The Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
After the SubcommitteeÕs hearing in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Black Farmers issues on February 28, 2005, you informed me that you would introduce a bill addressing the Black FarmersÕ issues over which your subcommittee had control. I was pleased with your support and looked forward to your involvement in these issues1 to set about correcting the problems that have arisen under the Pigford2 settlement. As of this date, however, you have not done so. Therefore, on April 26, 2006, I reluctantly characterized your inaction as going back on your word, a phrase that was quoted in the press coverage of the Black FarmersÕ rally on that some date. Your staff asked for a meeting on May 5, 2006.
At that meeting, your staff characterized my actions as biting the hand that fed me, showing ingratitude for your support for my efforts for the Black Farmers, and of ignoring the legislative schedule requiring the subcommittee to pass the extension of the Voting Rights Act3 first (a schedule, your staff informed me, that I had supposedly been privy to). Finally, they characterized my statement as insulting the integrity of a Member of Congress and demanded that I apologize. If I did not by Wednesday, May 10, 2006, I was told, no bill to help Black Farmers would pass the 109th Congress.
Originally, I was taken aback and affronted by the vehemence and arrogance of your staffÕs presentation. But I realized your staff saw these issues in a different light than I do. That is to say, that while these are serious issues your staff raises, but they pale in comparison to the injustices that have been meted out to Black Farmers for 140 years that I seek to address. The only issue that overshadows these injustices is the denial of the vote to all Black citizens that ended with the original passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. I, of course, and all Black Farmers, support the Voting Rights ActÕs extension; it is the basis of democratic freedoms we and other minorities now enjoy after long and arduous struggle.
But, I inquired of your three staff members at the May 5th meeting, could not one of them have dropped in a Black Farmer bill and then scheduled hearings after the Voting Rights Act extension passage? No, I was told, that was not the preferred form - staff, instead, likes to introduce a bill and immediately have legislative hearings. As I pointed out at that time, the preferred way is not the only way - many bills await hearings in committee every Congress. If asked, Black Farmers would have yielded to the primary need for the passage of the extension of Voting Rights Act. They could have consoled themselves in their wait, however, by seeing a bill addressing their concerns awaiting action in Subcommittee. By introducing a Black Farmer bill, moreover, you would have overtly demonstrated your commitment to Black Farmers and given them tangible evidence of it. You chose not to do so for whatever reason; be it legislative convenience, indolence, indifference, or other grounds. It was not because you lacked legislative substance - the National Black Farmers Association provided you with a redrafted bill focused solely on the Pigford issues and designed to be referred solely to the Judiciary Committee (a copy enclosed for your perusal). At the May 5th meeting, your staff - when I offered them another copy of our draft bill - rejected it, saying they already had their own draft, one acceptable to them and approved by Congressman Bobby Scott (who sits on your subcommittee). We were told, when we asked to see the draft bill, that it would not be available to us. We subsequently learned that Mr. ScottÕs staff had not seen the purported draft either.
Your staff left me with a choice that we needed to make by Wednesday, May 10, 2006: One, I should apologize for saying you had gone back on your word, and two, I should accept their offer to introduce and hold hearings on a Black Farmer bill we had not seen, at some point in the future after the 109th Congress Voting Rights Act activity ended, or we would not see any bill this Congress. We reject your staffÕs demands, categorically, for a number of reasons:
¥ First, what I have said is true - you have gone back on your word since you have not introduced a Black Farmer Bill as promised - the remedy, however, is to introduce one and thereby you will have fulfilled your promise.
¥ Second, there is a long tradition of not accepting a Òpig in a pokeÓ in rural areas. And I will not do so here by accepting unread a bill purporting to help Black Farmers - the remedy is to share your language with your erstwhile allies, or use our language as a model bill to be modified as the hearings suggest.
¥ Third, I need an understanding with you on a schedule to move the Black Farmers bill through the Subcommittee, Committee, and the House. Without such a schedule, an introduced bill is mere words without a chance to become law to help Black Farmers. The remedy here is for us to agree on a legislative strategy to move such a bill through the House.
¥
Once we are in accord with the three points I list above, I will be happy to indicate to the press and to Black Farmers that, indeed, you have been good on your word, and that I stand corrected on my April 26, 2006 statement. I hope my proposed compromise will allow our continued collaboration on Black Farmer issues. I look forward to working with you to move the legislation ahead.
Sincerely,
John W. Boyd
President
Enclosure
cc: Congressmen Conyers, Scott, and Watt
1 These issues include hearings for approximately 60,000 Black farmers who did not receive notification of their possible membership in the Pigford class, and approximately 9,000 Black Farmers who have not received a hearing or a decision on their cases.
2 Pigford v. Johannes (decided sub nom Pigford v. Glickman) Civ. Act. No. 97-1978 (PLF) (D.D.C.)
3 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), 42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.
|
