Mr. President, to my good friend--we work together on so many things in agriculture--let me first say we all saw the devastation caused by the storm across the Midwest last year. That is why we have a strong crop insurance program in our…
Mr. President, to my good friend--we work together on so many things in agriculture--let me first say we all saw the devastation caused by the storm across the Midwest last year. That is why we have a strong crop insurance program in our bipartisan farm bill that quickly responds when disasters strike.
Iowa producers have already received nearly $600 million in crop insurance indemnities for damages in 2020. If crop insurance can't meet the need, the other opportunity is to consider something in appropriations.
It should not be here. I urge a ``no'' vote because it would take away, in this amendment, critical funds to repair our broken food supply chain; support our farmers, our food banks, our frontline workers, and our families in need.
We know the supply chain is broken. This provision is going to help fix that, and I would urge a ``no'' vote. Don't take money away from here, which is so critically needed for farmers and ranchers.
Thank you.
Vote on Amendment No. 902
Mr. President, I rise today in support of provisions in this bill that support socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
One-fifth of all rural Americans--10.5 million people--are people of color. For Black, Native American, Hispanic and Latinx, and Asian American farm families, their experience in the agricultural economy is markedly different than their White counterparts. This has been particularly true when it comes to the interactions between farmers of color and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This history of longstanding systemic discrimination against farmers of color is well documented. Congress has long recognized this discrimination against farmers of color by USDA and, through various mechanisms, has sought to remedy and alleviate systemic barriers that prevented socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers from fully participating in the American farm economy. However, those efforts have fallen short, and Congress is now providing additional assistance.
Various factors have contributed to the historic loss of farmland owned and operated by farmers of color. According to the Economic Research Service, a century ago, Black farmers owned more than 15 million acres of agricultural land and operated almost 1 million farms. A century later, data from the 2017 Census of Agriculture indicated that Black farmers own fewer than 2.9 million acres, less than a fifth of what they owned in 1920. A Tufts University analysis estimated the value of that lost farmland at more than $120 billion in lost opportunities. According to a 2019 article in the Atlantic, ``The Great Land Robbery,'' in the recovery from the Great Depression, the New Deal Farm Security Administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture denied loans to poor Black farmers that were available to their White neighbors.
In 1830, the Indian Removal Act formalized Native American removal as a federally sanctioned practice, removing tens of thousands of original inhabitants from their traditional lands within existing State borders to land west of the Mississippi River. The removal disrupted land ownership and tenure and reoriented traditional farm production techniques. The Homestead Act, enacted in 1862, allowed settlers to claim 160 acres of surveyed government land. Records in the National Archive show that land had been inhabited by Native Americans, but Native Americans were not eligible to participate in the program.
The California Alien Land Laws of 1913 and 1920 denied Asian immigrants the opportunity to purchase farmland or enter into long-term lease contracts until a 1952 court decision held the law to be unconstitutional. During World War II, tens of thousands of first and second generation Japanese American families were forced off their farms and into internment camps. For perspective, an estimated half of Japanese Americans living in California at the time were involved in agriculture according to a February 12, 2021, article in ``Civil Eats.''
Hispanic farmers have faced a particularly difficult time with discrimination at the U.S. Department of Agriculture because demographic information about Hispanic farmers wasn't even collected separately by the Census of Agriculture until 1974. According to USDA, the Census of Agriculture started collecting demographic information about minority farmers in 1900 and published the first record of minority farmers in 1920 but neglected to include Hispanic farmers. This lack of historical documentation has resulted in many Hispanic farmers being left out of critical farm programs and has made it difficult to resolve issues of discrimination and civil rights. A 2001 article in the Natural Resources Journal entitled ``Livestock Racism and Traditional
Culture in Northern New Mexico'' noted additional struggles Hispanic farmers and ranchers have had with grazing issues and Federal land management, including USDA programs.
American institutions both public and private have thoroughly documented this discrimination. Numerous reports issued since the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s have shown a consistent pattern of discrimination, in particular by USDA, against Black, Indigenous, and other farmers of color. Much of the following history was laid out by House Agriculture Committee Chairman David Scott during his floor statement in support of the American Rescue Plan provisions on February 26, 2021.
