency was instructed to issue Mr. Ross' check under the terms of the settlement agreement. Yet, the day before Mr. Ross was to receive this check, the Civil Division of the DOJ inexplicably halted the distribution of his check and refused to honor the terms of this executed settlement agreement. Not only are the DOJ's actions in Mr. Ross' case contrary to United States District Court Judge Paul Friedman's Order of December 24, 1997, they also raise serious questions about the DOJ's willingness to remedy the long-standing pattern and practice of insidious discrimination by this government. On December 24, 1997, Judge Friedman specifically stated that Mr. Ross is ``not precluded'' from ``completing the administrative settlement of his case with the Department of Agriculture.'' I have attached a copy of this order. It is outrageous that the DOJ wound put Mr. Ross through the USDA's administrative settlement process allowed by the Court, raise his hopes that a resolution had finally been reached, and then at the eleventh hour, dash those hopes in such a cowardly and heartless manner. I do not know why the DOJ chose to ignore a Court Order in this instance and insist that the USDA renege on its legal obligations to Mr. Ross. The DOJ legal tactics are dilatory and mean-spirited. They only serve to reinforce black farmers' belief that this government is not interested in remedying its admitted discrimination. Indeed, my office has received several other complaints about the DOJ heaping more injury and harm on the black farmers by engaging in questionable legal tactics that deny them the justice they deserve. Yes, the DOJ must do its job. However, there is a fine line between the DOJ doing its job and it acting in bad faith by engaging in questionable legal tactics that deny justice to those whom this government has admitted harming. This government should be embarrassed and ashamed at how it has treated black farmers. I demand an immediate release of Mr. Eddie Ross' check and that the DOJ start negotiating in good faith to resolve each and every black farmer claim. Sincerely, Maxine Waters, Chair, Congressional Black Caucus. Congressional Black Caucus, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, February 20, 1998. Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno: This letter is a follow-up to our conversation last week concerning the United States Department of Justice's (DOJ) position regarding the black farmers' discrimination claims. Despite the fact that many black farmers timely filed civil rights claims with the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Civil Rights, the DOJ now asserts that many of these claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The DOJ's position ignores decades of documented class discrimination. As you are aware, the USDA dismantled its Civil Rights Division in 1983 without notice to black farmers, Members of Congress, or anyone else. Subsequently, the black farmers did not know, and could not have known, that the USDA decided to ignore and let languish their timely filed claims. As we understand it, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued a legal/policy memorandum (the ``OLC Memo'') that essentially concludes that many black farmers' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The OLC Memo apparently states that timely filed administrative claims cannot go forward in the administrative process simply because such claims arguably would be barred by the statute of limitations if filed in a court action. It also apparently states that equitable doctrines which could be asserted to overcome the statute of limitations defense rarely are applied against the United States. Although the OLC Memo provides the sole basis for the policy used to deny many black farmers' claims, the DOJ continues to deny the Congressional Black Caucus' (CBC) request for a copy of this memo. We can only speculate about whether the DOJ's unwillingness to provide us with a copy is because the conclusions contained in the OLC Memo cannot withstand public scrutiny. While timely filed administrative claims subsequently filed in court may raise statute of limitation defenses, it is absurd to stretch that defense to also mean that timely filed administrative claims are also barred in the administrative process simply because such claims may be barred by the statute of limitations if filed in a court action. Indeed, many of these black farmers have not filed court actions. In essence, the DOJ's conclusions mean that, because the federal government sat on timely filed complaints for years, black farmers are now prohibited by the statute of limitations from receiving any money to compensate them for their injuries. This is indefensible. Black farmers also relied on Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman's promise to resolve these complaints. Neither the black farmers nor the Members of the CBC understood Secretary Glickman's commitment to ``resolve quickly'' the black farmers' complaints to mean that the DOJ would hide behind unsupportable and far-fetched theories to unilaterally dismiss hundreds of timely filed administrative actions. Again, we insist that you intervene and correct this travesty of justice. Sincerely, Maxine Waters, Chair, Congressional Black Caucus. Before I yield back my time, I would ask the Members' indulgence before we complete this hour to read this letter that will be entered into the Record. America needs to hear the letter of this farmer and how he and his family were treated when they came to Washington, D.C. one more time to try to address their government. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. WATERS. Misled. They were absolutely misled. Correct me if I am wrong, for the lawyers who are here, I am told by some attorneys that I have talked to that if, in fact, the Justice Department is telling us, despite the fact that farmers were misled, if they are saying to us they cannot in any way deal with this issue of the statute of limitations and put it aside in the interests of justice and fairness and equality, then they are not doing their job. This is our Justice Department, where we are supposed to go and get justice. I am not happy with the way the Justice Department has sidestepped this issue. I would say to you, if there is a way to get into court, and maybe there is a way by way of the class action maybe that has been filed or something, that this government ought to be sued. Now, I know there are those in the administration that are saying, well, we will try and come to Congress and fashion legislation by which we can get a waiver. And while I am not going to turn down any way by which we can get justice for these farmers, I suggest to you that if we give up on the struggle for righting this wrong based on this argument, that what we are doing is allowing them for other cases and other instances to use the same kind of argument to deny justice. I am not sure we should do that.

