African-American Farmers Benefits Relief Act of 2007 - Provides de novo review for qualifying claims filed under the consolidated class action action lawsuits of Pigford v. Veneman and Brewington v. Veneman.
[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 558 Introduced in House (IH)]
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.
(d) Loan Data.--
(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.
(f) Notice.--
(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.
(g) Monitor.--
(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.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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.
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.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line