110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 558
To provide relief for African-American farmers filing claims in
the cases of Pigford v. Veneman and Brewington v. Veneman.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 18, 2007
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi,
Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. CLAY,
Mr. MOORE of Kansas, and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee
on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction
of the committee concerned
A BILL
To provide relief for African-American farmers filing claims in
the cases of Pigford v. Veneman and Brewington v. Veneman.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `African-American Farmers Benefits Relief Act
of 2007'.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FILING CLAIM IN PIGFORD V. VENEMAN.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) In 1998, a lawsuit was filed against the Department of Agriculture
(referred to in this subsection as the `USDA'), the second largest agency
of the Federal Government, alleging that the USDA had violated the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) and the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) by maintaining a pattern and practice
of discrimination against African-American farmers. Such pattern and practice
delayed, denied, or otherwise frustrated the efforts of African-American
farmers to obtain loan assistance and to engage in the vocation of farming.
(2) In January 1999, the United States District Court of the District
of Columbia approved the largest civil rights settlement in the history
of the United States. Following the settlement, the African-American farmers
and the USDA entered into a five-year consent decree.
(3) In April 1999, the court approved the settlement and assigned four
entities to facilitate implementation of the consent decree.
(4) According to a USDA Inspector General report, many discrimination
complaints were never processed, investigated, or otherwise resolved,
and the discrimination complaint process at the Farm Services Agency lacked
`integrity, direction, and accountability'.
(5) Delays in processing the discrimination claims of many African-American
farmers resulted in numerous farmers losing their right to file claims.
(6) As of July 14, 2000, the statute of limitations provided under the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act has run on many of the claims.
(7) On November 18, 2004, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives received sworn
testimony that alleged serious violations of the right to notice as it
applied to the consent decree and to all those who had viable claims of
discrimination against the USDA.
(8) Such testimony further alleged that although the consent decree notice
campaign was deemed to be effective by the court, that campaign proved
deficient because approximately 66,000 potential class members submitted
their claims in an untimely fashion.
(9) Approximately 73,800 petitions were filed before the September 15,
2000, late filing deadline, of which only 2,131 were approved.
(10) Of the approximately 21,000 timely requests for reconsideration,
10,745 of those requests have been decided, but only 140 have been approved.
(b) De Novo Review of Certain Claims Filed in Pigford v. Veneman- A person
who submitted a petition for redress in the settlement of the relevant case
before the date of the enactment of this Act may obtain de novo consideration
of the petition before an adjudicator assigned by the facilitator of the
consent decree of such case if--
(1) the petition was denied on the grounds of untimely filing;
(2) not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
such person submits a subsequent petition for redress in such settlement;
and
(3) such person submits an affidavit to the adjudicator asserting that
such person did not receive effective notice of the filing deadline in
such consent decree.
(c) Notice to USDA- Not later than 30 days after a person submits a petition
pursuant to subsection (b)(2), the facilitator of the consent decree of
the relevant case shall provide notice to the Secretary of Agriculture of
such petition.
(1) REPORT TO PERSON SUBMITTING PETITION- Not later than 60 days after
the Secretary of Agriculture receives notice pursuant to subsection (c)
of a petition filed pursuant to subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall
provide to the person that filed such petition a report on farm credit
loans made within the claimant's State by the Department during the period
beginning on January 1, 1992, and ending on the date of the enactment
of this Act. Such report shall contain information on all persons whose
application for a loan was accepted, including--
(A) the race of the applicant;
(B) the date of application;
(C) the date of the loan decision;
(D) the location of the office making the loan decision; and
(E) all data relevant to the process of deciding on the loan.
(2) NO PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION- The reports provided pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall not contain any information that would identify
any person that applied for a loan from the Department of Agriculture.
(e) Limitation on Foreclosures- Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Agriculture may not foreclose a loan if the borrower makes
a prima facie case to an adjudicator assigned by the facilitator of the
consent decree of the relevant case that the foreclosure is proximately
related to discrimination by the Department of Agriculture.
(1) KNOWN CLASS MEMBERS- Not later than 45 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide to all
known members of the class in the relevant case notice of the de novo
review available under subsection (b).
(2) ADVERTISEMENTS- The Secretary of Agriculture shall announce the de
novo review available under subsection (b) by arranging to--
(A) broadcast 40 commercials on the cable, Internet, network, and radio
broadcast outlets throughout the United States with the largest African-American
audiences during a 30-day period;
(B) broadcast 40 commercials on the cable, Internet, network, and radio
broadcast outlets in the relevant region with the largest African-American
audiences during a 30-day period;
(C) broadcast 50 commercials on the cable, Internet, network, and radio
broadcast outlets with the largest national audiences during a 30-day
period;
(D) have one-quarter page advertisements placed in 27 general circulation
newspapers and 115 African-American newspapers in the relevant region
during a 14-day period;
(E) have a full page advertisement placed in the editions of the magazine
TV Guide that are distributed in the relevant region; and
(F) have half-page advertisements placed in the national editions of
magazines with the highest percentages of African-American readership.
(1) SELECTION- Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the parties to the relevant case shall select an independent
Monitor who shall report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. If
the parties are unable to agree on a Monitor after good faith negotiations,
the plaintiffs and the defendants shall each submit two persons to the
Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit who shall appoint a Monitor from among such persons.
(2) DUTIES- The Monitor--
(A) not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and at least semiannually thereafter, shall submit to the Secretary
of Agriculture and make publicly available on the Internet a report
detailing the implementation of this Act and whether such implementation
is being done in good faith;
(B) if the Monitor determines that a clear and manifest error has occurred
in the screening, adjudication, or arbitration of a claim and such error
has resulted or is likely to result in a fundamental miscarriage of
justice, may direct the adjudicator or facilitator to review the claim;
(C) shall be available to class members and the public through a toll-free
telephone number in order to facilitate the lodging of any complaints
relating to this Act or the consent decree of the relevant case and
to expedite the resolution of such complaints; and
(D) if the Monitor is unable to resolve a problem brought to the attention
of the Monitor pursuant to subparagraph (C), may file a report with
the counsels of the parties who may then seek enforcement of this Act
and such consent decree pursuant to paragraph 13 of such consent decree.
(3) TERM- The Monitor shall remain in existence for a period of 5 years
and shall not be removed except for good cause.
(4) EXPENSES- The Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the fees and expenses
of the Monitor.
(h) Definitions- In this section:
(1) LARGEST AFRICAN-AMERICAN AUDIENCES- The term `largest African-American
audiences' means those audiences determined to have the largest number
of African-American listeners, viewers, or users as determined by the
Arbitron or Nielsen rating systems.
(2) LARGEST NATIONAL AUDIENCES- The term `largest national audiences'
means those audiences determined to have the largest number of listeners,
viewers, or users as determined by the Arbitron or Nielsen rating systems.
(3) RELEVANT CASE- The term `relevant case' means the consolidated class
action lawsuits entitled Pigford v. Veneman and Brewington v. Veneman
(United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action
Numbers 97-1978 and 98-1693).
(4) RELEVANT REGION- The term `relevant region' means the States of Alabama,
Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
END