A 1965 report by the United States Commission on Civil
Rights found that Federal, state, and local officials
discriminated against Black farmers in agricultural programs
and that this discrimination actively contributed to the
decline in the Black ownership of farmland.
In 1968, a follow up report from the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that Black farmers continued to face discrimination when seeking farm loans and other forms of assistance.
In 1970, the United States Commission on Civil Rights again
found that discrimination continued in USDA program
administration. The 1970 report indicated that prior to 1968,
no Black farmer had ever been elected to any former
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service committee
at the county level in the South. In 1970, two out of more
than 4,100 committee members in the South were Black farmers,
even though there were 58 counties in the South, where Black
farmers comprised a majority of the farm operator population.
It is hard to view as coincidence then that half a million
Black-owned farms in the U.S. failed between 1950 and 1975.
In 1982, the United States Commission on Civil Rights
issued another report on the rapid decline of Black-operated
farms. The report noted that between 1970 and 1980, the Black
farm population declined 65 percent, compared to a 22 percent
decline in the white farm population. The report also
documented numerous discrimination complaints filed against
USDA field offices regarding the administration of farm loan
programs and noted that for many of these complaints, USDA's
Office of Equal Opportunity investigated and found equal
opportunity violations at those field offices. The report
concluded that racial discrimination was continuing within
the USDA, at USDA headquarters, and in the network of field
offices that implement USDA programs. Instead of responding
to recommendations of the report, President Ronald Reagan and
Agriculture Secretary John Block closed the Office in 1983,
and it would remain closed for another 13 years until
reopened under President Bill Clinton and Secretary Dan
Glickman in 1996.
A 1995 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
found that socially disadvantaged producers were
significantly underrepresented on the county and community
committees of the former Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. Specifically, the report found that
while minority producers accounted for nearly 5 percent of
the producers eligible to vote for committee members,
minority producers only represented 2.1 percent of county
committee members in the United States.
In 1997, the USDA formed a Civil Rights Action Team to hold
nationwide listening sessions to hear from socially
disadvantaged and minority farmers. A report published after
the listening sessions documented Black, Hispanic, Asian-
American, and American Indian farmers who told stories of
USDA hurting minority farmers more than helping them.
Minority farmers described how their discrimination
complaints were caught in the backlog of appeals or if
successfully appealed, were given findings of discrimination
that were not enforced. The report acknowledged that
discrimination in USDA program delivery continued to exist to
a large degree unabated.
Also in 1997, the USDA Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) issued a report to the USDA Secretary that noted ``a
climate of disorder within the civil rights staff at the Farm
Service Agency.'' It was difficult for the OIG to even
determine the number and status of civil rights complaints at
the agency and department because of that climate.
A 1998 OIG report noted the OIG had issued 44 recent
recommendations to USDA to improve its civil rights
complaints and improve relations with minority farmers and
stated that several of those recommendations had yet to be
implemented.
In 1998, the USDA National Commission on Small Farms
further described and documented the longstanding
discrimination of USDA towards socially disadvantaged
producers. And, it observed that ``discrimination has been a
contributing factor in the decline of Black farmers over the
last several decades.'' The Commission's report also notes
the ``history of under-allocation of resources to
institutions that have served minority farmers,'' the
``disgraceful'' ``failure to elect minority farmers to
positions on Farm Service Agency County Committees,'' and
more.
During the period between 1997 and 2000, Black farmers,
Native American farmers, and Hispanic farmers filed lawsuits
alleging USDA discriminated against them on the basis of race
in processing their farm program applications and that USDA
failed to investigate their complaints of discrimination.
In 2001, a report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
documented the continued discriminatory lending practices
against minority farmers. The Commission found that Black
farmers waited four times longer than white farmers for USDA
farm loans. The Commission recommended that USDA resolve the
backlog of civil rights complaints and document and alleviate
discriminatory lending practices. However, USDA continued to
struggle with resolving its backlog of civil rights
complaints.
In a 2005 audit the OIG stated in a report, ``it took 12
days longer to complete minority applications, delinquencies
were higher for minority borrowers than non-minority
borrowers, and minority borrowers were reluctant to enter
into Farm Service Agency offices to apply for loans.''
