Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Thompson, as I understand it, many of these farmers who have lost their land, lost their homes, who have been trying to file complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture thought that this year that there was a break, that there was finally an opportunity to get some justice to have their complaints heard. They had great hope that this planting season, despite the fact that many of them have for years been denied access to the Department and their ability to resolve their complaints, would finally have the chance to do some planting and get on with the business of farming. Is that correct?

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House a problem and a situation that has lingered for far too long. I rise this evening to talk about the plight of black farmers and others in our Nation who have not been able to receive fair treatment at the United States Department of Agriculture. What I am about to describe is one of the most unfortunate situations I have encountered since I have been a Member of this House. I have been working on this problem with other Members who represent agricultural districts, and I thought at one point we would be able to deal with bringing about some fairness and justice to black farmers and others who have been denied the ability to have their concerns addressed at USDA. In order to make this presentation, I would like to ask my colleague from Mississippi if he would join me in a colloquy regarding the inability for black farmers and others to have their problems dealt with. Mr. Thompson, I understand that it is planting season, we are nearing planting season, in many of our States where agriculture is a leading part of the economy. Is that correct?

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Ms. WATERS. That is right, sir.

Ms. WATERS. Said, uh-oh, the statute of limitations.

Ms. WATERS. The memorandum discussed a way by which they could deny the check that had already been cut, and they did it within 24 hours. See, the reason the gentleman got his 1099 from the IRS was because the check was cut, and the form went over to notify Internal Revenue that he had been paid. So when you send that notification, then IRS takes, of course, a look at the additional dollars or compensation or whatever you have so that they can tax you. That is why he got the notice from IRS because they assumed, given they had been given the notice, that he had the money.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I submit that the Justice Department has said no matter what we move to do in USDA, they have got the final word. We can go through the administrative process all we want and resolve these cases, but they are going to look at each one of them and they are going to determine whether or not they will let it go through and will let these payments be made. I really do believe that the Secretary is doing the best that he can do and he is acting in good faith. I do not think that Secretary Glickman ever anticipated that some lawyer sitting over in DOJ would have the audacity to stop these payments. Because as we all understood, and the Secretary thought, when all is said and done, once the Secretary signs off: Done. None of us anticipated that DOJ would interfere in the way that they are doing. And so we have now 864 cases still to be resolved. All of the work that you have been doing for the time that you have been in Congress, only 224 have been resolved. It is planting season and we have farmers that are bare. In this 864 have been waiting 10, 15, 20 years. We have people who have died waiting. We have people who have had heart attacks who have died brokenhearted waiting for their government to look at these cases to investigate them, to give them just a modicum of justice. And so let me just say to all of my colleagues, despite this difficulty, I cannot use a better example than Winnie Mandela when they had to confront the past laws of an apartheid system. She said, ``Now that you have touched the women, you have struck a rock.'' Well, now that they have engaged the Congressional Black Caucus, they have struck a rock. This is our ``40 acres and a mule.'' We are not going anywhere. Eight hundred sixty-four cases to be resolved. We are committed to resolving each one of them by any means necessary. We will try to resolve them administratively. We will attempt to do whatever we can do to pass legislation. But we will not go away. Madam Speaker, I say to all of those farmers who are out there whose voices have gone unheard, all of the farmers that my colleagues have been working so hard for, that they have been knocking on the doors of USDA and Department of Justice and Congress, they need to know this evening that we are joined as a strong team with good Members of this Congress who want to help us. Members who I understand may come from both sides of the aisle. Members who have watched as we have been engaged in this struggle who have said how can I help? They may get a chance to vote on some legislation to waive the decision about the statute of limitation. But we are determined that whatever it takes, we are going to win justice for these farmers. Not only will the farmers be proud, but all of their relatives who went up North because they could not farm; all of them who live up in my district and live in New York and who live in St. Louis and other places who could not continue their farming and who are fighting for their relatives down South. We stand here today committed to the proposition: We are not going anywhere. We are going to work these cases one by one, two by two, three by three, four by four. We are going to get justice for all of these 864 cases. Am I correct?