Ms. WATERS. We have just been joined by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who has been working on this issue for a long time. We were just describing this unbelievable situation where the farmers had filed the complaint, there was no Civil Rights Division, the complaints went into a cardboard box. Now they are being told by the Justice Department, sorry, they were not filed in a timely manner, and the statute of limitations has run, and we cannot resolve your complaint. So I know that you have been involved in discussions with both the Department of Agriculture and the administration about this, and we have some examples of people who are now not able to get them resolved unless we do something extraordinary, such as get waivers by way of legislation perhaps. Could the gentlewoman share with us your experiences in working with all of this?

Ms. WATERS. They were misled. That is right.

Ms. WATERS. I think that is what the Nation needs to understand. Ronald Reagan dismantled the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Agriculture. So when an innocent farmer who had been discriminated against was aggrieved, went to that department, followed the rules and filed the complaint, they had no reason to believe that these complaints would not be investigated. But the fact of the matter is, they went in a cardboard box, and they sat there for years, and nothing was done.

Ms. WATERS. You are absolutely right. I want you to, if you would spend a moment further explaining to us, Mr. Thompson, what Congressman Hilliard just started to talk about. America needs to understand the details of this.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Thompson, I know the letter that you speak of. I, too, have a copy, and I think it is wise to enter that into the record, and maybe if we have time this evening, we can read it right into the record. It is so absolutely typical of what has been happening, and it spells out, in no uncertain terms, the trauma and the harm that has been fostered on many of our farmers who have attempted to get some justice at the United States Department of Agriculture. Mr. Thompson, we also have here Mr. Hilliard from Alabama, and I would like to ask Mr. Hilliard if he would join us in this colloquy where we are describing what has happened to the black farmer and what we have been trying to do. Mr. Hilliard, as you know, those of you who represent agricultural areas have been working so hard with your constituents, you have been working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, you have been working with the Justice Department, you have been working with the President of the United States of America. You asked the Black Caucus to take this up as an issue; we did. We had hearings. Those hearings went out over America. All of us agreed. We got more calls about the hearings where farmers came forth and talked about what had happened to them than perhaps on any other issue that we are dealing with. I am from an urban area. I do not have agricultural interests in my district. But my urban constituents called me about this issue because many of them left the South, they left Alabama and Mississippi and other places after they determined they could no longer farm, that they could not be heard. So would you please join us, Mr. Hilliard, in helping the Nation to understand what has taken place with the black farmer in America.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Thompson, are you referring to what is known as the crack report labeled Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture, where there is documented discrimination of the documented filing of claims that went unaddressed where the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, and everybody else agreed that the Civil Rights Department had literally been dismantled and that the complaints had not been worked on; all of that in this report. Is this the report that you are referring to?