In 2008, GAO reported that USDA's difficulties in resolving
discrimination complaints persisted and that the USDA had not
achieved its goal of preventing future backlogs of
discrimination complaints.
The 2010 Jackson Lewis report provided over 200
recommendations to USDA on civil rights issues, including
recommendations related to civil rights issues in USDA's farm
lending program and minority farmer access to other USDA
programs.
Recent studies and reports continue to document the
challenges and barriers faced by farmers of color due to race
or ethnic discrimination or the legacy of such
discrimination. A September 20, 2017, study in the
Agriculture and Human Values journal described the challenges
faced by Latinx farmers due to failure of agricultural
agencies to engage in appropriate outreach or account for
language barriers.
Most recently in 2019, a GAO report observed that despite
specific preference, socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers had proportionately fewer Farm Service Agency direct
and guaranteed loans than non-socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers. This report found that farmers and ranchers of
color continued to face more difficulties in obtaining farm
loans and highlighted the historic, systemic discrimination
against such farmers.
The record of discriminatory conduct at USDA, as well as the library of studies and reports chronicling that discrimination is indeed long and details many of the barriers between farmers of color and the Department that prevent these farm families from accessing the same programs and experiencing the same success as their White counterparts.
To address long and well-documented history of systemic discrimination, successive Congresses have worked in a bicameral and bipartisan manner over the years to authorize and oversee implementation of programs at USDA.
During the agriculture credit crisis in the 1980s, Congress addressed this well-documented systemic discrimination at USDA and began to target assistance at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ``socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers,'' a farmer or rancher who has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as a member of a socially disadvantaged group without regard to their individual qualities. Congress provided support that targeted and prioritizes USDA resources to ensure farmers of color have the same opportunities as White farmers. Today, this support has grown to include a broad range of set-asides, special programs, and incentives for socially disadvantaged farmers.
In 1987, Congress passed the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Section 617 of this bill required the USDA to establish annual target participation rates, on a countywide basis, that would ensure that members of socially disadvantaged groups receive direct or guaranteed farm ownership loans. Congress amended this requirement in 1996 to ensure that USDA's implementation was consistent with the holding of the Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), which held that race- based actions by the government is within constitutional constraints when it is necessary to further a compelling interest such as the ``unhappy persistence of both the practice and lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups.''
In the 1990 farm bill, Congress took additional steps to recognize socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and created a landmark new program, the 2501 Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher Outreach program,
which is designed specifically to improve outreach and technical assistance to farmers of color.
In section 741 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (7 U.S.C. 2279 note), Congress took the extraordinary step of suspending the application of the then-2-year statute of limitations regarding Equal Credit Opportunity Claims. This allowed claimants in discrimination suits against USDA, including Black farmers in Pigford v. Glickman and Native American farmers in Keepseagle v. Veneman, to cite at times decades-old instances of discrimination to qualify for payments under the respective settlements.
In the 2002 farm bill, Congress created the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, with statutory authority to ensure compliance of all civil rights laws and incorporation of civil rights activities into the strategic planning of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
A sense of Congress in the 2008 farm bill stated that claims and class actions brought against USDA by socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, including Native American, Hispanic, and female farmers or ranchers, on racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination in farm program participation should be quickly and fairly resolved. Congress reacted to USDA's discriminatory history and provided $100 million to help settle the Pigford discrimination claims and established a moratorium on acceleration and foreclosure proceedings by USDA against any farmer or rancher who filed a discrimination claim. To further support Pigford, Congress provided an additional $1.15 billion in funding in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 to settle the additional claims in the Pigford II class action lawsuit.
The 2014 farm bill created a permanent Office of Tribal Relations under the Secretary of Agriculture.
Because of the continuing and systemic nature of these concerns, the 2018 farm bill permanently funded the section 2501 Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher Outreach Program and provided new support to address longstanding heirs property and farmland ownership issues. Additionally, because Congress recognized that discrimination is both pervasive and ongoing, the 2018 farm bill also required the production of several reports by GAO on how both latent and overt discrimination manifest in agriculture programs, including a report specifically on bias-related to loan credit issues for farmers of color within the socially disadvantaged designation to inform Congress for future legislation. As important as Congress's actions have been, the remedies are still not enough as there is still ongoing and pervasive discrimination leaving socially disadvantaged farmers significantly behind.