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman is certainly welcome. And I would like to thank her for the education that she has provided for all of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Those who have struggled with this issue have taught us not only the importance of the black farmer, but really have opened our eyes to the discrimination that they have been confronted with, and the harm and the detriment, the loss of property that they have experienced. We know this issue now. We understand it very deeply and we are very much committed to justice and fairness. And I want to thank them for all the work that they have been doing on behalf of the farmers and the way that they have moved this issue forward. I have been here in the government long enough to understand and witness, just before I came, the bailout of the banks. I am now here when I am watching us be involved in an issue where we are being asked for $18 billion for the International Monetary Fund where, again, we are going to bail out banks. We bailed out savings and loans, we are going to bail out banks who made loans in countries where the money was at risk. Countries where there are dictators, countries where the economy is not stable. Countries that are on the verge of civil war. We have watched our government bail out and come to the aid of those who oftentimes have not been deserving. Banks have not been discriminated against; they have been embraced. S&Ls were not discriminated against. They were embraced. And here we have the little people, the little people who are trying to eke out a living, good hard-working, God-fearing people who came before our committee and cried real tears. People who pray to their God every night, who rise up early in the morning and go to work, who send their children to school, who played by the rules who have been harmed. People who are just asking for a little justice. I know we have spent a lot of hours on this issue. I know how much time my colleagues have spent. But I know that in the final analysis we are going to win on this issue. And I do believe that even those Members who may have not paid attention who come from a different philosophical point of view on most issues, will understand the harm and injustice of this issue. I am confident, as a matter of fact, that when we pursue the legislative remedy, that we are going to be able to prevail on this floor because in the final analysis, most people understand simple and basic fairness. And most people want the little people to receive justice from their government. So I say to all of my colleagues, our work continues. But in many ways we have just begun. No matter how many hours we have put into it until the race is run, it has not been done. And as we stand here today, we can be proud, the Congressional Caucus can stand proud because we are representing the black farmers of America from every nook and cranny throughout the South, throughout the Midwest, wherever they are, we stand tall in representing them and we are going to fight for justice. We will not stop until this ill is cured.

Ms. WATERS. If the gentleman will yield back to me. After it was decided that the money was owed, the check was cut.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Members very much.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) if he would like to have our closing statement.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, sir.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, sir.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, sir.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) did not respond to the question. What he did was to confirm that this is triggered not simply by violent crime, but so-called drug trafficking. He did not respond to the scenario that I built for him where a small possession of drugs may trigger a mandatory minimum sentence already. On top of having this hunting gun in one's possession and to exacerbate it, to even make it worse, or even to try and answer what he said, I said, and he may say to a friend who is hunting with him, I will give him half for $5. Now, what he is saying to us is this: Mothers and fathers should go out and hire the best lawyer that can be hired and spend all of the money that they have got to prove, in fact, that this gun was not used in the commission of a crime. I do not want to heap that on anybody's head. I do not like drugs; I do not like guns. If I had my druthers, I would have complete gun control. I would take guns out of the hands of everybody. I do not like drugs. We fight very hard against them. So I do not want anybody to think I am covering anybody. What I dislike is mandatory minimum sentencing. I want the judges that we appoint to the bench to be able to look at each of these situations and decide. In some cases they have got to be very tough; in other cases, they know the difference, when we just have a stupid kid who has fallen into an ill-conceived law like this one and will not allow them to have their lives thrown away simply because they are stupid. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague that he has just set up a scenario where he tells me that if, in fact, they fall in these gray areas, let them go and prove, or let somebody prove, that they, in fact, did not come into having this law take effect for them.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I just outlined a possibility, a scenario that was not responded to. It was not responded to because I do not think that any reasonable legislator, public policymaker would intend to do this. I am as tough on crime as anybody. I am in the forefront of trying to do something about crime. I happen to be honest enough to admit that our children oftentimes are getting involved with drugs and we are not doing enough to prevent it, to rehabilitate them, to discourage them and create the kind of society where we can essentially be drug-free. I think we make a mistake by putting these small drug dealers in prison or by having simple possession, causes them to go to prison. I think this bill, despite the fact of what has been represented, would take the kind of situation where a young man out with a hunting rifle and a small amount of drugs could end up with 15 to 30 years in prison. I do not think that is what is intended, but that is the problem when we have mandatory minimums being created by legislators from the floor rather than working in an organized way with the Sentencing Commission. Yes, drugs are bad. We are working very hard to do something about it. I have gone to every appropriations committee that has got anything to do with appropriating funds to get rid of drug abuse in our society. I put myself on the line. It is the number one priority of the Congressional Black Caucus, to get rid of drugs in our society. We do not just use this as a political issue. We are really working very hard. We have this ``lock them up and throw the key away'' for young people with small amounts of drugs when we should be rehabilitating them, have more prevention in our schools and in our community. We should be thinking about what we can do to reduce the cost of incarceration and ruining lives. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to get to the floor and vote against this legislation. This legislation does America no good. It sounds good, it maybe will make many of our constituents feel good. It may make some legislators look as if they are against drugs and that they are tough law and order legislators. But this is misdirected, misunderstood perhaps by many, and will do more harm than good.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the gentleman a scenario. If a young man 19 or 20 years old maybe goes out to hunt and they have got a hunting rifle and they happen to have 5 ounces of crack cocaine inside their jacket pocket, they have a gun, it is there for you to see, they are in possession of drugs, first-time offense on the possession of the cocaine, 5 years minimum in Federal prison added to this with a gun, the hunting gun, now 15 years. Is that what the gentleman understands this bill to be?

