| Post Office Box 74433 Richmond, VA 23236 Ph: (434) 848-1865 http://www.blackfarmers.org |
 |
Dr. John Boyd, Jr., President | |
 |
|||
|
Notes on the meeting between the Judiciary Staff and the NBFA May 16, 2006 Background There was a meeting on May 5, 2006, between representatives of the National Black Farmers Association (“NBFA”) and Majority staff members of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, to discuss Black Farmers legislation and certain comments made by Dr. John Boyd of NBFA about Congressman Steve Chabot’s inaction in introducing a Black Farmers bill as promised. The Majority staff demanded that Dr. Boyd apologize for his remarks or no Black Farmer legislation would be considered by the Committee for the remainder of the 109th Congress. We sent a letter dated May 10, 2006, memorializing that meeting and suggesting a three-point remedy to overcome the differences between the Committee staff and the NBFA, as follows: 1. Mr. Chabot would introduce a Black Farmers bill addressing the Pigford issues, or, alternatively, would introduce the NBFA draft bill as a basis for discussions in the Committee; following the introduction of such a bill, Dr. Boyd would announce to the press and to Black Farmers that he stood corrected since Mr. Chabot had introduced the promised bill to aid the Black Farmers. 2. The NBFA would review the Majority staff’s draft Black Farmer legislation and would endorse it, if found acceptable by the NBFA, in lieu of the NBFA draft. 3. Prior to the introduction of such a bill, the NBFA and the Committee staff would agree on a legislative strategy to move such a bill through the House. May 16th Meeting Notes The Majority staff informed us by e-mail in so many words that our May 10th reply was unacceptable to them, they viewed NBFA’s attempts to move the legislation as a “threat,” and they indicated they would not meet again with the NBFA. The Minority staff, however, arranged for a meeting on May 16, 2006, at which the following occurred: 1. The NBFA provided copies of our draft bill for discussion. 2. The Majority staff told us they would not discuss our proffered bill until Dr. Boyd’s statement was resolved. Furthermore, we were informed that Mr. Chabot had not authorized the meeting, but it was occurring in order to see if we could resolve our differences. 3. The Committee staff informed us that NBFA’s suggested remedies (See Background, above) of introducing a bill (either ours or theirs) and agreeing on a legislative strategy was an attempt at blackmailing Mr. Chabot. Dr. Boyd said such a position was ludicrous and unfounded because NBFA’s remedy was clearly an effort to compromise and work with the Committee staff. 4. No legislation could be discussed, the Majority staff said, until Dr. Boyd withdrew his statement about Mr. Chabot going back on his word; it did not have to be an apology but could say he had “additional information” that reversed his prior conclusion (the “additional information” appears to be a understanding of the difficulties of the legislative process especially in regard to the Judiciary Committee). 5. Committee staff said there were many other groups of Black Farmers which the Committee staff could work with and Dr. Boyd needed to decide if he wanted to remain the leader for this issue in as far as the Committee was concerned and that could only occur if the retraction occurred. 6. No legislation could take precedence over the passage of the Voting Rights Act Extension. Following the passage of that Act, Black Farmer legislation could proceed if the Committee Chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, agreed. The politics of scheduling remaining legislation needs to be worked out between Members. Mr. Chabot was committed to proceeding with a bill, if possible, in some manner or another, but needs to get the Committee Chairman’s approval as well as key Members of the Committee (many who appear not to be supporters so such legislation). 7. The legislative scheduling meeting for the remainder of the session by the Majority was to have occurred on May 10th , but was postponed until next week. The Black Farmer legislation would be considered as a possibility at that time, and the Majority staff expected it would be on the schedule but could not say it would be for sure until the politics were worked out. 8. Committee Majority staff informed us that the House Parliamentarian had determined that our draft bill was unconstitutional and required a dual referral (if true, the referral problem was a result of a minor reporting provision in the bill which could be easily changed and it was unclear if the Parliamentarian had the authority to make constitutional determinations). NBFA said that the Committee’s bill could be acceptable - but we needed to review it. The Committee Majority staff said they had not finished drafting a bill, despite representations to the contrary at the May 5th meeting, but they “had certain ideas” of what would go into a bill. They refused to discuss those “ideas.” 9. Supporting a Black Farmers bill was not “an easy lift” for Mr. Chabot, so he preferred not to release the details of his bill and provide a basis for attack by opponents (no explanation was given for not releasing the details to supporters). 10. The Minority staff observed that it was important to maintain a working relationship between Mr. Chabot and the minority no matter what the outcome of the fall elections. 11. Dr. Boyd said that what was important was for the Congress to consider the plight of the Black Farmers regardless of the outcome of elections and who becomes the majority party. Dr. Boyd asked for a discussion of the merits of the legislation. The Committee staff repeated that we needed to deal with Dr. Boyd’s statement about Mr. Chabot first. 12. The Committee staff suggested that Dr. Boyd draft a press release (rejecting an idea of a joint statement by Mr. Chabot and Dr. Boyd), which would be reviewed by the Committee staff, and which would inform the press and Black Farmers that Dr. Boyd had new information that had caused him to revise his statement that Mr. Chabot had gone back on his word. Dr. Boyd observed that because no substantive information had been presented by the Committee staff, it would be difficult to support such a statement or to justify a change in position. The Meeting ended after approximately an hour and twenty minutes when the NBFA said that they needed to confer and would be calling the Committee staff when a decision was made. ATTENDEES: For the Judiciary Committee: For the National Black Farmers Association: Mindy Barry Majority John Boyd President, NBFA Law intern observing Majority Rosalind Gray The Gray Group Law Intern taking notes Majority Lawrence Lucas Coalition Jen Daulby Majority Ben Dixon Milburnie Associates Keenan Keller Minority Bobby Vassar Minority BFD #3 05/22/06 | |||
| |||