Settlements resulting from the Pigford and Keepseagle lawsuits, along with Garcia v. Vilsack that focused on discrimination against Hispanic and Latinx farmers, have not provided the relief necessary for these farmers of color to participate fully in the American agricultural economy. For example, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2012 that payments made to Black farmers under the Pigford settlements were significantly eroded by State taxes, as well as tax debt related to forgiven USDA farm loans. In Keepseagle only a very small percentage of potential claimants even applied. This was largely due to the older age of many potential claimants and because they were difficult to contact. Claims adjudication simply was not effective and did not adequately remedy the discrimination.
Specifically in the area of farm lending, as recently as 2 years ago, two GAO reports showed that socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers have more difficulty getting loans and credit from USDA. These loans can help beginning farmers break into the business and help existing farmers continue running their operations. One of the GAO reports focused on the specific barriers of Tribal farmers accessing credit and the other GAO report highlights the systemic discrimination that has hindered farmers of color for generations continue today.
Similarly, a 2019 report from the National Young Farmers Coalition on the structural challenges facing farmers in California shows that while White respondents reported that they had no gaps in access to resources like business entity choice, credit lending, land access and lease development, marketing, policy advocacy, and regulatory navigation; non-White respondents reported significantly impaired access to those same resources, and Native American respondents reported receiving none of the listed resources.
The Farm Bill Law Enterprise reported that 99.4 percent of USDA's Market Facilitation Program payments went to White farmers. Similarly, the Environmental Working Group reported that nonminority farmers received nearly 97 percent of the $9.2 billion provided through USDA's first Coronavirus Food Assistance Program in 2020.
The diminished relationships between socially disadvantaged farmers and USDA as a result of both latent barriers and historic discrimination limits access of socially disadvantaged farmers to USDA's program, making it more difficult or impossible for socially disadvantaged farmers to participate in USDA programs. The statistics continue to bear this out: 73 percent of Black farmers, when surveyed by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, an association of Black farmers and landowners, were not even aware of the agricultural aid provisions of the coronavirus rescue programs at USDA.
Congress recognizes the longstanding systemic discrimination against farmers of color by USDA. Despite multiple congressional efforts to address this discrimination, these efforts, taken mostly on a case-by case basis, have still not remedied the discrimination. Congress is now continuing to address this longstanding, widespread, and well- documented discrimination against socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, including systemic barriers preventing socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers from fully participating in the American farm economy, in recognition that our mostly case-by-case efforts thus far have not done enough. Because of discrimination in USDA's programs, particularly loan programs, at USDA, socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers are less likely to have the same access to adequate loan servicing and face other barriers in USDA programs, as their White counterparts. As a result, their loans are more likely to be in default or in a precarious situation.
Sections 1005 and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan contain narrowly tailored provisions to address the discrimination in credit and other programs at USDA, the effects of which have been magnified by the pandemic, as well as programmatic changes to support socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The sections provide funding for payments on existing USDA direct and guaranteed loans held by socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. In addition, this legislation is providing tools and funding for programs and systemic reforms at USDA to undo the systemic racism that has prevented socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers from getting access to critical agricultural credit.
The public recognition of longstanding discrimination against socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and the accompanying broad support for this work along the food and agriculture supply chain is overwhelming and represents every corner of American food and farming. More than 600 farm, food, and rural organizations, businesses, equity advocates, and legal scholars have sent letters, documents and issued statements of support. Notably, each of these letters includes both acknowledgment that these ongoing barriers exist, and a great many cite staggering examples of the disadvantages many farmers of color experience, as well as why the provisions contained in sections 1005 and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan are an appropriate remedy for these important producers.
While earlier versions of this legislation included specific references to the longstanding discrimination within the Department of Agriculture, as noted in Chairman Scott's February 26, 2021, statement for the record, the manager's amendment in the House Rules Committee was purely to ensure that these sections would meet the requirements of section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for consideration in the U.S. Senate. Congress includes these measures to address the
longstanding and widespread systemic discrimination within the USDA, particularly within the loan programs, against socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.