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 424, a bill that would dramatically increase mandatory minimum sentencing. Let me make it clear. I do not like guns. I abhor crime, but this is not about sensible ways to deal with crime. This is about mandatory minimum sentencing, taking away the discretion of judges to make decisions about the varied situations that they may be confronted with. What are we doing with our criminal justice system, where we are spending, what, $3.5 billion in the Federal system alone, where we perhaps have the highest rate of incarceration of any industrialized nation? We may have people believe that somehow we are making the streets safer for them with this incarceration, but let me tell my colleagues, the recidivism rate does not prove in any way that this incarceration is doing anything to make our streets safer. We should not take away the discretion of judges who have to walk through these situations to be able to make decisions. I am very, very concerned that when we start to increase the sentencing mandatory minimums that we distort the criminal justice system. We heard my colleague talk about other penalties and try and do some comparison. Let me reiterate. Aggravated assault, less than 2 years. Assault with intent to murder, less than 4 years. Voluntary manslaughter, 5 years. Criminal sexual abuse, under 6 years. It does not make good sense to distort sentencing in this manner. Let me give my colleagues an example of what I think is absolutely crazy. We have a 19-year-old, maybe they are stupid but they are not criminals, they end up with 5 grams of crack cocaine in their possession. First-time offense. An automatic 5-year mandatory minimum sentence in Federal prison. We add to that an unloaded gun that they may have in their possession that happens to be under a coat that may be brandished. This does not say anything about it having to be loaded. So now they have 15 years minimum. 19 years old, stupid, your son, who is not a criminal, who if sentenced appropriately will have a chance to go on and straighten out their lives and do something with it. But we want to put them in prison for 15 years? I do not think we want to do that. What is wrong with creating these sentences from the floor of Congress is this: We all have these different ideas. We have a Sentencing Commission who studies this and makes recommendations. I suppose we could all get up and look as if we are tough on crime and we could give 20 and 30 and 40 years and I guess it just spins out of control. I do not think it is sensible, I do not think it is logical. I think this increase in mandatory minimums for crimes that could end up not being violent crimes at all with the simple possession is harmful to our system and should not be done.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I do not want to interfere with the gentlewoman being able to address the House, but I need to know how long this can go on tonight if I do not object to unanimous consent. How many more could come? I have been here for almost 40 minutes. So is the Chair saying that if I never object, people could keep coming and doing this?

Ms. WATERS. If I do object, do they have the opportunity to do it following my reserved 1 hour?

Ms. WATERS. Then, Madam Speaker, I must proceed, and those who have not been here must know I have to get out of here.

Ms. WATERS. Is there a possibility of all of those who keep coming with their 5 minutes to do it following the time that I have reserved on the floor?

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of trying to understand how the rules work, I object. What happens under the 5-minute rule? Do we entertain 5-minute presentations for as long as unanimous consent is not objected to?